Application of the Draft NIOSH Occupational Exposure Banding Process to Bisphenol A: A case study.

Bisphenol A is a commercially important chemical used to make polycarbonate plastic, epoxy resins, and other specialty products. Despite an extensive body of in vitro, animal and human observational studies on the effects of exposure to bisphenol A, no authoritative bodies in the U.S. have adopted or recommended occupational exposure limits for bisphenol A. In 2017, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health published a Draft process for assigning health-protective occupational exposure bands, i.e., an airborne concentration range, to chemicals lacking an occupational exposure limit. Occupational exposure banding is a systematic process that uses both quantitative and qualitative toxicity information on selected health effect endpoints to assign an occupational exposure band for a chemical. The Draft process proposes three methodological tiers of increasing complexity for assigning an occupational exposure band. We applied Tier 1 (based on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling) and Tier 2 (based on authoritative sources/reviews) to assign an occupational exposure band to bisphenol A. Under both Tier 1 and 2, the occupational exposure band for bisphenol A was "E" (<0.01 mg/m3), an assignment based on eye damage. "E" is the lowest exposure concentration range, reserved for chemicals with high potential toxicity. If eye damage was excluded in assigning an air concentration exposure range, then bisphenol A would band as "D" (>0.01 to 0.1 mg/m3) under Tier 1 (based on reproductive toxicity and respiratory/skin sensitization) and under Tier 2 (based on specific target organ toxicity-repeated exposure). In summary, Tiers 1 and 2 gave the same occupational exposure band for bisphenol A when eye damage was included ("E") or excluded ("D") as an endpoint.

Exposure Estimation and Interpretation of Occupational Risk: Enhanced Information for the Occupational Risk Manager.

The fundamental goal of this article is to describe, define, and analyze the components of the risk characterization process for occupational exposures. Current methods are described for the probabilistic characterization of exposure, including newer techniques that have increasing applications for assessing data from occupational exposure scenarios. In addition, since the probability of health effects reflects variability in the exposure estimate as well as the dose-response curve-the integrated considerations of variability surrounding both components of the risk characterization provide greater information to the occupational hygienist. Probabilistic tools provide a more informed view of exposure as compared to use of discrete point estimates for these inputs to the risk characterization process. Active use of such tools for exposure and risk assessment will lead to a scientifically supported worker health protection program. Understanding the bases for an occupational risk assessment, focusing on important sources of variability and uncertainty enables characterizing occupational risk in terms of a probability, rather than a binary decision of acceptable risk or unacceptable risk. A critical review of existing methods highlights several conclusions: (1) exposure estimates and the dose-response are impacted by both variability and uncertainty and a well-developed risk characterization reflects and communicates this consideration; (2) occupational risk is probabilistic in nature and most accurately considered as a distribution, not a point estimate; and (3) occupational hygienists have a variety of tools available to incorporate concepts of risk characterization into occupational health and practice.

Cytogenetic analysis of an exposed-referent study: perchloroethylene-exposed dry cleaners compared to unexposed laundry workers.

BACKGROUND: Significant numbers of people are exposed to tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene, PCE) every year, including workers in the dry cleaning industry. Adverse health effects have been associated with PCE exposure. However, investigations of possible cumulative cytogenetic damage resulting from PCE exposure are lacking. METHODS: Eighteen dry cleaning workers and 18 laundry workers (unexposed controls) provided a peripheral blood sample for cytogenetic analysis by whole chromosome painting. Pre-shift exhaled air on these same participants was collected and analyzed for PCE levels. The laundry workers were matched to the dry cleaners on race, age, and smoking status. The relationships between levels of cytological damage and exposures (including PCE levels in the shop and in workers' blood, packyears, cumulative alcohol consumption, and age) were compared with correlation coefficients and t-tests. Multiple linear regressions considered blood PCE, packyears, alcohol, and age. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the PCE-exposed dry cleaners and the laundry workers for chromosome translocation frequencies, but PCE levels were significantly correlated with percentage of cells with acentric fragments (R2 = 0.488, p < 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: There does not appear to be a strong effect in these dry cleaning workers of PCE exposure on persistent chromosome damage as measured by translocations. However, the correlation between frequencies of acentric fragments and PCE exposure level suggests that recent exposures to PCE may induce transient genetic damage. More heavily exposed participants and a larger sample size will be needed to determine whether PCE exposure induces significant levels of persistent chromosome damage.