DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Task-based Exposure Assessment among Laboratory workers in Organic Synthesis Laboratories

유기합성실험실 연구자의 단위작업별 노출 평가

  • Choi, Youngeun (Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Soonchunhyang University) ;
  • Chu, Yeonhee (Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Soonchunhyang University) ;
  • Lee, Ikmo (Department of Chemistry, Inha University) ;
  • Park, Jeongim (Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Soonchunhyang University)
  • Received : 2019.02.21
  • Accepted : 2019.03.06
  • Published : 2019.03.31

Abstract

Objective: Significant concerns have been raised over chemical exposure and potential health risks such as increased cancer mortality among laboratory workers. The aim of this study was to investigate the overall exposure and unit task exposure levels of researchers in organic synthesis laboratories at universities. Methods: Seventy-seven personal Time-weighted average(TWA) samples and 139 task-based samples from four organic synthesis laboratories at two universities were collected over three days. The concentrations of acetone, chloroform, dichloromethane(DCM), diethyl ether, ethyl acetate, n-hexane, tetrahydrofuran(THF), benzene, toluene, and xylene were determined using the GC-FID. Results: The most frequently used chemicals in the laboratories were acetone, DCM, n-hexane, methanol, and THF. Carcinogens such as benzene, chloroform, and DCM were used in one or more laboratories. The TWA full-shift exposures of researchers to acetone was the highest(ND-59.3 ppm). Benzene was observed above the occupational exposure limit in 18-40% of the samples. The levels of exposure to organic solvents were statistically different by task(p<0.05), while washing task was the highest. Washing was not perceived as a part of the real lab tasks. Rather it was considered as simple dish-washing or experimental preparation and performed in an open sink where exposure to organic solvents was unavoidable. TWAs and task-based concentrations were compared by substance, which suggests that TWA-based assessment could not reflect short-term and high concentration exposures. Conclusions: Laboratory workers may be exposed to various organic solvents at levels of concern. TWA-based measurement alone cannot guarantee holistic exposure assessment among lab workers as their exposures are very dependent on their tasks. Further investigation and characterization for specific tasks and overall chronic exposures will help protect lab workers from unnecessary exposure to chemicals while they perform research.

Keywords

SOOSB1_2019_v29n1_1_f0001.png 이미지

Figure 1. Comparison on concentrations between TWA and task-based exposure levels by tasks. The lower and upper bars denote the min and max, the bottom and top edges of the box show the 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively. The open square and the line within the box represent the geometric mean and median concentrations, respectively. Dots are outlier

