Estimation of Source-Specific Occupational Benzene Exposure in a Population-Based Case-Control Study of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.

OBJECTIVES: Occupational exposures in population-based case-control studies are increasingly being assessed using decision rules that link participants' responses to occupational questionnaires to exposure estimates. We used a hierarchical process that incorporated decision rules and job-by-job expert review to assign occupational benzene exposure estimates in a US population-based case-control study of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. METHODS: We conducted a literature review to identify scenarios in which occupational benzene exposure has occurred, which we grouped into 12 categories of benzene exposure sources. For each source category, we then developed decision rules for assessing probability (ordinal scale based on the likelihood of exposure > 0.02 ppm), frequency (proportion of work time exposed), and intensity of exposure (in ppm). The rules used the participants' occupational history responses and, for a subset of jobs, responses to job- and industry-specific modules. For probability and frequency, we used a hierarchical assignment procedure that prioritized subject-specific module information when available. Next, we derived job-group medians from the module responses to assign estimates to jobs with only occupational history responses. Last, we used job-by-job expert review to assign estimates when job-group medians were not available or when the decision rules identified possible heterogeneous or rare exposure scenarios. For intensity, we developed separate estimates for each benzene source category that were based on published measurement data whenever possible. Frequency and intensity annual source-specific estimates were assigned only for those jobs assigned ≥75% probability of exposure. Annual source-specific concentrations (intensity × frequency) were summed to obtain a total annual benzene concentration for each job. RESULTS: Of the 8827 jobs reported by participants, 8% required expert review for one or more source categories. Overall, 287 (3.3%) jobs were assigned ≥75% probability of exposure from any benzene source category. The source categories most commonly assigned ≥75% probability of exposure were gasoline and degreasing. The median total annual benzene concentration among jobs assigned ≥75% probability was 0.11 ppm (interquartile range: 0.06-0.55). The highest source-specific median annual concentrations were observed for ink and printing (2.3 and 1.2 ppm, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The applied framework captures some subject-specific variability in work tasks, provides transparency to the exposure decision process, and facilitates future sensitivity analyses. The developed decision rules can be used as a starting point by other researchers to assess occupational benzene exposure in future population-based studies.

Validity of retrospective occupational exposure estimates of lead and manganese in a case-control study.

OBJECTIVES: The validity of surrogate measures of retrospective occupational exposure in population-based epidemiological studies has rarely been evaluated. Using toenail samples as bioindicators of exposure, we assessed whether work tasks and expert assessments of occupational metal exposure obtained from personal interviews were associated with lead and manganese concentrations. METHODS: We selected 609 controls from a case-control study of bladder cancer in New England who had held a job for ≥1 year 8-24 months prior to toenail collection. We evaluated associations between toenail metal concentrations and five tasks extracted from occupational questionnaires (grinding, painting, soldering, welding, working near engines) using linear regression models. For 139 subjects, we also evaluated associations between the toenail concentrations and exposure estimates from three experts. RESULTS: We observed a 1.9-fold increase (95% CI 1.4 to 2.5) in toenail lead concentrations with painting and 1.4-fold increase (95% CI 1.1 to 1.7) in manganese concentrations with working around engines and handling fuel. We observed significant trends with increasing frequency of both activities. For lead, significant trends were observed with the ratings from all three experts. Their average ratings showed the strongest association, with subjects rated as possibly or probably exposed to lead having concentrations that were 2.0 and 2.5 times higher, respectively, than in unexposed subjects (ptrend <0.001). Expert estimates were only weakly associated with manganese toenail concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the ability of experts to identify broad contrasts in previous occupational exposure to lead. The stronger associations with task frequency and expert assessments support using refined exposure characterisation whenever possible.

