Investigation on neurologic abnormality induced by 1-bromoproane and individual variation in susceptibility

1)美国北卡罗来纳州1-溴丙烷中毒病例分析。在美国一家垫子工厂工作的工人(A)使用一种主要含有1-溴丙烷的粘合剂作为溶剂。振动感下降，灼烧感等麻醉，臀部、大腿前侧、下肢、足部麻木，步履蹒跚。还观察到中枢神经系统紊乱的症状，如刺激、抑郁和头痛。该工人的同事(B)和(C)也出现了类似的症状。当工人(A)和(B)在调查中离开工作场所时，我们用被动采样器评估了工人(C)的个人暴露水平。暴露水平为60至261，平均为133 ppm。2)江苏省1-溴丙烷工厂工人神经系统疾病调查。对23名接触1-溴丙烷的工人进行年龄和性别匹配后，其下肢远端潜伏期延长，神经行为测试得分较低。其中15名工人振动感明显下降。3)评估个体暴露水平、代谢物和神经传导速度。对个体差异进行了评估。研究了暴露于1-溴丙烷的工人尿液代谢物n -乙酰- s -丙基半胱氨酸。检测的神经传导速度等指标在工人之间没有明显的剂量-反应关系。它表明：(1)被动采样和尿液代谢物确实只显示短期暴露，与长期暴露于1-溴丙烷无关；(2)个体易感性差异可能存在差异。需要进一步的调查来解决这个问题。

1)Analysis on the cases intoxicated with 1-bromopropane in North Carolina in United States of America.The worker (A)working in a cushion factory in United States used an adhesive containing mainly 1-bromopropane as solvent. Decrease in vibration sense, anesthesia such as burning sensation, numbness in buttocks, frontal thighs, lower things and foot, and stumbling were found in the worker. The symptoms suggesting disorder in the central nervous system such as irritation, depression and headache were also observed. Colleagues (B)and (C)of this worker showed also similar symptoms to the above. As the workers (A)and (B)left the workplace at the investigation, we evaluated an individual exposure level for the worker (C)with passive samplers. The exposure level was 60 to 261,averaged 133 ppm.2)Investigation on neurologic disorders in the workers in 1-bromopropane factories in Jiangsu Province in China.The comparison of twenty-three workers exposed to 1-bromopropane after matching with age and sex showed elongation in distal latency in lower limbs as well as lower scores in neurobehavioral testing. Fifteen workers among the exposed showed decrease in vibration sense clearly.3)Evaluation of individual exposure levels, metabolites and nerve conduction velocities. The individual variations were assessed with them. Urinary metabolites, N-acetyl-S-propylcysteine were investigated in workers exposed to 1-bromopropane. The examined indices such as nerve conduction velocity did not show any clear dose-response relationship among workers. It suggested (1)passive samplers and urinary metabolites did show only short-term exposure that is not associated with long-term exposure to 1-bromopropane and (2)possible difference in individual variations in susceptibilities. Further investigation is required to address this issue.