Item request has been placed!
×
Item request cannot be made.
×
![loading](/sites/all/modules/hf_eds/images/loading.gif)
Processing Request
Estimation of Source-Specific Occupational Benzene Exposure in a Population-Based Case–Control Study of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.
Item request has been placed!
×
Item request cannot be made.
×
![loading](/sites/all/modules/hf_eds/images/loading.gif)
Processing Request
- المؤلفون: Dopart, Pamela J1; Locke, Sarah J1; Cocco, Pierluigi2; Bassig, Bryan A1; Josse, Pabitra R1; Stewart, Patricia A3; Purdue, Mark P1; Lan, Qing1; Rothman, Nathaniel1; Friesen, Melissa C1
- المصدر:
Annals of Work Exposures & Health. Oct2019, Vol. 63 Issue 8, p842-855. 14p. 1 Diagram, 6 Charts.
- الموضوع:
- معلومة اضافية
- الموضوع:
- نبذة مختصرة :
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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
No Comments.