The Australian Work Exposures Study: Prevalence of Occupational Exposure to Formaldehyde

INTRODUCTION: The aims of this study were to produce a population-based estimate of the prevalence of work-related exposure to formaldehyde, to identify the main circumstances of exposure and to describe the use of workplace control measures designed to decrease those exposures. METHODS: The analysis used data from the Australian Workplace Exposures Study, a nationwide telephone survey, which investigated the current prevalence and exposure circumstances of work-related exposure to 38 known or suspected carcinogens, including formaldehyde, among Australian workers aged 18-65 years. Using the web-based tool OccIDEAS, semi-quantitative information was collected about exposures in the current job held by the respondent. Questions were addressed primarily at tasks undertaken rather than about self-reported exposures. RESULTS: Of the 4993 included respondents, 124 (2.5%) were identified as probably being exposed to formaldehyde in the course of their work [extrapolated to 2.6% of the Australian working population-265 000 (95% confidence interval 221 000-316 000) workers]. Most (87.1%) were male. About half worked in technical and trades occupations. In terms of industry, about half worked in the construction industry. The main circumstances of exposure were working with particle board or plywood typically through carpentry work, building maintenance, or sanding prior to painting; with the more common of other exposures circumstances being firefighters involved in fighting fires, fire overhaul, and clean-up or back-burning; and health workers using formaldehyde when sterilizing equipment or in a pathology laboratory setting. The use of control measures was inconsistent. CONCLUSION: Workers are exposed to formaldehyde in many different occupational circumstances. Information on the exposure circumstances can be used to support decisions on appropriate priorities for intervention and control of occupational exposure to formaldehyde, and estimates of burden of cancer arising from occupational exposure to formaldehyde

Controlling occupational cancers in Australia

Lin Fritschi, Renae C Fernandez, Deborah A Vallance, Terry J Slevin, Alison Reid, Timothy R Driscoll, Deborah C Glas

Review and analysis of fire and explosion accidents in maritime transportation

The globally expanding shipping industry has several hazards such as collision, capsizing, foundering, grounding, stranding, fire, and explosion. Accidents are often caused by more than one contributing factor through complex interaction. It is crucial to identify root causes and their interactions to prevent and understand such accidents. This study presents a detailed review and analysis of fire and explosion accidents that occurred in the maritimetransportation industry during 1990–2015. The underlying causes of fire and explosion accidents are identified and analysed. This study also reviewed potential preventative measures to prevent such accidents. Additionally, this study compares properties of alternative fuels and analyses their effectiveness in mitigating fire and explosionhazards. It is observed that Cryogenic Natural Gas (CrNG), Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and methanol have properties more suitable than traditional fuels in mitigating fire risk and appropriate management of their hazards could make them a safer option to traditional fuels. However, for commercial use at this stage, there exist several uncertainties due to inadequate studies, and technological immaturity. This study provides an insight into fire and explosion accident causation and prevention, including the prospect of using alternative fuels for mitigating fire and explosion risks in maritime transportation

Methyl methacrylate and respiratory sensitization: A Critical review

Methyl methacrylate (MMA) is a respiratory irritant and dermal sensitizer that has been associated with occupational asthma in a small number of case reports. Those reports have raised concern that it might be a respiratory sensitizer. To better understand that possibility, we reviewed the in silico, in chemico, in vitro, and in vivo toxicology literature, and also epidemiologic and occupational medicine reports related to the respiratory effects of MMA. Numerous in silico and in chemico studies indicate that MMA is unlikely to be a respiratory sensitizer. The few in vitro studies suggest that MMA has generally weak effects. In vivo studies have documented contact skin sensitization, nonspecific cytotoxicity, and weakly positive responses on local lymph node assay; guinea pig and mouse inhalation sensitization tests have not been performed. Cohort and cross-sectional worker studies reported irritation of eyes, nose, and upper respiratory tract associated with short-term peaks exposures, but little evidence for respiratory sensitization or asthma. Nineteen case reports described asthma, laryngitis, or hypersensitivity pneumonitis in MMA-exposed workers; however, exposures were either not well described or involved mixtures containing more reactive respiratory sensitizers and irritants.The weight of evidence, both experimental and observational, argues that MMA is not a respiratory sensitizer

Dust-free bleaching powder may not prevent symptoms in hairdressers with bleaching-associated rhinitis

Objective: Hairdressers have an increased risk for airway symptoms especially when using hairbleaching powder containing persulfate. To minimize exposure, dust-free bleaching powder (DFP) has been made available. We studied the effects of regular powder (RP) or DFP on the airway symptoms of hairdressers with hair-bleaching associated rhinitis. Methods: Twelve hairdressers each performed three hair-bleachings on a wig in an exposure chamber. Half of the subjects used RP and half used DFP. Exposure to persulfate and ammonia was measured. Before and after each bleaching, the participants stated their degree of airway symptoms on a visual analogue scale. Nasal lavage and blood were sampled before exposure, after the last bleaching, and in the morning after exposure to measure inflammatory markers. Results: Exposure to persulfate was higher when using RP compared to DFP, 22 (11-55) vs. 12 (8- 13) μg/m3; median (min-max). Exposure to ammonia did not differ between the groups. Both groups reported an increase in asthma-like symptoms and this increase was significant. Neutrophils, lymphocytes, and monocytes increased after exposure in both groups; monocytes decreased the day after. In nasal lavage, IL-8 was increased the morning after for both types of powder, and the increase was significant in the total group. IL-6 increased immediately after exposure and the day after only in the group using RP. Conclusions: Although DFP powder emits lower levels of persulfate, effects are still elicited in symptomatic hairdressers