This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth
Download 5.77 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Non-neoplastic effects
- Occupational exposure
Immunology dataSpecific immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies to formaldehyde-human serum albumin conjugates have occasionally been detected in workers (Patterson et al., 1986; Kramps et al., 1989; Grammer et al., 1993; Wantke et al., 2000) and children exposed to formaldehyde from a school building (Wantke et al., 1996), though without any correlation with respiratory symptoms. Other studies have failed to detect the antibody (Nordman et al., 1985; Patterson et al., 1986; Thrasher et al., 1987; Kramps et al., 1989; Grammer et al., 1990; Kim et al., 1999; 2001; Baba et al., 2000). Similarly, specific IgG antibodies to the same conjugate have only occasionally been observed in exposed people (Grammer et al., 1990, 1993; Kim et al., 1999).
The effect of gaseous formaldehyde on respiratory symptoms, pulmonary function and morphology of the nasal tract has been investigated in populations exposed in occupational and community environments. Occupational exposureConflicting results have been observed in studies investigating the effect of occupational exposure to formaldehyde on pulmonary functions. In a number of studies of chemical, furniture and plywood workers, pre-shift reduction of up to 12% in lung function parameters (e.g., forced vital capacity, forced expiratory volume, forced expiratory flow rate) were reported for mean formaldehyde concentrations that were < 0.42 ppm (< 0.5 mg/m3) (Alexandersson & Hedenstierna, 1988; 1989; Herbert et al., 1994; Holmstrom & Wilhelmsson, 1988) and, in one study at 1.13 ppm (1.3 mg/m3) (Malaka & Kodama, 1990). Changes were generally small and transient over a work shift, with a cumulative effect over several years that was reversible after relatively short periods without exposure (e.g.. 4 weeks); effects were more obvious in smokers than non-smokers (Alexandersson & Hedenstierna, 1989). In the only study where it was examined, a dose-response relationship between formaldehyde exposure and decreased lung function was observed in a group of 21 workers in wood product manufacturing exposed to mean formaldehyde concentrations of 0.35 – 0.42 ppm (0.42 – 0.50 mg/m3) (Alexandersson & Hedenstierna, 1989). In contrast, no conclusive evidence of diminished lung function was observed in studies of larger numbers of workers (89 -125) in resin manufacturing (Nunn et al., 1990), funeral service industries (Holness & Nethercott, 1989) and wood product manufacturing (Horvath et al., 1988), who were exposed to higher mean formaldehyde concentrations (up to > 2 ppm [> 2.4 mg/m3]). These studies also examined symptoms of respiratory irritancy in workers. A higher prevalence of symptoms, such as nose, throat and eye irritation, cough and/or ‘wheeze’ was seen in workers exposed to formaldehyde compared to controls in the studies by Alexandersson & Hedenstierna (1988, 1989); Herbert et al. (1994); Holmstrom & Wilhelmsson (1988); Holness & Nethercott (1989); Malaka & Kodama (1990); Uba et al. (1989); and Wilhelmsson & Holmstrom (1992). However, these studies generally assessed a small numbers of workers (38 – 103) and it was not possible to meaningfully examine exposure response. A study by Horvath et al. (1988) did conduct such an analysis. In this study, a dose- response relationship was seen between formaldehyde concentration and prevalence of symptoms. Workers in this study (totalling 109) were exposed to 0.17 - 2.93 ppm (0.20 – 3.5 mg/m3) formaldehyde. In contrast, in a study by Nunn et al. (1990) there was no evidence to suggest that respiratory symptoms (such as wheeze) were more common in 125 workers exposed to concentrations up to and greater than 2.0 ppm (> 2.4 mg/m3) formaldehyde compared to controls.
(0.3 mg/m3) formaldehyde, with frequent short peaks of exposures above 0.8 ppm (0.96 mg/m3). This study also examined histopathological changes in the nasal epithelium in workers exposed to both 0.17 – 0.25 ppm (0.20 - 0.3 mg/m3) formaldehyde and wood dust, and found no significant changes when compared to controls. A further study of 75 workers exposed to 0.08 – 0.9 ppm (0.1 - 1.1 mg/m3) formaldehyde (with peaks of 4.2 ppm [5.0 mg/m3] or 0.5 – 0.9 ppm [0.6 - 1.1 mg/m3]) and wood dust observed statistically significant increases in mean histopathological scores for both exposure groups compared to controls (Edling et al., 1988). There was no significant variation between the two exposure groups themselves. The mean histopathological score was also approximately the same regardless of duration of exposure, although this may be attributable to the small numbers of the sub-groups (i.e. 23 - 28). In contrast, a cross-sectional study of 80 workers in paper processing plants exposed to 0.02 - 2 ppm (0.024 - 2.4 mg/m3) gaseous formaldehyde through use of phenol-formaldehyde resins reported no association between “abnormal” cytology and formaldehyde exposure after controlling for age (Berke, 1987). In a case-control study, no significant difference was seen in the incidence of histopathological findings in 37 workers at a formaldehyde manufacturing plant exposed to 0.5 - 2 ppm (0.6 -2.4 mg/m3) formaldehyde, though the degree of metaplastic alteration was more pronounced among formaldehyde exposed workers (Boysen et al., 1990). Directory: data -> assets -> word doc -> 0006 word doc -> Commonwealth of Australia 2002 word doc -> Commonwealth of Australia 2000 word doc -> Priority Existing Chemical word doc -> Rail safety news issue 6 – October 2011 word doc -> Review of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: Identifying 0006 -> Board Endorsed October 2009 amended 13-09-11 with extra units 0006 -> Rt Hon Andrew Lansley cbe mp secretary of State for Health 0006 -> Environmental Approvals Application Form Use this form Download 5.77 Mb. Share with your friends:
|