Open Access

Genotoxic effects in occupational exposure to formaldehyde: A study in anatomy and pathology laboratories and formaldehyde-resins production

  • Susana Viegas1, 3Email author,
  • Carina Ladeira2, 3,
  • Carla Nunes3,
  • Joana Malta-Vacas4,
  • Mário Gomes5,
  • Miguel Brito4,
  • Paula Mendonça2 and
  • João Prista6
Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology20105:25

DOI: 10.1186/1745-6673-5-25

Received: 5 April 2010

Accepted: 20 August 2010

Published: 20 August 2010

Abstract

Background

According to the Report on Carcinogens, formaldehyde ranks 25th in the overall U.S. chemical production, with more than 5 million tons produced each year. Given its economic importance and widespread use, many people are exposed to formaldehyde environmentally and/or occupationally. Presently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies formaldehyde as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), based on sufficient evidence in humans and in experimental animals. Manyfold in vitro studies clearly indicated that formaldehyde can induce genotoxic effects in proliferating cultured mammalian cells. Furthermore, some in vivo studies have found changes in epithelial cells and in peripheral blood lymphocytes related to formaldehyde exposure.

Methods

A study was carried out in Portugal, using 80 workers occupationally exposed to formaldehyde vapours: 30 workers from formaldehyde and formaldehyde-based resins production factory and 50 from 10 pathology and anatomy laboratories. A control group of 85 non-exposed subjects was considered. Exposure assessment was performed by applying simultaneously two techniques of air monitoring: NIOSH Method 2541 and Photo Ionization Detection equipment with simultaneously video recording. Evaluation of genotoxic effects was performed by application of micronucleus test in exfoliated epithelial cells from buccal mucosa and peripheral blood lymphocytes.

Results

Time-weighted average concentrations not exceeded the reference value (0.75 ppm) in the two occupational settings studied. Ceiling concentrations, on the other hand, were higher than reference value (0.3 ppm) in both. The frequency of micronucleus in peripheral blood lymphocytes and in epithelial cells was significantly higher in both exposed groups than in the control group (p < 0.001). Moreover, the frequency of micronucleus in peripheral blood lymphocytes was significantly higher in the laboratories group than in the factory workers (p < 0.05). A moderate positive correlation was found between duration of occupational exposure to formaldehyde (years of exposure) and micronucleus frequency in peripheral blood lymphocytes (r = 0.401; p < 0.001) and in epithelial cells (r = 0.209; p < 0.01).

Conclusions

The population studied is exposed to high peak concentrations of formaldehyde with a long-term exposure. These two aspects, cumulatively, can be the cause of the observed genotoxic endpoint effects. The association of these cytogenetic effects with formaldehyde exposure gives important information to risk assessment process and may also be used to assess health risks for exposed workers.

Background

Formaldehyde (CH2O), the most simple and reactive of all aldehydes, is a colorless, reactive and readily polymerizing gas at room temperature [1]. It has a pungent suffocating odor that is recognized by most human subjects at concentrations below 1 ppm [2].

According to the Report on Carcinogens, formaldehyde (FA) ranks 25th in the overall U.S. chemical production, with more than 5 million tons produced each year [3]. FA annual production rises up to 21 million tons worldwide and it has increased in China, for example, in the recent years, with 7,5 million tons produced in 2007. Given its economic importance and widespread use, many people are exposed to FA environmentally and/or occupationally [4]. According to the International Information System on Occupational Exposure to Carcinogens (CAREX), in the period between 1990 and 1993, 36,000 workers were occupationally exposed to FA in Portugal [5].

Occupational exposure involves not only workers in direct production of FA and products containing it, but also in industries utilizing these products, such as those related with construction and household [1]. The most extensive use of FA is in production of resins with urea, phenol and melamine, and also polyacetal resins. These products are used as adhesives in manufacture of particle-board, plywood, furniture and other wood products [2]. FA is also used in cosmetics composition and has an important application as a disinfectant and preservative, reason why relevant workplace exposure may also occur in pathology and anatomy laboratories and in mortuaries [1, 2, 6].

Human studies have shown that chronic exposure to FA by inhalation is associated with eye, nose and throat irritation [7]. Mostly important, several studies report a carcinogenic effect in humans after chronic exposure to FA, in particular an increased risk for nasopharyngeal cancer [812]. Since 2006, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies FA as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), based on sufficient evidence in humans and in experimental animals [2]. IARC also concluded that there is a "strong but not sufficient evidence for a causal association between leukemia and occupational exposure to formaldehyde".

