Search

Objectives: Hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) is classified as a human carcinogen. Occupational Cr(VI) exposure can occur during different work processes, but the current exposure to Cr(VI) at Swedish workplaces is unknown., Methods: This cross-sectional study (SafeChrom) recruited non-smoking men and women from 14 companies with potential Cr(VI) exposure (n = 113) and controls from 6 companies without Cr(VI) exposure (n = 72). Inhalable Cr(VI) was measured by personal air sampling (outside of respiratory protection) in exposed workers. Total Cr was measured in urine (pre- and post-shift, density-adjusted) and red blood cells (RBC) (reflecting Cr(VI)) in exposed workers and controls. The Bayesian tool Expostats was used to assess risk and evaluate occupational exposure limit (OEL) compliance., Results: The exposed workers performed processing of metal products, steel production, welding, plating, and various chemical processes. The geometric mean concentration of inhalable Cr(VI) in exposed workers was 0.15 μg/m 3 (95% confidence interval: 0.11-0.21). Eight of the 113 exposed workers (7%) exceeded the Swedish OEL of 5 μg/m 3 , and the Bayesian analysis estimated the share of OEL exceedances up to 19.6% for stainless steel welders. Median post-shift urinary (0.60 μg/L, 5th-95th percentile 0.10-3.20) and RBC concentrations (0.73 μg/L, 0.51-2.33) of Cr were significantly higher in the exposed group compared with the controls (urinary 0.10 μg/L, 0.06-0.56 and RBC 0.53 μg/L, 0.42-0.72). Inhalable Cr(VI) correlated with urinary Cr (r S  = 0.64) and RBC-Cr (r S  = 0.53). Workers within steel production showed the highest concentrations of inhalable, urinary and RBC Cr. Workers with inferred non-acceptable local exhaustion ventilation showed significantly higher inhalable Cr(VI), urinary and RBC Cr concentrations compared with those with inferred acceptable ventilation. Furthermore, workers with inferred correct use of respiratory protection were exposed to significantly higher concentrations of Cr(VI) in air and had higher levels of Cr in urine and RBC than those assessed with incorrect or no use. Based on the Swedish job-exposure-matrix, approximately 17 900 workers were estimated to be occupationally exposed to Cr(VI) today., Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that some workers in Sweden are exposed to high levels of the non-threshold carcinogen Cr(VI). Employers and workers seem aware of Cr(VI) exposure, but more efficient exposure control strategies are required. National strategies aligned with the European strategies are needed in order to eliminate this cause of occupational cancer., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier GmbH.. All rights reserved.)

Using data from the Swedish Products Register, hosted by the Swedish Chemicals Agency (KemI), national occupational injury and disease statistics, and call records from the Swedish Poisons Information Centre (PIC) we characterize health hazards of marketed cleaning products and recorded injuries, disease, and incidents linked to cleaning or disinfection agents. The results show that cleaning agents pose many kinds of health hazards, although corrosion and irritation hazards dominate, in particular for the eyes (54% of all included products). Few products were recognized as inhalation hazards. The nature of the health hazards is reflected in the occupational disease and injury statistics and PIC records for eyes and skin but not for the respiratory tract. Among occupational disease cases attributed to cleaning or disinfection agents, 61% concern skin and 26% the respiratory tract. Among occupational injury cases 64% concern chemical burns. However, only a small part (<0.5%) of all reported diseases and injuries were explicitly attributed to cleaning or disinfection agents. On average, there were 11 cases of disease attributed to cleaning or disinfection agents per million workers and year. For occupational injuries the corresponding number was 8. The data concern a broad range of sectors and occupations, but notable sectors were healthcare, accommodation and food service, and manufacturing. Women were more likely to suffer from disease, men and women equally likely to suffer from injury. PIC cases were evenly distributed between men and women, but the clear risk cases more frequently involved men. Occupational diseases increased many-fold in 2020 while injuries decreased, which could be due to COVID-19 changing use patterns of cleaning and disinfection agents at work. We conclude that cleaning agents pose a variety of risks to a large part of the workforce, although particular attention for preventive efforts may need to be directed to the healthcare, accommodation and food service, and manufacturing sectors., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Occupational Hygiene Society.)

