Dust exposure in Finnish foundries

The prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres (silica, asbestos and coal): A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large number of individual experts. Evidence from human, animal and mechanistic data suggests that occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres (silica, asbestos and coal dust) causes pneumoconiosis. In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust. These estimates of prevalences and levels will serve as input data for estimating (if feasible) the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years that are attributable to occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust among working-age (≥ 15 years) workers.

DATA SOURCES

We searched electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and CISDOC. We also searched electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consulted additional experts.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA

We included working-age (≥ 15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (< 15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included all study types with objective dust or fibre measurements, published between 1960 and 2018, that directly or indirectly reported an estimate of the prevalence and/or level of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and/or coal dust.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, then data were extracted from qualifying studies. We combined prevalence estimates by industrial sector (ISIC-4 2-digit level with additional merging within Mining, Manufacturing and Construction) using random-effects meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias and all available authors assessed the quality of evidence, using the ROB-SPEO tool and QoE-SPEO approach developed specifically for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight studies (82 cross-sectional studies and 6 longitudinal studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising > 2.4 million measurements covering 23 countries from all WHO regions (Africa, Americas, Eastern Mediterranean, South-East Asia, Europe, and Western Pacific). The target population in all 88 included studies was from major ISCO groups 3 (Technicians and Associate Professionals), 6 (Skilled Agricultural, Forestry and Fishery Workers), 7 (Craft and Related Trades Workers), 8 (Plant and Machine Operators and Assemblers), and 9 (Elementary Occupations), hereafter called manual workers. Most studies were performed in Construction, Manufacturing and Mining. For occupational exposure to silica, 65 studies (61 cross-sectional studies and 4 longitudinal studies) were included with > 2.3 million measurements collected in 22 countries in all six WHO regions. For occupational exposure to asbestos, 18 studies (17 cross-sectional studies and 1 longitudinal) were included with > 20,000 measurements collected in eight countries in five WHO regions (no data for Africa). For occupational exposure to coal dust, eight studies (all cross-sectional) were included comprising > 100,000 samples in six countries in five WHO regions (no data for Eastern Mediterranean). Occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust was assessed with personal or stationary active filter sampling; for silica and asbestos, gravimetric assessment was followed by technical analysis. Risk of bias profiles varied between the bodies of evidence looking at asbestos, silica and coal dust, as well as between industrial sectors. However, risk of bias was generally highest for the domain of selection of participants into the studies. The largest bodies of evidence for silica related to the industrial sectors of Construction (ISIC 41-43), Manufacturing (ISIC 20, 23-25, 27, 31-32) and Mining (ISIC 05, 07, 08). For Construction, the pooled prevalence estimate was 0.89 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.93, 17 studies, I2 91%, moderate quality of evidence) and the level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. For Manufacturing, the pooled prevalence estimate was 0.85 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.91, 24 studies, I2 100%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. The pooled prevalence estimate for Mining was 0.75 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.82, 20 studies, I2 100%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was 0.04 mg/m3 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.05, 17 studies, I2 100%, low quality of evidence). Smaller bodies of evidence were identified for Crop and animal production (ISIC 01; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); Professional, scientific and technical activities (ISIC 71, 74; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); and Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level). For asbestos, the pooled prevalence estimate for Construction (ISIC 41, 43, 45,) was 0.77 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.87, six studies, I2 99%, low quality of evidence) and the level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. For Manufacturing (ISIC 13, 23-24, 29-30), the pooled prevalence and level estimates were rated as being of very low quality of evidence. Smaller bodies of evidence were identified for Other mining and quarrying (ISIC 08; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); and Water supply, sewerage, waste management and remediation (ISIC 37; very low quality of evidence for levels). For coal dust, the pooled prevalence estimate for Mining of coal and lignite (ISIC 05), was 1.00 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.00, six studies, I2 16%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was 0.77 mg/m3 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.86, three studies, I2 100%, low quality of evidence). A small body of evidence was identified for Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35); with very low quality of evidence for prevalence, and the pooled level estimate being 0.60 mg/m3 (95% CI -6.95 to 8.14, one study, low quality of evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, we judged the bodies of evidence for occupational exposure to silica to vary by industrial sector between very low and moderate quality of evidence for prevalence, and very low and low for level. For occupational exposure to asbestos, the bodies of evidence varied by industrial sector between very low and low quality of evidence for prevalence and were of very low quality of evidence for level. For occupational exposure to coal dust, the bodies of evidence were of very low or moderate quality of evidence for prevalence, and low for level. None of the included studies were population-based studies (i.e., covered the entire workers' population in the industrial sector), which we judged to present serious concern for indirectness, except for occupational exposure to coal dust within the industrial sector of mining of coal and lignite. Selected estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica by industrial sector are considered suitable as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates, and selected estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to asbestos and coal dust may perhaps also be suitable for estimation purposes. Protocol identifier: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.06.005. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018084131.