With actual scientific evidence we can conclude that, regarding to risk estimation, local toxic effects at site of first contact seem to be the most relevant health effects [2, 7, 13].

Manifold in vitro studies clearly indicated that FA can induce genotoxic effects in proliferating cultured mammalian cells [2]. Furthermore, some in vivo studies detected changes in epithelial cells (oral and nasal) and in peripheral lymphocytes related to FA exposure [13, 14].

Frequency of micronucleus (MN) in buccal and/or nasal mucosa cells is being used to investigate local genotoxicity. According to reports concerning experimental genotoxicity studies, MN are the most sensitive genetic endpoints for detection of FA induced genotoxicity [15]. Thus, MN test with exfoliated cells could be a powerful tool for detection of local genotoxic effects in humans, which is fundamental for hazard identification and risk estimation [13].

MN in peripheral blood lymphocytes has been extensively used to evaluate the presence and extend of chromosome damage in human populations exposed to genotoxic agents. As advantages, this MN test provides a reliable measure of chromosomal breakage and loss at lower cost and more easily than chromosomal aberrations. Moreover, the availability of cytokinesis-block technique eliminates potential background caused by effects on cell division kinetics [16].

The goal of this study is to contribute to the investigation of genotoxic effects in workers occupationally exposed to FA.

Methods

Subjects

This study was carried out in Portugal, in 80 workers occupationally exposed to FA vapors: 30 workers from FA and FA-based resins production factory and 50 from 10 pathology and anatomy laboratories. A control group of 85 non-exposed subjects was considered. All subjects were provided with the protocol and with the consent form, which they read and signed.

Health conditions, medical history, medication and lifestyle factors for all studied individuals, as well as information related to working practices (such as years of employment) were obtained through a standard questionnaire.

Environmental Monitoring of FA exposure

Exposure assessment was performed by applying simultaneously two different methods.

In one of the methods, environmental samples were obtained by personal air sampling with low flow pumps during a typical working day. Sampling time was 6 to 8 hours. FA levels were measured by Gas Chromatography (GC) analysis and time-weighted average (TWA8 h) estimated according to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health method (NIOSH 2541) [17].

The other method was aimed to measure ceiling values of FA using Photo Ionization Detection (PID) equipment (11.7 eV lamps) with simultaneously video recording. Measures were performed in each task and instantaneous values for concentration were obtained on a per second basis. This method permits to establish a relation between worker activities and ceiling values and allows also determining the major emission sources [18].

Micronucleus Test

Evaluation of genotoxic effects was performed by application of MN test in exfoliated cells from buccal mucosa and peripheral blood lymphocytes. Heparinized venous blood and exfoliated cells (buccal mucosa cells) were collected between 10 a.m. and 12 p.m., from each subject, and were processed for each test. All samples were coded and analyzed under blind conditions. The criterion of scoring the MN in lymphocytes is described in "The Human Micronucleus Project" and the buccal cells is described by Tolbert et al. [19, 20].

Buccal mucosa micronucleus test

Endobrush was used to collect cells from the buccal mucosa. Exfoliated cells were smeared onto the slides and fixed with Mercofix®. The standard protocol used was Feulgen staining technique without counterstain. Two thousand cells were scored from each individual by four independent observers. Only cells containing intact nuclei that were not clumped or overlapped were included in the analysis.

Peripheral Lymphocyte micronucleus test

From each subject a blood specimen (10 mL) was collected using heparin as anticoagulant. The samples were kept refrigerated and processed within 6 hours of the blood collection. Lymphocytes were isolated using Ficoll-Paque gradient and placed in RPMI 1640 culture medium with L-glutamine and phenol red added with 10% inactivated fetal calf serum, 50 μg/mL streptomycin + 50 U/mL penicillin and 10 μg/mL phytohaemagglutinin. Duplicate cultures from each subject were incubated at 37°C in a humidified 5% CO2 incubator for 44 hours. Cytochalasin-b 6 μg/mL was added to cultures. After 28 hours of incubation, cells were spun onto microscope slides using a cytocentrifuge. Smears were air-dried and double stained with May-Grünwald-Giemsa and mounted with Entellan®.

A total of 1000 binucleated cells with well-preserved cytoplasm were examined for each donor. The frequencies of binucleated cells with MN were determined analyzing 1,000 binucleate lymphocytes from two slides for each subject.

Statistical Analysis

Differences between groups (exposed workers and controls) were analyzed with t-Student and Proportion tests, in order to evaluate if basic characteristics of these 2 groups could be considered equivalent [20].

