Genetic polymorphism of CYP-1A1, CYP2D6 and risks of chronic benzene poisoning / 中华劳动卫生职业病杂志

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To explore the relationship between genetic polymorphisms of CYP-1A1 and CYP2D6 and risks of chronic benzene poisoning (BP).</p><p><b>METHODS</b>A case control study was conducted. 152 BP patients and 152 workers occupationally exposed to benzene without poisoning manifestations were involved. Polymerase chain reaction followed by restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) technology was used for detecting the single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of MspI in the non-coding region of CYP-1A1 gene and c.188, g.212 position in the first extron of CYP2D6 gene.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>The individuals with CYP1A1 MspI T/T genotype had a 1.32 times (95% CI: 1.05 approximately 1.65, P = 0.02) increased risk of BP compared with those carrying T/C and C/C genotypes. In no-smoking population, there was a 1.56 times (95% CI: 1.15 approximately 2.12, P = 0.003) increased risk of BP for subjects carrying CYP1A1 MspIT/T genotype compared with those carrying T/C and C/C genotypes. The individuals carrying CYP2D6 c.188 C/C or C/T genotype had a 1.23 times (95% CI: 1.05 approximately 1.42, P = 0.01) increased risk compared with those carrying T/T genotypes. In no-smoking population, there was a 1.23 times (95% CI: 1.04 approximately 1.47, P = 0.01) increased risk of BP for subjects carrying CYP2D6 c.188 C/C or C/T genotypes compared with those carrying T/T genotype. The single nucleotide polymorphism of g.212 position in the first extron of CYP2D6 gene had not been validated.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>The individuals with CYP2D6 c.188 C/C, CYP2D6 c.188 C/T and CYP1A1 MspIT/T genotypes tend to be more susceptible to benzene toxicity.</p>

Investigation on the association of safety perception and safety behaviors with occupational injuries in steel-workers / 中华劳动卫生职业病杂志

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To explore the association of occupational injuries, with their individual safety perception and safety behaviors in steel workers, so as to provide basis for preventing and controlling occupational injuries.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Case-control design was used to compare the difference in safety perception and safety behaviors between the injury group and the control, and also to compare the difference in safety behaviors between different safety perception groups.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>There were remarkable differences in attitude toward the safety degree of the work (chi(2) = 5.444, P < 0.05), and accidents happening (chi(2) = 4.552, P < 0.05) between case group and control group. There were remarkable difference in safety behaviors including manual operations instead of facilities (chi(2) = 10.015, P < 0.01), cleaning up, examining or adjusting machine during work (chi(2) = 7.351, P < 0.05), attention diversion (chi(2) = 10.937, P < 0.01) and unsafe wearing (chi(2) = 7.521, P < 0.05) between case group and control group. There were also significant differences in many safety behaviors between those who thought the job was safe or unsafe.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>There is some association of occupational injuries with safety perception and safety behaviors. To reduce the occurrence of occupational injury, measures should been focused on strengthening safety management and controlling unsafe behaviors.</p>