Effectiveness of an Intervention to Increase Construction Workers' Use of Hearing Protection

In this project we tested the effectiveness of a theory-based intervention (video, pamphlets, and guided practice session) to increase the use of hearing protection devices (HPDs) among Midwestern construction workers and a national group of plumber/pipefitter trainers. Posttest measures were collected 10--12 months following this intervention. Pender's Health Promotion Model (1987) provided the conceptual basis for development of the training program. A total of 837 highnoise- exposed workers were included in the analysis: 652 regional Midwestern construction workers and 185 national plumber/pipefitter trainers. Effectiveness of the intervention was determined through the sequence of analyses recommended by Braver and Braver (1988) for the Solomon Four-Group Design. Analysis of variance and covariance of postintervention use and intention to use HPDs and a meta-analytic test were done. These analyses indicated that the intervention significantly increased use of HPDs but had no effect on intention to use HPDs in the future. Pretesting had no effect on use. Actual or potential applications of this research include guidance in the development of successful theorybased interventions to increase use of HPDs.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/68025/2/10.1518_001872099779610969.pd

Application of the U.S. EPA Mode of Action Framework for Purposes of Guiding Future Research: A Case Study Involving the Oral Carcinogenicity of Hexavalent Chromium

Mode of action (MOA) analysis provides a systematic description of key events leading to adverse health effects in animal bioassays for the purpose of informing human health risk assessment. Uncertainties and data gaps identified in the MOA analysis may also be used to guide future research to improve understanding of the MOAs underlying a specific toxic response and foster development of toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic models. An MOA analysis, consistent with approaches outlined in the MOA Framework as described in the Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, was conducted to evaluate small intestinal tumors observed in mice chronically exposed to relatively high concentrations of hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) in drinking water. Based on review of the literature, key events in the MOA are hypothesized to include saturation of the reductive capacity of the upper gastrointestinal tract, absorption of Cr(VI) into the intestinal epithelium, oxidative stress and inflammation, cell proliferation, direct and/or indirect DNA modification, and mutagenesis. Although available data generally support the plausibility of these key events, several unresolved questions and data gaps were identified, highlighting the need for obtaining critical toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic data in the target tissue and in the low-dose range. Experimental assays that can address these data gaps are discussed along with strategies for comparisons between responsive and nonresponsive tissues and species. This analysis provides a practical application of MOA Framework guidance and is instructive for the design of studies to improve upon the information available for quantitative risk assessment

Scientific Opinion on the re-evaluation of Quinoline Yellow (E 104) as a food additive:Question No EFSA-Q-2008-223

The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food provides a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of Quinoline Yellow (E 104). Quinoline Yellow has been previously evaluated by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in 1975, 1978 and 1984, and the EU Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) in 1984. Both committees established an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of 0-10 mg/kg body weight (bw). Studies not evaluated by JECFA and the SCF included a chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity study with a reproductive toxicity phase in rats and a study on behaviour in children by McCann et al. from 2007. The latter study concluded that exposure to a mixture of colours including Quinoline Yellow resulted in increased hyperactivity in 8- to 9-years old children. The Panel concurs with the conclusion from a previous EFSA opinion on the McCann et al. study that the findings of the study cannot be used as a basis for altering the ADI. The Panel notes that Quinoline Yellow was negative in in vitro genotoxicity as well as in long term carcinogenicity studies. The Panel concludes that the currently available database on semi-chronic, reproductive, developmental and long-term toxicity of Quinoline Yellow, including a study in rats not apparently taken into consideration by JECFA or the SCF, provides a rationale for re-definition of the ADI. Using the NOAEL of 50 mg/kg bw/day provided by the chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity study with a reproductive toxicity phase carried out in rats and applying an uncertainty factor of 100 to this NOAEL, the Panel establishes an ADI of 0.5 mg/kg bw/day. The Panel notes that at the maximum levels of use of Quinoline Yellow, refined intake estimates are generally well over the ADI of 0.5 mg/kg bw/day