Table 1. General characteristics of the organic synthesis laboratories

SOOSB1_2019_v29n1_1_t0001.png 이미지

Table 2. Distributions of TWA concentrations of chemicals by laboratories

SOOSB1_2019_v29n1_1_t0002.png 이미지

Table 3. Distributions of task-based concentrations of chemicals

SOOSB1_2019_v29n1_1_t0003.png 이미지

References

  1. American Conferences of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). Threshold Limit Values($TLVs^{(R)}$) for chemical substances and physical agents & Biological Exposure Indices($BEIs^{(R)}$). ACGIH Cincinnati Ohio 2017
  2. Axelsson G, and Rylander R. Use of questionnaires in occupational studies of pregnancy outcome. Ann Acad Med Singapore 1984;13(2 Suppl):327-330
  3. Byun H, Park J. A Review on Chemical Exposure and Related Health Risks in Laboratory Workers. J Environ Health Sci 2010;36(6):441-455
  4. Byun H, Ryu K, Yoon C, Park J. Quantitative Assessment Strategy for Determining the Exposures to Volatile Organic Chemicals in Chemistry Laboratories. J Korean Soc Occup Environ Hyg 2011;21(1):11-25
  5. Carpenter L, Beral V, Roman E, Swerdlow AJ, Davis G. Cancer in laboratory workers. Lancet 1991;338(8774):1080-1081(https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(91)91938-q)
  6. Chen YC, Ramachandran G, Alexander BH, Mandel JH. Retrospective exposure assessment in a chemical research and development facility. Environ Int 2012;39(1):111-121(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2011.10.008)
  7. Choi SJ, Paik NW, Kim JK, Choi YK, Jung HH, et al. A study on workers' exposure organic solvents in petroleum refinery. J Korean Soc Occup Environ Hyg 2005;15(1):27-35
  8. Ha JH, Shin YC, Lee HS, Paik S, Yi GY, et al. Evaluation of Air Contaminants Concentrations and Ventilation Systems in Governmental Agency and University Laboratories. J Korean Soc Occup Environ Hyg 2010;20(1):63-69
  9. Halliday-Bell JA, Quansah R, Gissler M, Jaakkola JJ. Laboratory work and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Occup Med (Lond) 2010;60(4):310-313(https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqq018)
  10. Henn SA, Utterback DF, Waters KM, Markey AM, Tankersley WG. Task- and time-dependent weighting facters in a retrospective exposure assessment of chemical laboratory workers. J Occup Environ Hyg 2007;4(2):71-79(https://doi.org/10.1080/15459620601109407)
  11. International Agency for Research on Cancer(IARC). IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Human. 2019
  12. Jeong KB, Seo BS, Jang SH, and Lim KK. Organic chemistry experiment. Shinkwang; 2003. p.15-160
  13. Kauppinen T, Pukkala E, Saalo A, and Sasco AJ. Exposure to chemical carcinogens and risk of cancer among Finnish laboratory workers. Am J Ind Med 2003;44(4):343-350 (https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.10278)
  14. Kretchman K. Exposure assessment in a laboratory environment. Chem Health Saf 2002;9(1):10-14(https://doi.org/10.1016/s1074-9098(01)00286-6)
  15. Kim MS and Paik NW. A Study on Organic Solvent Exposure in Chemical Laboratories of Universities. J Institute Hlth Environ Sci 1998;8(1):33-46
  16. Kubale T, Hiratzka S, Henn S, Markey A, Daniels R, and Utterback D. et al. A cohort mortality study of chemical laboratory workers at department of energy nuclear plants. Am J Ind Med 2008;51(9):656-667(https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.20601)
  17. Meirik O, Källén B, Gauffin U, Ericson A. Major malformations in infants born of women who worked in laboratories while pregnant. Lancet 1979;314(8133):91 (https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(79)90136-3)
  18. Miller SK. Exposures of geotechnical laboratory workers to respirable crystalline silica. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 1999;14(1):39-44(https://doi.org/10.1080/104732299303403)
  19. Ministry of Employment and Labor(MoEL). Exposure limits for chemical substances and physical agents. 2018
  20. National Institution for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). NIOSH manual of analytical methods (NMAM) no. 1003, 1005, 1300, 1457, 1500, 1501, 1609, and 1610. 1994. Available from: URL:http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam
  21. National Institution for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). NIOSH pocket guide to chemical hazards. 2018
  22. Olin R. Leukaemia and Hodgkin's disease among Swedish chemistry graduates. Lancet 1976 Oct 23;2(7991):916 (https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(76)90589-4)
  23. Park JH. Organic synthesis experiment. Shinkwang; 2011. p.8-80
  24. Tan YM, DiBerardinis L, and Smith T. Exposure assessment of laboratory students. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 1999;14(8):530-538(https://doi.org/10.1080/104732299302521)
  25. Walrath J, Li FP, Hoar SK, Mead MW, Fraumeni JF Jr. Causes of death among female chemists. Am J Public Health 1985;75(8):883-885(https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.75.8.883)
  26. Wennborg H, Yuen J, Nise G, Sasco AJ, Vainio H, et al. Cancer incidence and work place exposure among Swedish biomedical research personnel. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2001;74(8):558-564(https://doi.org/10.1007/s004200100267)
  27. Yoo KM, Roh YM, Han JG, Won JI. A Survey and Recommendation on Safety and Health for Occupational Health Laboratories. Korean Ind Hyg Assoc J 2000;10(2):150-164