Case-control investigation of occupational lead exposure and kidney cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Lead is a suspected carcinogen that has been inconsistently associated with kidney cancer. To clarify this relationship, we conducted an analysis of occupational lead exposure within a population-based study of kidney cancer using detailed exposure assessment methods. METHODS: Study participants (1217 cases and 1235 controls), enrolled between 2002 and 2007, provided information on their occupational histories and, for selected lead-related occupations, answered questions regarding workplace tasks, and use of protective equipment. Industrial hygienists used this information to develop several estimates of occupational lead exposure, including probability, duration and cumulative exposure. Unconditional logistic regression was used to compute ORs and 95% CIs for different exposure metrics, with unexposed subjects serving as the reference group. Analyses were also conducted stratifying on several factors, including for subjects of European ancestry only, single nucleotide polymorphisms in ALAD (rs1805313, rs1800435, rs8177796, rs2761016), a gene involved in lead toxicokinetics. RESULTS: In our study, cumulative occupational lead exposure was not associated with kidney cancer (OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.3 for highest quartile vs unexposed; ptrend=0.80). Other lead exposure metrics were similarly null. We observed no evidence of effect modification for the evaluated ALAD variants (subjects of European ancestry only, 662 cases and 561 controls) and most stratifying factors, although lead exposure was associated with increased risk among never smokers. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study do not offer clear support for an association between occupational lead exposure and kidney cancer.

Decision rule approach applied to estimate occupational lead exposure in a case-control study of kidney cancer.

BACKGROUND: We developed a systematic, data-driven approach to estimate metrics of occupational exposure to lead to aid in epidemiologic analyses in a case-control study of kidney cancer. METHODS: Probability of exposure to ten lead sources was assigned using decision rules developed from an extensive literature review and expert judgement. For jobs with >50% probability of exposure, we assigned source-specific frequency based on subjects' self-reported task frequencies or means of subjects' job-groups and source-specific intensity estimates of blood lead (µg/dL). RESULTS: In our study, 18.7% of employed person-years were associated with high (≥80%) probability of exposure to any lead source. The most common medium (>50%) or high probability source of lead exposure was leaded gasoline (2.5% and 11.5% of employed person-years, respectively). The median blood lead attributed to occupational exposure was 3.1 µg/dL. CONCLUSIONS: These rules can aid in future studies after population-specific adaption for geographic differences and different exposure scenarios.

New Opportunities in Exposure Assessment of Occupational Epidemiology: Use of Measurements to Aid Exposure Reconstruction in Population-Based Studies.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Exposure assessment efforts in population-based studies are increasingly incorporating measurements. The published literature was reviewed to identify the measurement sources and the approaches used to incorporate measurements into these efforts. RECENT FINDINGS: The variety of occupations and industries in these studies made collecting participant-specific measurements impractical. Thus, the starting point was often the compilation of large databases of measurements from inspections, published literature, and other exposure surveys. These measurements usually represented multiple occupations, industries, and worksites, and spanned multiple decades. Measurements were used both qualitatively and quantitatively, dependent on the coverage and quality of the data. Increasingly, statistical models were used to derive job-, industry-, time period-, and other determinant-specific exposure concentrations. Quantitative measurement-based approaches are increasingly replacing expert judgment, which facilitates the development of quantitative exposure-response associations. Evaluations of potential biases in these measurement sources, and their representativeness of typical exposure situations, warrant additional examination.

Airborne asbestos exposures associated with gasket and packing replacement: a simulation study and meta-analysis.

Exposures to airborne asbestos during the removal and installation of internal gaskets and packing associated with a valve overhaul were characterized and compared to published data according to different variables (e.g., product, equipment, task, tool, setting, duration). Personal breathing zone and area samples were collected during twelve events simulating gasket and packing replacement, clean-up and clothing handling. These samples were analyzed using PCM and TEM methods and PCM-equivalent (PCME) airborne asbestos concentrations were calculated. A meta-analysis was performed to compare these data with airborne asbestos concentrations measured in other studies involving gaskets and packing. Short-term mechanic and assistant airborne asbestos concentrations during valve work averaged 0.013f/cc and 0.008f/cc (PCME), respectively. Area samples averaged 0.008f/cc, 0.005f/cc, and 0.003f/cc (PCME) for center, bystander, and remote background, respectively. Assuming a tradesman conservatively performs 1-3 gasket and/or packing replacements daily, an average 8-h TWA was estimated to be 0.002-0.010f/cc (PCME). Combining these results in a meta-analysis of the published exposure data showed that the majority of airborne asbestos exposures during work with gaskets and packing fall within a consistent and low range. Significant differences in airborne concentrations were observed between power versus manual tools and removal versus installation tasks. Airborne asbestos concentrations resulting from gasket and packing work during a valve overhaul are consistent with historical exposure data on replacement of asbestos-containing gasket and packing materials involving multiple variables and, in nearly all plausible scenarios, result in average airborne asbestos concentrations below contemporaneous occupational exposure limits for asbestos.