Association between quantitative variables was tested using correlation coefficient tests (Pearson or Spearman according with their probability distributions). Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS for Windows statistical package, version 17.0, and significance level was defined as 5%, for all inference studies.

Results

Characteristics of the studied population

The characterization of the population studied is summarized in Table 1. Controls and exposed workers did not differ significantly in age and in smoking habits. Only for gender distribution a significant difference was found between the two groups (p = 0.002), due to the larger number of women in the control group.
Table 1

Characterization of the studied population

 

Control Group

Exposed Group

P value

Number of subjects

85

80

 

Gender

   

   Male

31 (36.6%)

48 (60.0%)

0.002

   Female

54 (63.5%)

32 (40.0%)

 

Age (years)

   

   Range

20-55

19-56

 

   Mean

33.87

35.74

0.180

   St. Deviation

8.262

9.470

0.024

Smoking status

   

   Non-smokers

59 (69.4%)

55 (68.8%)

0.927

   Smokers

26 (30.6%)

25 (31.3%)

 

Years of exposure

   

   Range

------

1 - 35

 

None of the individuals presented relevant information about health conditions, medical history, medication and lifestyle factors that could influence the results of MN test.

FA exposure levels

FA exposure levels obtained by two methods (NIOSH 2541 for average concentrations - TWA8 h and Photo Ionization Detection method for ceiling concentrations - C) are shown in Table 2.
Table 2

FA exposure in the two occupational settings

 

Factory

Laboratories

Exposure duration (Years)

  

   Range

1 - 27

1 - 33

   Mean

6.2

14.5

   St. Deviation

6.74

9.12

Working hours/day (h)

7

7

Number of Samples (TWA measures)

2

29

FA exposure level (TWA8 h) (ppm)

  

   Range

0.20 - 0.22

0.05 - 0.51

   Mean

0.21

0.28

FA ceiling concentration (ppm)

  

   Range

0.003 - 1.04

0.02 - 5.02

   Mean

0.52

2.52

Time-weighted average concentrations (TWA8 h) have not exceeded the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) reference value (0.75 ppm). On the other hand, ceiling concentrations were higher than American Conference of Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) reference value (0.3 ppm) in both occupational settings.

Mean FA ceiling levels are higher in pathology and anatomy laboratories than in resins factory. In this setting, 83 tasks were studied and highest exposure level was observed during macroscopic examination of FA-preserved specimens. Moreover, 93% of studied tasks obtained ceiling levels higher than reference value (0.3 ppm). Pathologists were the professional group exposed to the highest ceiling concentration values (Table 3).
Table 3

FA Ceiling values (ppm) according to places of work, tasks and exposed workers

Places of work

Tasks

Ceiling Values (ppm)

Exposed Workers

Factory Resins production

Sample collect (Reactors)

1.09

Reactor operators

Factory Impregnation

Machine operation

1.04

Impregnation machine operators

Factory Quality Laboratory

Quality control

0.52

Quality Technicians

Pathology and anatomy laboratories

Macroscopic examination

5.02

Pathologist

Pathology and anatomy laboratories

Disposal of specimen and used solutions

0.95

Technicians and Assistants

Pathology and anatomy laboratories

Jar filling

2.51

Assistants

Pathology and anatomy laboratories

Specimen wash

2.28

Technicians

Pathology and anatomy laboratories

Biopsy

1.91

Technicians

Exposure has been studied in normal conditions of operation, namely with ventilation dispositives connected and workers not using protective masks.

Micronucleus Test

The frequency of MN in occupationally exposed workers was significantly higher than in the control group, both in peripheral blood lymphocytes (p < 0.001) and in epithelial buccal cells (p < 0.001) (Table 4).
Table 4

Frequency of MN in the studied population

 

Controls

Exposed

  

Factory

Pathology and anatomy laboratories

Total

MN PBL 1

    

Mean ± Std. Dev

1.17 ± 1.95

1.76 ± 2.07

3.70 ± 3.86

2.97 ± 3.42

MN EBC2

    

Mean ± Std. Dev

0.13 ± 0.48

1.27 ± 1.55

0.64 ± 1.74

0.88 ± 1.69

1 peripheral blood lymphocytes (cytochalasin-B (binucleated) assay

2 epithelial buccal cells

When analyzing each occupational setting separately, we found significant differences in MN frequencies in peripheral blood lymphocytes (p < 0.001) and in epithelial buccal cells (p < 0.005) between the laboratories and control groups. Concerning the factory group, significant differences in MN frequencies were only detected in epithelial buccal cells (p < 0.001).