Objectives: Setting and implementing occupational exposure limits (OELs) is one of the measures taken to protect workers from adverse effects of hazardous chemicals. The EU Regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) introduced an additional kind of exposure guidance values for workers; namely, the derived no effect level (DNEL) for workers' inhalation exposure (worker DNEL). About 500 substances have a Swedish OEL, while roughly 5000 substances have a worker DNEL derived by REACH registrants. This work aims to investigate how the Swedish OELs and worker DNELs are perceived at Swedish workplaces, and whether worker DNELs are considered a possible alternative to OELs when the latter are lacking., Material and Methods: An online questionnaire was designed and sent to Swedish companies identified through the European Chemicals Agency's database of registered substances (N = 126) and the Swedish Chemicals Agency's registry of companies that import or manufacture notifiable chemical products (N = 227). The response rates were 52% and 38%, respectively., Results: The respondents stated that they were using the Swedish OELs and most of them considered these to be a suitable risk management tool. As about one-third of the respondents expressed that they had some experience in using substances without the Swedish OELs, there are certain data gaps that worker DNELs may fill. One-third of the respondents familiar with worker DNELs stated that they would consider using worker DNELs for substances without the Swedish OELs. However, nearly half of the respondents reported to be unfamiliar with worker DNELs., Conclusions: Poor familiarity with DNELs may pose an obstacle to properly recognizing DNELs' potential as well as the possible limitations of individual DNELs. There is a need for education about DNELs, as well as for tools facilitating the evaluation of DNELs and OELs from other sources in cases where the applicable Swedish OEL is lacking. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2020;33(5):611-20., (This work is available in Open Access model and licensed under a CC BY-NC 3.0 PL license.)

Records of injuries and incidents provide an important basis for injury prevention related to hazardous substances at the workplace. The present study aimed to review available data on injuries and incidents involving hazardous substances and investigate how data from the Poisons Information Centre could complement the records of the Swedish Work Environment Authority. We found two major obstacles for using injury/incident data based on employers' mandatory reporting. First, it was not possible to quickly and reliably identify injuries caused by hazardous substances, and second, data identifying substances or products are not systematically included. For two out of five investigated injuries with lost working days likely due to chemical injuries, we could not identify substances and/or products involved. The records based on calls to the Poisons Information Centre allow better understanding of chemical hazards and products. Besides the large share of unidentified chemical hazards in the injury statistics, the most striking difference was found for cleaning agents. Cleaning agents were implicated in one-third of the occupational cases that the consulting Poisons Information Centre expert judged to pose a major risk and in need of immediate healthcare. Only one in 10 injuries with lost days reported by employers was related to this type of product. The identification of exposures and symptoms by the Poisons Information Centre allow recognition of chemicals with problematic occupational uses. Hence, these records may serve as an important complement to official injury statistics related to incidents with hazardous substances at work.

The efficiency of a risk management tool, such as occupational exposure limits (OELs), partly depends on the responsible parties' awareness and understanding of it. The aim of this study was to measure the awareness and understanding of OELs at Swedish workplaces and to collect opinions on their use and function. Through a web-based questionnaire targeting workers that are exposed to air pollutants or chemicals, and persons working with occupational health and safety or in management at workplaces where workers are exposed to air pollutants or chemicals 1017 responses were collected. The results show that awareness and understanding of Swedish OELs is low among workers, as well as managers and occupational health and safety employees. Statistically significant, but small, differences were found depending on the size of the company and the position in the company. Based on the results, it is recommended that authorities and the social partners target this lack of awareness and understanding regarding OELs. Also, other tools to ascertain a safe working environment with regards to chemicals exposure might be useful for Swedish workplaces., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)