Occupational exposure to crystalline silica at Alberta work sites

Although crystalline silica has been recognized as a health hazard for many years, it is still encountered in many work environments. Numerous studies have revealed an association between exposure to respirable crystalline silica and the development of silicosis and other lung diseases including lung cancer. Alberta Jobs, Skills, Training and Labour conducted a project to evaluate exposure to crystalline silica at a total of 40 work sites across 13 industries. Total airborne respirable dust and respirable crystalline silica concentrations were quite variable, but there was a potential to exceed the Alberta Occupational Exposure Limit (OEL) of 0.025 mg/m(3) for respirable crystalline silica at many of the work sites evaluated. The industries with the highest potentials for overexposure occurred in sand and mineral processing (GM 0.090 mg/m(3)), followed by new commercial building construction (GM 0.055 mg/m(3)), aggregate mining and crushing (GM 0.048 mg/m(3)), abrasive blasting (GM 0.027 mg/m(3)), and demolition (GM 0.027 mg/m(3)). For worker occupations, geometric mean exposure ranged from 0.105 mg/m(3) (brick layer/mason/concrete cutting) to 0.008 mg/m(3) (dispatcher/shipping, administration). Potential for GM exposure exceeding the OEL was identified in a number of occupations where it was not expected, such as electricians, carpenters and painters. These exposures were generally related to the specific task the worker was doing, or arose from incidental exposure from other activities at the work site. The results indicate that where there is a potential for activities producing airborne respirable crystalline silica, it is critical that the employer include all worker occupations at the work site in their hazard assessment. There appears to be a relationship between airborne total respirable dust concentration and total respirable dust concentrations, but further study is require to fully characterize this relationship. If this relationship holds true, it may provide a useful hazard assessment tool for employers by which the potential for exposure to airborne respirable silica at the work site can be more easily estimated.

Quartz and dust exposure in Swedish iron foundries

Exposure to respirable quartz continues to be a major concern in the Swedish iron foundry industry. Recommendations for reducing the European occupational exposure limit (EU-OEL) to 0.05 mg/m3 and the corresponding ACGIH(R) threshold limit value (ACGIH-TLV) to 0.025 mg/m3 prompted this exposure survey. Occupational exposure to respirable dust and respirable quartz were determined in 11 Swedish iron foundries, representing different sizes of industrial operation and different manufacturing techniques. In total, 436 respirable dust and 435 respirable quartz exposure measurements associated with all job titles were carried out and are presented as time-weighted averages. Our sampling strategy enabled us to evaluate the use of respirators in certain jobs, thus determining actual exposure. In addition, measurements using real-time dust monitors were made for high exposure jobs. For respirable quartz, 23% of all the measurements exceeded the EU-OEL, and 56% exceeded the ACGIH-TLV. The overall geometric mean (GM) for the quartz levels was 0.028 mg/m3, ranging from 0.003 to 2.1 mg/m3. Fettler and furnace and ladle repair operatives were exposed to the highest levels of both respirable dust (GM = 0.69 and 1.2 mg/m3; range 0.076-31 and 0.25-9.3 mg/m3 and respirable quartz (GM = 0.041 and 0.052 mg/m3; range 0.004-2.1 and 0.0098-0.83 mg/m3. Fettlers often used respirators and their actual quartz exposure was lower (range 0.003-0.21 mg/m3, but in some cases it still exceeded the Swedish OEL (0.1 mg/m3. For furnace and ladle repair operatives, the actual quartz exposure did not exceed the OEL (range 0.003-0.08 mg/m3, but most respirators provided insufficient protection, i.e., factors less than 200. In summary, measurements in Swedish iron foundries revealed high exposures to respirable quartz, in particular for fettlers and furnace and ladle repair workers. The suggested EU-OEL and the ACGIH-TLV were exceeded in, respectively, 23% and 56% of all measurements regardless of the type of foundry. Further work on elimination techniques to reduce quartz concentrations, along with control of personal protection equipment, is essential.

Respiratory impairment in Brazilian foundry workers exposed to sand

OBJECTIVE

Foundries date back to the 16th century in Brazil and still constitute a strong economic activity today. Workers are at risk of respiratory diseases due to various exposures such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, pyrolysis degradation products, mineral dust, organic dust, resin, and isocyanates. We evaluate respiratory morbidity among workers in foundries using sand.

METHODS

Six foundries with sand molding operations were selected. Length of exposure in years was utilized as a surrogate for exposure. The medical evaluation consisted of a respiratory symptoms questionnaire, occupational history, spirometry, and chest X-rays. Additionally, workers exposed to resins and a control group underwent bronchial provocation tests.

RESULTS

A sample of 598 male workers with a mean age of 36.5 years (SD = 10.0) was analyzed. The mean length of exposure was 10.1 years (SD = 7.4). The overall prevalence of pneumoconiosis was 4.5%. Chronic bronchitis (CB) and X-ray profusion were significantly related to the quartiles of length of exposure (trend tests: P = 0.0055 and P < 0.001, respectively). There was a significant risk of having an abnormal FVC and FEV(1) with the presence of pneumoconiosis (OR = 4.63 CI 1.40-13-23, OR 3.34 CI 1.03-9.26, respectively). Workers exposed to resins compared with controls showed no differences in relation to spirometry, respiratory symptoms and bronchial reactivity.

