Estimating retrospective exposure of household humidifier disinfectants.

UNLABELLED: We conducted a comprehensive humidifier disinfectant exposure characterization for 374 subjects with lung disease who presumed their disease was related to humidifier disinfectant use (patient group) and for 303 of their family members (family group) for an ongoing epidemiological study. We visited the homes of the registered patients to investigate disinfectant use characteristics. Probability of exposure to disinfectants was determined from the questionnaire and supporting evidence from photographs demonstrating the use of humidifier disinfectant, disinfectant purchase receipts, any residual disinfectant, and the consistency of their statements. Exposure duration was estimated as cumulative disinfectant use hours from the questionnaire. Airborne disinfectant exposure intensity (µg/m(3)) was estimated based on the disinfectant volume (ml) and frequency added to the humidifier per day, disinfectant bulk level (µg/ml), the volume of the room (m(3)) with humidifier disinfectant, and the degree of ventilation. Overall, the distribution patterns of the intensity, duration, and cumulative exposure to humidifier disinfectants for the patient group were higher than those of the family group, especially for pregnant women and patients ≤6 years old. Further study is underway to evaluate the association between the disinfectant exposures estimated here with clinically diagnosed lung disease. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Retrospective exposure to household humidifier disinfectant as estimated here can be used to evaluate associations with clinically diagnosed lung disease due to the use of humidifier disinfectant in Korea. The framework, with modifications to account for dispersion and use patterns, can also be potentially adapted to assessment of other household chemical exposures.

Workplace measurements by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration since 1979: Descriptive analysis and potential uses for exposure assessment.

This letter summarizes modifications to the results presented in Lavoué et al. (2012): Lavoué, J., Burstyn, I.,Friesen, M. (2012) Workplace Measurements by the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration since1979: Descriptive Analysis and Potential Uses for Exposure Assessment. Annals of occupational hygiene57(1):77­97. Although several results were altered, the conclusions were not affected by the changes.

Workplace measurements by the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration since 1979: descriptive analysis and potential uses for exposure assessment.

BACKGROUND: Inspectors from the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) have been collecting industrial hygiene samples since 1972 to verify compliance with Permissible Exposure Limits. Starting in 1979, these measurements were computerized into the Integrated Management Information System (IMIS). In 2010, a dataset of over 1 million personal sample results analysed at OSHA's central laboratory in Salt Lake City [Chemical Exposure Health Data (CEHD)], only partially overlapping the IMIS database, was placed into public domain via the internet. We undertook this study to inform potential users about the relationship between this newly available OSHA data and IMIS and to offer insight about the opportunities and challenges associated with the use of OSHA measurement data for occupational exposure assessment. METHODS: We conducted a literature review of previous uses of IMIS in occupational health research and performed a descriptive analysis of the data recently made available and compared them to the IMIS database for lead, the most frequently sampled agent. RESULTS: The literature review yielded 29 studies reporting use of IMIS data, but none using the CEHD data. Most studies focused on a single contaminant, with silica and lead being most frequently analysed. Sixteen studies addressed potential bias in IMIS, mostly by examining the association between exposure levels and ancillary information. Although no biases of appreciable magnitude were consistently reported across studies and agents, these assessments may have been obscured by selective under-reporting of non-detectable measurements. The CEHD data comprised 1 450 836 records from 1984 to 2009, not counting analytical blanks and erroneous records. Seventy eight agents with >1000 personal samples yielded 1 037 367 records. Unlike IMIS, which contain administrative information (company size, job description), ancillary information in the CEHD data is mostly analytical. When the IMIS and CEHD measurements of lead were merged, 23 033 (39.2%) records were in common to both IMIS and CEHD datasets, 10 681 (18.2%) records were only in IMIS, and 25 012 (42.6%) records were only in the CEHD database. While IMIS-only records represent data analysed in other laboratories, CEHD-only records suggest partial reporting of sampling results by OSHA inspectors into IMIS. For lead, the percentage of non-detects in the CEHD-only data was 71% compared to 42% and 46% in the both-IMIS-CEHD and IMIS-only datasets, respectively, suggesting differential under-reporting of non-detects in IMIS. CONCLUSIONS: IMIS and the CEHD datasets represent the biggest source of multi-industry exposure data in the USA and should be considered as a valuable source of information for occupational exposure assessment. The lack of empirical data on biases, adequate interpretation of non-detects in OSHA data, complicated by suspected differential under-reporting, remain the principal challenges to the valid estimation of average exposure conditions. We advocate additional comparisons between IMIS and CEHD data and discuss analytical strategies that may play a key role in meeting these challenges.

Relationships between alumina and bauxite dust exposure and cancer, respiratory and circulatory disease.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the associations between alumina and bauxite dust exposure and cancer incidence and circulatory and respiratory disease mortality among bauxite miners and alumina refinery workers. METHODS: This cohort of 5770 males has previously been linked to national mortality and national and state cancer incidence registries (1983-2002). In this paper, Poisson regression was used to undertake internal comparisons within the cohort based on subgroups of cumulative exposure to inhalable bauxite and alumina dust. Exposure was estimated using job histories and historical air monitoring data. RESULTS: There was no association between ever bauxite exposure and any of the outcomes. There was a borderline significant association between ever alumina exposure and cerebrovascular disease mortality (10 deaths, RR 3.8, 95% CI 1.1 to 13). There was some evidence of an exposure-response relationship between cumulative bauxite exposure and non-malignant respiratory disease mortality (seven deaths, trend p value: 0.01) and between cumulative alumina exposure and cerebrovascular disease mortality (trend p value: 0.04). These associations were based on very few cases and for non-malignant respiratory disease the deaths represented a heterogeneous mixture of causes. There was no evidence of an excess risk for any cancer type with bauxite or alumina exposure. CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary findings, based on very few cases, suggest that cumulative inhalable bauxite exposure may be associated with an excess risk of death from non-malignant respiratory disease and that cumulative inhalable alumina dust exposure may be associated with an excess risk of death from cerebrovascular disease. Neither exposure appears to increase the risk of incident cancers.