Finally, we compared MN frequencies between the two exposed groups and found that MN frequency in peripheral blood lymphocytes was significantly higher in the laboratories group (p < 0.005), but respecting to epithelial buccal cells there was no significant difference between them (p = 0.108).

There was no significant difference in the frequency of MN, both in epithelial cells and peripheral lymphocyte tested for smoking habits (p = 0.31; p = 0.99) and for gender (p = 0.13; p = 0.47).

Age was found to have a weak positive correlation (r = 0.194; p < 0.05) with MN frequency in peripheral blood lymphocytes and a week negative correlation (r=-0.168; p < 0.05) with MN frequency in epithelial cells. A moderate positive correlation was found between duration of occupational exposure to FA (years of exposure) and frequency of MN in peripheral blood lymphocytes (r = 0.401; p < 0.05) and in epithelial cells (r = 0.209; p < 0.05) (Table 5).
Table 5

Correlation analysis between genotoxic endpoints and age and years of exposure (Spearman's test)

Genotoxic endpoints

Age

Years of Exposure

 

r = 0.194

r = 0.401

MN PBL1

p = 0.013

p = 0.0

 

r = - 0.168

r = 0.209

MN EBC2

p = 0.031

p = 0.008

1 peripheral blood lymphocytes (cytochalasin-B (binucleated) assay)

2 epithelial buccal cells

There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in the frequency of MN in both peripheral blood lymphocytes and epithelial cells tested for smoking habits (p = 0.31; p = 0.99) and for gender (p = 0.13; p = 0.47).

Discussion

As indicated by several studies [6, 21, 22] exposure assessment in present investigation identified that both groups of workers (factory and laboratory) were exposed to high peak FA concentrations.

The importance of this consideration lies in the fact that health effects (cancer) linked to FA exposure are more related with peaks of high concentrations than with long time exposure at low levels [2, 23]. The choice of exposure metric should be based on the most biologically relevant exposure measure in order to diminish misclassification of exposure, thus leading to attenuated exposure-response relationships [24]. Moreover, exposures of short duration (peaks) are of special concern, because they produce an elevated dose rate at target tissues and organs, potentially altering metabolism, overloading protective and repair mechanisms and amplifying tissue responses [24, 25].

Considering this, Pyatt et al. (2008) pointed out, as a limitation in most epidemiological studies, the lack of data about exposure to peak concentrations. Therefore, in those studies, health effects resulting from occupational exposure to FA are associated to exposure exclusively based on time-weighted average concentrations [23]. The only two studies concerning the association between exposure to FA and nasopharyngeal cancer that presented data on exposure to ceiling concentrations obtained higher relative risk values compared with the other studies [1, 12, 26].

Moreover, other groups also suggested ceiling concentrations as the most important exposure metric, when attempting to define the relative risk of myeloid leukaemia in workers exposed to FA [1, 2729].

The present results obtained in the laboratories, evidence a difference between the two exposure metrics (0.28 ppm for TWA8 h and 2.52 ppm for ceiling level). These results are in good agreement with previous ones reported by Shaham et al.[30]. A difference of the same order of magnitude was described in 14 pathology laboratories (0.4 ppm for TWA and 2.24 ppm for ceiling level).

Each one of these results would lead to different conclusions about exposure assessment and, consequently, to a different risk assessment and, though, claim our attention for the importance of exposure metric selection. For FA occupational exposure, ceiling concentrations might be a better strategy to evaluate exposure and to develop risk assessment once very high exposures over short periods are missed by TWA8 h method and, in fact, they are important to know the real risk for health [23, 31]. Therefore, as in other investigations [33, 34], it is possible to conclude that when measuring only TWA8 h poor information is obtained, and the method is of less utility to identify processes that should be targeted for controls.

Results indicate macroscopic examination of anatomical specimens FA-preserved as the task involving exposure to the highest values. This occurs because precision and good visibility is required and as a consequence pathologists must lean over the specimen with consequent increase of proximity to FA emission sources. Studies developed by Goyer et al. and Orsière et al. support that proximity to impregnated specimens promotes higher exposure to FA [6, 22].

In factory, the task of collecting samples from resins reactor present the higher exposure, because the reactors are consider the units with larger emissions [6, 32]. Furthermore, the sampling process is still manual in the factory studied.

It is important to notice that the information about exposure determinants, emission sources and exposed workers was only possible because video recording could be performed. This resource gives the opportunity to directly relate performance with exposure [18, 35, 36].