CONCLUSIONS

There were significant associations between length of exposure CB and prevalence of profusion 1/0 or above. There was also a significant association for pneumoconiosis versus and abnormal FVC and FEV(1). Foundry workers currently exposed to resins did not show an excess of respiratory symptoms, abnormal spirometry or increased bronchial reactivity.

Exposure to chemical agents in Swedish aluminum foundries and aluminum remelting plants--a comprehensive survey

Secondary aluminum melting is mainly performed in sand, die, and static die-casting foundries and remelting plants. In seven Swedish foundries and two remelting plants, the exposure and area concentrations of total dust, metals, organic gases, and vapors were determined mainly as daily, time-weighted averages (TWAs). For most combinations of jobs and agents, the exposure levels were well below the current threshold limits suggested by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). However, high exposure levels of mineral oil mist (geometric mean [GM] = 0.6 mg/m3) were observed in the die-casting process, with a maximum of 4 mg/m3. The findings were similar for total dust (GM = 5.1 mg/m3) and crystalline quartz (GM = 0.05 mg/m3) during molding operations in the sand foundries, maximum air concentrations being 31 mg/m3 and 0.22 mg/m3, respectively. Other agents which occasionally reached high exposure levels included furfuryl alcohol (up to 23 mg/m3 during furan binder use in sand foundries), aniline (up to 2.6 mg/m3 during thermal degradation of cold-box binders), and dimethylethylamine (up to 9 mg/m3) in the cold-box process used in static die-casting and sand foundries. The average aluminum exposure levels (GM = 0.043 mg/m3) were low in all foundries, individual values not exceeding 0.94 mg/m3. The exposures to metals were below 10 percent of their threshold limits. Similarly low levels were detected of polyaromatic hydrocarbons, phenol, formaldehyde, methylenebisphenyl diisocyanate, and phenylisocyanate. In the aluminum remelting plants, a few high exposure levels of total dust (GM = 1.4 mg/m3) up to 8 mg/m3 were detected in furnace workers. Aluminum and other metals were well below 10 percent of their threshold limits, with the exception of a few high concentrations of manganese, up to 0.14 mg/m3. The between-worker variability (GSDB) in the foundries for total dust, aluminum, and oil mist were on the order of 3-4. The heterogenicity of secondary aluminum melting requires assessment of a wide variety of chemical agents. For certain exposures, technical and medical monitoring programs are still needed.

Comprehensive evaluation of long-term trends in occupational exposure: Part 1. Description of the database

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a comprehensive evaluation of long term changes in occupational exposure among a broad cross section of industries worldwide.

METHODS

A review of the scientific literature identified studies that reported historical changes in exposure. About 700 sets of data from 119 published and several unpublished sources were compiled. Data were published over a 30 year period in 25 journals that spanned a range of disciplines. For each data set, the average exposure level was compiled for each period and details on the contaminant, the industry and location, changes in the threshold limit value (TLV), as well as the type of sampling method were recorded. Spearman rank correlation coefficients were used to identify monotonic changes in exposure over time and simple linear regression analyses were used to characterise trends in exposure.

RESULTS

About 78% of the natural log transformed data showed linear trends towards lower exposure levels whereas 22% indicated increasing trends. (The Spearman rank correlation analyses produced a similar breakdown between exposures monotonically increasing or decreasing over time.) Although the rates of reduction for the data showing downward trends ranged from -1% to -62% per year, most exposures declined at rates between -4% and -14% per year (the interquartile range), with a median value of -8% per year. Exposures seemed to increase at rates that were slightly lower than those of exposures which have declined over time. Data sets that showed downward (versus upward) trends were influenced by several factors including type and carcinogenicity of the contaminant, type of monitoring, historical changes in the threshold limit values (TLVs), and period of sampling.

CONCLUSIONS

This review supports the notion that occupational exposures are generally lower today than they were years or decades ago. However, such trends seem to have been affected by factors related to the contaminant, as well as to the period and type of sampling.

Does occupational exposure to silica cause lung cancer?

Silica is not generally considered to be a carcinogen, however, occupations characterized by high exposure to crystalline silica have excessive rates of lung cancer mortality. Respiratory cancer excesses have been reported from North America and from Europe for the following dusty trades in which exposure to silica is a common factor: iron and steel foundry workers, steel casting workers, sand blasters, metal molders, non-uranium miners, and ceramic workers. These findings have been reinforced by two reports from the Swedish Pneumoconiosis Register and the Ontario Ministry of Labor indicating that silicotics have statistically significant risks of lung cancer mortality. Animal studies suggest that silica can be an initiating carcinogen or can act as a cocarcinogen or promoter when combined with benzo(a)pyrene. We propose three candidate hypotheses and two pathways for silicocarcinogenesis.