Health Watch exposure estimates: Do they underestimate benzene exposure?
Health Watch exposure estimates: Do they underestimate benzene exposure?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.cbi.2005.03.006
复制
发表时间：
2005-05-30
影响因子：
5.1
通讯作者：
Sim, MR
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Glass, DC;Gray, CN;Sim, MR
一项巢式病例对照研究发现，在健康观察队列的男性成员中发现的过量白血病与苯暴露有关。使用关系数据库中的算法对每个个体职业史的暴露进行了回顾性估计。由澳大利亚石油公司提供的苯暴露测量值被用来估计特定任务的暴露。每项工作中的任务、处理的产品和使用的技术都是通过对当代同事的结构化访谈确定的。超过一半的受试者在1965年之后开始工作，平均接触时间为20年。接触程度低;近85%的累积暴露估计值等于或低于10 ppm-年。匹配分析表明，白血病风险随着累积苯暴露的增加和最高暴露工作的暴露强度的增加而增加。非何杰金淋巴瘤和多发性骨髓瘤与苯暴露无关。本文报道的再分析显示，对于累积暴露大于16 ppm-年的7个白血病病例集，比值比为51.9（5.6-477）。增加偶然的高暴露量，例如由于溢出，25%的受试者暴露量增加，但大多数受试者的暴露量增加小于总暴露量的5%。这些暴露的增加降低了比值比，累积暴露的范围没有可比研究中的高;然而，队列的近期性质和当地处理实践可以解释这些差异。(c)2005爱思唯尔爱尔兰有限公司保留所有权利。
A nested case-control study found that the excess of leukemia, identified among the male members of the Health Watch cohort, was associated with benzene exposure. Exposure had been retrospectively estimated for each individual occupational history using an algorithm in a relational database. Benzene exposure measurements, supplied by Australian petroleum companies, were used to estimate exposure for specific tasks. The tasks carried out within each job, the products handled, and the technology used, were identified from structured interviews with contemporary colleagues.More than half of the subjects started work after 1965 and had an average exposure period of 20 years. Exposure was low; nearly 85% of the cumulative exposure estimates were at or below 10 ppm-years.Matched analyses showed that leukemia risk increased with increasing cumulative benzene exposures and with increasing exposure intensity of the highest-exposed job. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and multiple myeloma were not associated with benzene exposure.A reanalysis reported here, showed that for the 7 leukemia case-sets with greater than 16 ppm-years cumulative exposure, the odds ratio was 51.9 (5.6-477) when compared to the 2 lowest exposed categories combined to form a new reference category.The addition of occasional high exposures, e.g. as a result of spillages, increased exposure for 25% of subjects but for most, the increase was less than 5% of total exposure. The addition of these exposures reduced the odds ratios.Cumulative exposures did not range as high as those in comparable studies; however, the recent nature of the cohort and local handling practices can explain these differences. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.