FA genotoxicity is confirmed in a variety of experimental systems ranging from bacteria to rodents in vivo [37]. Although the findings from in vivo animal studies may provide a basis for extrapolation to humans, cytogenetic assays in humans have been conflicting, sometimes with contradictory outcomes [38]. Nevertheless, our results showed a significant increase in MN frequency in epithelial cells and in lymphocytes of exposed individuals compared with controls.

Biological evidence of toxicity on distant-site such as peripheral lymphocytes and bone marrow is still controversial [2, 39]. Some authors have argued that it is biologically implausible for FA to cause leukaemia as FA is unlikely to reach the bone marrow and cause toxicity. Due to its highly reactive nature and rapid metabolism, there is no evidence that it can damage stem and progenitor cells (the target cells for leukemogenesis). Also, there is no credible experimental animal model for FA-induced leukaemia [40, 41]. However, Zhang et al. hypothesize that FA may act on bone marrow directly or, alternatively, may cause leukaemia by damaging the hematopoietic stem or early progenitor cells that are located in the circulating blood or nasal passages, which would then travel to bone marrow and become leukemic stem cells [1, 29]. Nevertheless, our findings are consistent with other previous studies on epithelial cells and also on peripheral lymphocytes [4244]. Suruda et al. reported that low-level exposure to FA was associated with cytogenetic changes in buccal epithelial cells and in blood lymphocytes in mortician students [14]. Our results in blood lymphocytes can be an indication that cytogenetic effects can be found in tissues distant from the area of initial contact (nasopharyngeal) and even reach the bone marrow and cause toxicity, supporting the thesis of Zhang and colleagues [1, 29].

A significant positive correlation between MN frequency (both in peripheral blood lymphocytes and in epithelial buccal cells) and the duration of FA exposure (years of employment) was found (Table 4). This indicates that, together with peak contacts, exposure duration also has relevance for the development of health effects. Furthermore, in our study, long-term exposure to high levels of FA was noted particularly in pathology and anatomy laboratory workers (exposure duration mean of 14.5 years), fact that may at least contribute to explain the higher frequency of MN in peripheral blood lymphocytes in this group when compared to the factory group (Table 4). Regarding the influence of age, a positive correlation was found with MN frequency in peripheral blood lymphocytes (Table 5). MN frequencies tend to rise with age because of the progressive increase in spontaneous chromosome instability and the loss of efficiency in DNA repair mechanisms, which may result in accumulation of genetic lesions with increasing age [22, 45]. On the other hand, for MN frequency in epithelial buccal cells, a negative correlation was found (Table 5). This can possibly be explained by the fact that cells of buccal mucosa have a steady and rapid turnover, and therefore accumulation of genotoxic effects becomes difficult [13].

No significant differences were obtained in MN frequencies between women and men (both in peripheral blood lymphocytes and epithelial buccal cells). However, in other studies an increase in MN frequencies in women was found. Current knowledge on the effect of gender on genetic damage determines a 1.5-fold greater MN frequency in females than in males [19, 45], witch can be explained by preferential aneugenic events involving the X-chromossome. Surralés et al. reported an excessive overrepresentation of this chromosome in micronucleic lymphocytes cultured from women [46].

Tobacco smoke contains a high number of mutagenic and carcinogenic substances and is causally linked to an elevated incidence of several forms of cancers [47]. Hence, smoking is an important variable to consider in biomonitoring studies and, particularly in this study since FA is present in tobacco smoke [2]. The effect of tobacco smoking on MN frequency in human cells has been object of study. In most reports the results were unexpected, as in many instance smokers had lower frequencies of MN than non-smokers [22, 48]. In the present study no significant differences were found in MN (peripheral blood lymphocytes and epithelial buccal cells) between smokers and non-smokers. These findings are similar to results obtained in the study of Bonassi et al., [48]. These authors recommend that quantitative data about smoking habit should be collected because the sub-group of heavy smokers (≥30 cigarettes per day) can influence the results. For notice, the questionnaire results of this study revealed no heavy smokers in these workers groups.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the population studied is exposed to high ceiling concentrations (peaks) of FA with a long-term exposure. These two aspects, cumulatively, can be the cause for the increase in MN frequencies in lymphocytes and in epithelial buccal cells.

