Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention (아시아태평양암예방학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Assessment of Semi-Quantitative Health Risks of Exposure to Harmful Chemical Agents in the Context of Carcinogenesis in the Latex Glove Manufacturing Industry

  • Yari, Saeed (Students Research Committee, Department and Faculty of Health, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Asadi, Ayda Fallah (Health Network in Bouin Zahra) ;
  • Varmazyar, Sakineh (Faculty of Occupational Health Engineering in Health Department, Qazvin University of Medical Sciences)
  • Published : 2016.06.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Excessive exposure to chemicals in the workplace can cause poisoning and various diseases. Thus, for the protection of labor, it is necessary to examine the exposure of people to chemicals and risks from these materials. The purpose of this study is to evaluate semi-quantitative health risks of exposure to harmful chemical agents in the context of carcinogenesis in a latex glove manufacturing industry. In this cross-sectional study, semi-quantitative risk assessment methods provided by the Department of Occupational Health of Singapore were used and index of LD50, carcinogenesis (ACGIH and IARC) and corrosion capacity were applied to calculate the hazard rate and the biggest index was placed as the basis of risk. To calculate the exposure rate, two exposure index methods and the actual level of exposure were employed. After identifying risks, group H (high) and E (very high) classified as high-risk were considered. Of the total of 271 only 39 (15%) were at a high risk level and 3% were very high (E). These risks only was relevant to 7 materials with only sulfuric acid placed in group E and 6 other materials in group H, including nitric acid (48.3%), chromic acid (6.9%), hydrochloric acid (10.3%), ammonia (3.4%), potassium hydroxide (20.7%) and chlorine (10.3%). Overall, the average hazard rate level was estimated to be 4 and average exposure rate to be 3.5. Health risks identified in this study showed that the manufacturing industry for latex gloves has a high level of risk because of carcinogens, acids and strong alkalisand dangerous drugs. Also according to the average level of risk impact, it is better that the safety design strategy for latex gloves production industry be placed on the agenda.

Keywords

References

  1. Askham CA, Gade L, Hanssen OJ (2013). “Linking chemical risk information with life cycle assessment in product development. J Clean Prod, 51, 196-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.01.006
  2. Aven T (2009). Safety is the antonym of risk for some perspectives of risk. Safety Sci, 47, 925-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2008.10.001
  3. Callahan MA, Sexton M (2007). If cumulative risk assessment is the answer, what is the question?. Environ Health Perspect, 115,799-806. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.9330
  4. Cozzani V, Tugnoli A, Salzano E (2007). Prevention of domino effect: from active and passive strategies to inherently safer design. J Hazard Mater, 139, 209-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.06.041
  5. De Joode BVW, Vermeulen R, Van Hemmen J, Fransman W, Kromhout H (2005). Accuracy of a semiquantitative method for dermal exposure assessment (DREAM). J Occup Env Med, 62, 623-32. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2004.018564
  6. Drexler H, Shukla, A (2014). Importance of exposure level for risk toxicological assessment. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 22, 569-75.
  7. Egeghy PP, Vallero DA, Hubal EAC (2011). Exposure-based prioritization of chemicals for risk assessment. Environ Sci Policy, 14, 950-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.07.010
  8. Fromme H, Albrecht M, Angerer J (2007). Integrated exposure assessment survey (INES): exposure to persistent and bioaccumulative chemicals in Bavaria, Germany. Int J Hyg Environ Health, 210, 345-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2007.01.026
  9. Fryer M, Collins CD, Ferrier H, Colvile RN, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ (2006). Human exposure modelling for chemical risk assessment: a review of current approaches and research and policy implications. Environ Sci Policy, 9, 261-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2005.11.011
  10. Geraets L, Bessems JG, Zeilmaker MJ, Bos PM (2014). Human risk assessment of dermal and inhalation exposures to chemicals assessed by route-to-route extrapolation: The necessity of kinetic data. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 70, 54-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.05.024
  11. Hassim M, Edwards D (2006). Development of a methodology for assessing inherent occupational health hazards. Prosses Saf Environ J, 84, 378-90. https://doi.org/10.1205/psep.04412
  12. Hassim MH, Hurme M, Edwards DW, Aziz NN, Rahim FL (2013). Simple graphical method for inherent occupational health assessment. Prosses Saf Environ J, 91, 438-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2012.09.003
  13. Herber RFJ, Duffus H, Christensen JM, Olsen E, Park MV (2001). Risk assessment for occupational exposure to chemicals. A review of current methodology (IUPAC Technical Report). Pure Appl Chem, 73, 993-1031. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac200173060993
  14. Hong YJ, Lin YH, Pai HH, Lai YC, Lee LN (2004). Developing a safety and health training model for petrochemical workers. Kaohsiung J Med Sci, 20, 56-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1607-551X(09)70085-3
  15. Jahangiri M, Parsarad M (2010). Health risk assessment of occupational exposure to harmful chemical agents. Int J Occup Environ Med, 7, 18-24.
  16. Kletz TA (2003). Inherently safer design its scope and future. Process Saf Environ Prot, 81, 401-5. https://doi.org/10.1205/095758203770866566
  17. Kocher D, Greim H (2002). An approach to comparative assessments of potential health risks from exposure to radionuclides and hazardous chemicals. Environ Int, 27, 663-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-4120(01)00126-X
  18. Laforest L, Annino M, Alluard A (1999). Epidemiologic study of lead contamination of children of occupationally exposed parents. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique, 47, 433-41.
  19. Manpower MO (2002). Guidelines on risk assessment for occupational exposure to hurmful chemicals. Singapore, Occupational Health department.
  20. Manpower MO (2005). A semi-quantitative method to assess occupational exposure to harmful chemicals. Singapore.
  21. McKenzie LM, Witter RZ, Newman LS, Adgate JL (2012). Human health risk assessment of air emissions from development of unconventional natural gas resources. Sci Total Environ, 424, 79-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.02.018
  22. Mearns K, Yule S (2009). The role of national culture in determining safety performance: Challenges for the global oil and gas industry. Saf Sci , 47, 777-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2008.01.009
  23. Money C, Margary S (2002). Improved use of workplace exposure data in the regulatory risk assessment of chemicals within Europe. Ann Occup Hyg, 46, 279-85.
  24. Normohammadi MH, Kakooei L, Omidi S, Yari S, Alimi R (2016). Risk assessment of exposure to silica dusts in building demolition sites Safety and Health at Work, (In Press).
  25. Schenk L, Hansson SO, Ruden C, Gilek M (2008). Occupational exposure limits: A comparative study. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 50, 261-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2007.12.004
  26. Swaen G, Meijers J (1989). Risk assessment of leukaemia and occupational exposure to benzene. Br J Ind Med, 46, 826-30.
  27. Thyssen JP, Linneberg A, Menne T, Johansen JD (2007). The epidemiology of contact allergy in the general population prevalence and main findings.Contact Derm, 57, 287-99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.2007.01220.x
  28. Yari S (2015). Inherent safety design in compose of urban gas station. Safety Promot Inj Prev, 3, 135-140.