10.07.2015 Views

TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR CHROMIUM - Davidborowski.com

TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR CHROMIUM - Davidborowski.com

TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR CHROMIUM - Davidborowski.com

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>CHROMIUM</strong> 652. HEALTH EFFECTSIn a study of 133 workers at a chromate pigment producing factories in Norway, three cases of lungcancer death <strong>com</strong>pared with 0.079 expected based on national rates (SMR=3,797) were found in asubcohort of 24 workers who had worked for at least 3 years at the factories that had produced zinc and/orlead chromate from 1948 to 1972. Workroom monitoring revealed air levels ranging from 0.01 to1.35 mg chromium(VI)/m 3 at the factories. The exposure levels of the three workers with lung cancerwere estimated to be 0.5–1.5 mg chromium(VI)/m 3 for 6–9 years (Langård and Norseth 1975). A followupof this study on the original cohort of 133 workers to 1980 found 4 new cases of lung cancer, 3 ofwhich were in the subcohort of 24 men (O/E=6/0.135, SMR=4,444) (Langård and Vigander 1983). Atleast two of the patients in the original study (Langård and Norseth 1975) and all three of the patients inthe follow-up were smokers or ex-smokers, and one may have been exposed to asbestos. However, theauthors did not consider smoking an important confounding factor, since smoking alone could notaccount for the extreme findings (Langård and Vigander 1983).In a study of workers exposed to lead chromate and zinc chromate at five chromate pigment factories inGermany and Norway, the cohorts consisted of men employed for >6 months from 1965 to 1976 in any ofthe five factories. The cohorts at Factories 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 consisted of 319, 141, 97, 174, and 247 men,respectively. Because of differences (not specified) between the factories, a pooled evaluation wasprecluded. Cause-specific expected numbers of death were calculated from mortality rates in each of thedistricts in Germany or Norway in which the factories were located. An increased risk of lung cancer wasfound only at Factory 2. At this factory, there were 9 deaths among 141 men <strong>com</strong>pared with 9.963expected. Of the nine deaths, two were due to lung cancer, <strong>com</strong>pared with 0.789 expected(O/Ex100=386, p10 years), a significantly increased risk of lung cancer was found only atFactory 3. At this factory, two deaths from lung cancer, <strong>com</strong>pared with 0.287 expected (O/Ex100=697,p

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!