Results obtained suggest that preventive and protective measures must be applied in order to reduce occupational exposure to this chemical agent in these two occupational settings and, subsequently, to prevent adverse effects on workers health.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Portuguese Authority for Work Conditions (ACT: http://www.act.gov.pt/). Project reference: 075MNA/06.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Environmental Health Department, Escola Superior de Tecnologia da Saúde de Lisboa - Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa
(2)
Anatomy and Pathology Department, Escola Superior de Tecnologia da Saúde de Lisboa - Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa
(3)
CIESP - Centro de Investigação e Estudos em Saúde Pública (ENSP/UNL) ENSP - Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública - Universidade Nova de Lisboa
(4)
Biology Department, Escola Superior de Tecnologia da Saúde de Lisboa - Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa
(5)
Chemistry Department. Escola Superior de Tecnologia da Saúde de Lisboa - Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa. Lisbon. Portugal and REQUIMTE/CQFB, Faculty of Sciences and Technology, Universidade Nova de Lisboa and SINTOR-UNINOVA
(6)
Environmental and Occupational Health Department and CIESP - Centro de Investigação e Estudos em Saúde Pública (ENSP/UNL) ENSP - Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública, Universidade Nova de Lisboa

References

  1. Zhang L, Steinmaus C, Eastmond DA, Xin XK, Smith MT: Formaldehyde exposure and leukemia: A new meta-analysis and potential mechanisms. Mutat Res 2009, 681: 150–168. 10.1016/j.mrrev.2008.07.002View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. International Agency for Research on Cancer: Formaldehyde, 2-Butoxyethanol and 1-tert-Butoxypropan-2-ol. Lyon: IARC; 2006.Google Scholar
  3. National Toxicology Program (NTP):Formaldehyde (Gas) CAS no. 50–00–0, 2005: report on carcinogens. 11th edition. [Em linha] Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health; 2005. [http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s089form.pdf]Google Scholar
  4. Nazaroff W, Coleman BK, Destaillats H, Hodgson AT, Liu D, Lunden MM, Singer BC, Weschler CJ: Indoor air chemistry: cleaning agents, ozone and toxic air contaminants. Berkeley, CA: Air Resources Board, California Environmental Protection Agency; 2006.Google Scholar
  5. Kauppinen T, Toikkanen J, Pedersen D, Young R, Ahrens W, Boffetta P, Hansen J, Kromhout H, Maqueda Blasco J, Mirabelli D, de la Orden-Rivera V, Pannett B, Plato N, Savela A, Vincent R, Kogevinas M: Occupational exposure to carcinogens in the European Union. Occup Environ Med 2000, 57: 10–8. 10.1136/oem.57.1.10PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Goyer N, Beaudry C, Bégin D, Bouchard M, Buissonnet S, Carrier G, Gely O, Gérin M, Lavoué J, Lefebvre P, Noisel N, Perrault G, Roberge B: Impacts d'un abaissement de la valeur d'exposition admissible au formaldéhyde: industries de fabrication de formaldéhyde et de résines à base de formaldéhyde. Montréal: Institut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et en Sécurité du Travail; 2004.Google Scholar
  7. Herausgegeben von AS, Bernauer U, Madle S, Mielke H, Herbst U, Richter-Reichhelm HB, Appel KE, Gundert-Remy U: Assessment of the carcinogenicity of formaldehyde (CAS No. 50–00–00). Berlim: Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung; 2006.Google Scholar
  8. Armstrong RW, Imrey PB, Lye MS, Armstrong MJ, Yu MC, Sani S: Nasopharyngeal carcinoma in Malaysian Chinese: occupational exposures to particles, formaldehyde and heat. Int J Epidemiol 2000, 29: 991–998. 10.1093/ije/29.6.991View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Vaughan TL, Stewart PA, Teschke K, Lynch CF, Swanson GM, Lyon JL, Berwick M: Occupational exposure to formaldehyde and wood dust and nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Occup Environ Med 2000, 57: 376–384. 10.1136/oem.57.6.376PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hildesheim A, Dosemeci M, Chan CC, Chen CJ, Cheng YJ, Hsu MM, Chen IH, Mittl BF, Sun B, Levine PH, Chen JY, Brinton LA, Yang CS: Occupational exposure to wood, formaldehyde, and solvents and risk of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2001, 10: 1145–1153.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Coggon D, Harris EC, Poole J, Palmer KT: Extended follow-up of a cohort of British chemical workers exposed to formaldehyde. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003, 95: 1608–1615.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hauptmann M, Lubin JH, Stewart PA, Hayes RB, Blair A: Mortality from solid cancers among workers in formaldehyde industries. Am J Epidemiol 2004, 159: 1117–1130. 