From expert-based to quantitative retrospective exposure assessment at a Soderberg aluminum smelter.

OBJECTIVES: Expert judgement of exposure levels is often only poorly or moderately correlated with directly measured levels. For a follow-up of a historical cohort study at a Söderberg aluminum smelter we updated an expert-based semiquantitative job exposure matrix of coal tar pitch volatiles (CTPV) to quantitative estimates of CTPV and benzo(a)pyrene (BaP). METHODS: Mixed effects models to predict exposure for potroom operation and maintenance jobs were constructed from personal CTPV and BaP measurements. Mean exposures of jobs in non-potroom locations were directly calculated when measurements were available. Exposure estimates for jobs/time periods with no measurements were based on proportion of time spent in exposed areas compared to jobs where exposure was modeled or measured. For pre-1977, the original expert exposure assignments were calibrated using the updated 1977 estimates. RESULTS: The rate of change in exposure levels varied by time period and was accounted for in mixed models with a linear spline time trend. Other variables significant in the models were job, potroom group and season as fixed effects, and worker as a random effect. The models for potroom operations explained 45 and 27% of the variability in the CTPV and BaP measurements, respectively. The models for maintenance jobs explained 40 and 19% of the variability in the CTPV and BaP measurements, respectively. For 1977-2000 model estimates, direct calculation of means and extrapolation from modeled/measured exposures accounted for 57, 6 and 37% of the exposed person-years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The above methodology maximized the use of exposure measurements and largely replaced the original expert-based estimates. Finer discrimination between exposure levels was possible with the updated exposure assessment. The new estimates are expected to reduce exposure misclassification and help better assess the exposure-response relationships.

Predicting historical dust and wood dust exposure in sawmills: model development and validation.

Nonspecific dust measurements are used as a surrogate for wood dust exposure in sawmills. However, the wood dust component of dust has been found to vary by job and work area. Thus, the use of nonspecific dust exposure levels in epidemiologic studies may introduce exposure misclassification when assessing wood-related health effects. To improve exposure assessment in a retrospective cohort of 28,000 sawmill workers, we developed and evaluated the validity of two empirical models of exposure: one for nonspecific dust and one for wood dust. The dust model was constructed using 1,395 dust measurements collected in 13 sawmills for research or regulatory purposes from 1981 to 1997. Inter-sampler conversion factors were used to obtain inhalable dust equivalents if necessary. The wood dust model was constructed after applying adjustment factors to subtract nonwood components of the dust from the original measurements. The validity of the two models was tested against measurements (n = 213) from a technologically similar mill that was not part of the cohort study. The proportions of variability explained by the dust and wood dust models were 35% and 54%, respectively. When tested against the validation mill, the biases in the dust model were -33% for outdoor jobs and 2% for indoor jobs. The biases in the wood dust model were 2% for outdoor jobs and -3% for indoor jobs. Strong correlations were observed between the predicted and observed geometric means of jobs (0.79 and 0.70 for the dust model and wood dust model, respectively). Testing the validity of predictive models examines the generalizability of the models. The low overall bias, especially in the wood-specific model, increases our confidence in the use of these models for all sawmills to assess both nonspecific particulate and wood-related health effects in the historical cohort study.

Validation of a semi-quantitative job exposure matrix at a Söderberg aluminum smelter.

OBJECTIVES: We tested the validity of a job exposure matrix (JEM) for coal tar pitch volatiles (CTPV) at a Söderberg aluminum smelter. The JEM had been developed by a committee of company hygienists and union representatives for an earlier study of cancer incidence and mortality. Our aim was to test the validity and reliability of the expert-based assignments. METHODS: Personal CTPV exposure measurements (n = 1879) overlapped 11 yr of the JEM. The arithmetic mean was calculated for 35 job/time period combinations (35% of the exposed work history), categorized using the original exposure intervals, and compared with the expert-based assignments. RESULTS: The expert-based and the measurement-based exposure assignments were only moderately correlated (Spearman's rho = 0.42; weighted kappa = 0.39, CI 0.10-0.69). Only 40% of the expert-based medium category assignments were correctly assigned, with better agreement in the low (84%) and high (100%) categories. Pot operation jobs exhibited better agreement (rho = 0.60) than the maintenance and pot shell repair jobs (rho = 0.25). The mid-point value of the medium category was overestimated by 0.3 mg/m(3). CONCLUSIONS: The expert-based exposure assignments may be improved by better characterizing the transitions between exposure categories, by accounting for exposure differences between pot lines and by re-examining the category mid-point values used in calculating the cumulative exposure. Lack of historical exposure measurements often requires reliance on expert knowledge to assess exposure levels. Validating the experts' estimates against available exposure measurements may help to identify weaknesses in the exposure assessment where improvements may be possible, as was shown here.