10.1093/aje/kwh174View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Speit G, Schmid O: Local genotoxic effects of formaldehyde in humans measured by the micronucleus test with exfoliated cells. Mutat Res 2006, 613: 1–9. 10.1016/j.mrrev.2006.02.002View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Suruda A, Schulte P, Boeniger M, Hayes RB, Livingston GK, Steenland K, Stewart P, Herrick R, Douthit D, Fingerhut MA: Cytogenetic effects of formaldehyde exposure in students of mortuary science. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1993, 2: 453–460.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Merk O, Speit G: Significance of formaldehyde-induced DNA-protein crosslinks for mutagenesis. Environ Mol Mutagen 1998, 32: 260–268. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2280(1998)32:3<260::AID-EM9>3.0.CO;2-MView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Bonassi S, Fenech M, Lando C, Lin YP, Ceppi M, Chang WP, Holland N, Kirsch-Volders M, Zeiger E, Ban S, Barale R, Bigatti MP, Bolognesi C, Jia C, Di Giorgio M, Ferguson LR, Fucic A, Lima OG, Hrelia P, Krishnaja AP, Lee TK, Migliore L, Mikhalevich L, Mirkova E, Mosesso P, Müller WU, Odagiri Y, Scarffi MR, Szabova E, Vorobtsova I, Vral A, Zijno A: Human MicroNucleus Project: international database comparison for results with the cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay in human lymphocytes: I. Effect of laboratory protocol, scoring criteria, and host factors on the frequency of micronuclei. Environ Mol Mutagen 2001, 37: 31–45. 10.1002/1098-2280(2001)37:1<31::AID-EM1004>3.0.CO;2-PView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) - Formaldehyde: method 2541. 4th edition. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH; 1994.Google Scholar
  18. Mcglothlin J, Xu F, Vosciky J: Occupational exposure assessment and control using video exposure monitoring in the pharmaceutical industry. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference IOHA 2005: 19–23 September South Africa 2005.Google Scholar
  19. Fenech M, Chang WP, Kirsch-Volders M, Holland N, Bonassi S, Zeiger E: HUman MicronNucleus project: HUMN project: detailed description of the scoring criteria for the cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay using isolated human lymphocyte cultures. Mutat Res 2003, 534: 65–75.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Dawson B, Trapp R: Basic and clinical biostatistics. MacGraw-Hill Medical; 1994.Google Scholar
  21. Shaham J, Bomstein Y, Gurvich R, Rashkovsky M, Kaufman Z: DNA-protein crosslinks and p53 protein expression in relation to occupational exposure to formaldehyde. Occup Environ Med 2003, 60: 403–409. 10.1136/oem.60.6.403PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Orsière T, Sari-Minodier I, Iarmarcovai G, Botta A: Genotoxic risk assessment of pathology and anatomy laboratory workers exposed to formaldehyde by use of personal air sampling and analysis of DNA damage in peripheral lymphociytes. Mutat Res 2006, 605: 30–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Pyatt D, Natelson E, Golden R: Is inhalation exposure to formaldehyde a biological plausible cause of lymphohematopoietic malignancies? Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2008, 51: 119–133. 10.1016/j.yrtph.2008.03.003View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Preller L, Burstyn I, De Pater N, Kromhout H: Characteristics of Peaks of Inhalation Exposure to Organic Solvents. Ann Occup Hyg 2004, 48: 643–652. 10.1093/annhyg/meh045View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith T: Studying peak exposure: toxicology and exposure statistics. Edited by: Marklund S. Stockholm: National Institute for Working Life; 2001:207–209. X2001 - Exposure assessment in epidemiology and practice.Google Scholar
  26. Pinkerton LE, Hein MJ, Stayner LT: Mortality among a cohort of garment workers exposed to formaldehyde: an update. Occup Environ Med 2004, 61: 193–200. 10.1136/oem.2003.007476PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Collins JJ, Lineker GA: A review and meta-analysis of formaldehyde exposure and leukemia. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2004, 40: 81–91. 10.1016/j.yrtph.2004.04.006View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Bosetti C, McLaughlin JK, Tarone RE, Pira E, La Vecchia C: Formaldehyde and cancer risk: a quantitative review of cohort studies through 2006. Ann Oncol 2008, 19: 29–43. 10.1093/annonc/mdm202View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Zhang L, Tang X, Rothman N: Occupational exposure to formaldehyde, hematotoxicity, and leukemia-specific chromosome changes in cultured myeloid progenitor cells. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 2010, 19: 80–88.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Shaham J, Gurvich R, Kaufman Z: Sister chromatid exchange in pathology staff occupationally exposed to formaldehyde. Mutation Research 2002, 514: 1–2. 115–123View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Poirot P, Subra I, Gérardin F, Baudin V, Grossmann S, Héry M: Determination of short-term exposure with a direct reading photoionization detector. Ann Occup Hyg 2004, 48: 75–84. 10.1093/annhyg/meg079View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. González Ferradás E: Formaldehido: toxicologia e impacto ambiental. Madrid: Editorial MAPFRE; 1986.Google Scholar
  33. Susi P, Schneider S: Database Needs for a Task-Based Exposure. Assessment Model for Construction. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 1995, 10: 394–399.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Kromhout H: Design of measurement strategies for workplace exposures. Occup Environ Med 2002, 59: 349–354. 10.1136/oem.59.5.349PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Ryan TJ, Burroughs GE, Taylor K, Kovein RJ: Video exposure assessments demonstrate excessive laboratory formaldehyde exposures. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 2003, 18: 450–457. 10.1080/10473220301424View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Rosén G, Andersson IM, Walsh PT, Clark RD, Säämänen A, Heinonen K, Riipinen H, Pääkkönen R: A review of video exposure monitoring as an occupational hygiene tool. Ann Occup Hyg 2005, 49: 201–217. 10.1093/annhyg/meh110View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Speit G, Schütz P, Högel J, Schmid O: Characterization of the genotoxic potencial of formaldehyde in V79 cells. Mutagenesis 22 2007, (6):387–394. 10.1093/mutage/gem031Google Scholar
  38. Pala M, Ugolini D, Ceppi M, Rizzo F, Maiorana L, Bolognesi C, Schilirò T, Gilli G, Bigatti P, Bono R, Vecchio D: Occupational exposure to formaldehyde and biological monitoring of Research Institute workers. Cancer Detection and Prevention 32 2008, 121–126. 10.1016/j.cdp.2008.05.003Google Scholar
  39. Heck H, Casanova M: The implausibility of leukemia induction by formaldehyde: a critical review of the biological evidence on distant-site toxicity. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2004, 40: 92–106. 10.1016/j.yrtph.2004.05.001View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Cole P, Axten C: Formaldehyde and leukemia: an improbable causal relationship. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2004, 40: 107–112. 10.1016/j.yrtph.2004.06.001View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Golden R, Pyatt D, Shields PG: Formaldehyde as a potential human leukemogen: an assessment of biological plausibility. Crit Rev Toxicol 2006, 36: 135–153. 10.1080/10408440500533208View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Titenko-Holland N, Levine AJ, Smith MT, Quintana PJ, Boeniger M, Hayes R, Suruda A, Schulte P: Quantification of epithelial cell micronuclei by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in mortuary science students exposed to formaldehyde. Mutat Res 1996, 371: 237–248. 10.1016/S0165-1218(96)90112-3View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Ying CJ, Yan WS, Zhao MY, Ye XL, Xie H, Yin SY, Zhu XS: Micronuclei in nasal mucosa, oral mucosa and lymphocytes in students exposed to formaldehyde vapor in anatomy class. Biomed Environ Sci 1997, 10: 451–455.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Burgaz S, Erdem O, Cakmak G, Erdem N, Karakaya A, Karakaya AE: Cytogenetic analysis of buccal cells from shoeworkers and pathology and anatomy laboratory workers exposed to n -hexane, toluene, methyl ethyl ketone and formaldehyde. Biomarkers 2002, 7: 151–161. 10.1080/13547500110113242View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Wojda A, Zietkiewicz E, Witt M: Effects of age and gender on micronucleus and chromosome nondisjunction frequencies in centenarians and younger subjects. Mutagenesis 2007, 22: 195–200. 10.1093/mutage/gem002View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Surrallés J, Falck G, Norppa H: In vivo cytogenetic damage revealed by FISH analysis of micronuclei in uncultured human T lymphocytes. Cytogenet Cell Genet 1996, 75: 151–154. 10.1159/000134467View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. International Agency for Research on Cancer: Tobacco Habits Other Than Smoking Betel-Quid and Areca-Nut Chewing and Some Related Nitrosamines. Lyon: IARC; 1985.Google Scholar
  48. Bonassi S, Neri M, Lando C, Ceppi M, Lin YP, Chang WP, Holland N, Kirsch-Volders M, Zeiger E, Fenech M, HUMN collaborative group: Effect of smoking habit on the frequency of micronuclei in human lymphocytes: results from the Human MicroNucleus project. Mutat Res 2003, 543: 155–166. 10.1016/S1383-5742(03)00013-9View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Tolbert PE, Shy CM, Allen JW: Micronuclei and other nuclear anomalies in buccal smears: a field test in snuff users. Am J Epidemiol 1991, 134: 840–850.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Viegas et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement