Assessment of the inhalation risks associated with working in printing rooms: a study on the staff of eight printing rooms in Beijing, China

Research Article

Abstract

The concentration of pollution directly determines the occupational health risk, and the exposure time is an important influencing factor. We evaluated the inhalation risks of working in a printing room. Eight units with centralized printing rooms were randomly selected. Formaldehyde, ozone, benzene, toluene, xylene, and fine particulate matter were detected by spectrophotometry, gas chromatography, and direct reading instruments, respectively. The U.S. EPA inhalation risk assessment model was used to assess cancer and non-cancer risks. The formaldehyde inhalation cancer risk value was 1.35–3.45 × 10−6, which is greater than the limit of 1 × 10−6, suggesting a risk of squamous cell carcinoma. The benzene inhalation cancer risk in five of the rooms was 1.09–4.65 × 10−6, which is greater than the limit of 1 × 10−6, suggesting a risk of leukemia. In terms of non-cancer risk, in five of the rooms, the hazard quotient (HQ) was > 1 (range 1.99–4.69) due to benzene pollution, suggesting a risk of reduced lymphocyte count. In one room, due to benzene and xylene pollution, the HQ was > 1, suggesting a risk of lymphocyte count drop and motor coordination impairment. Collectively, the study concludes that staff members of printing rooms are exposed to both cancer and non-cancer occupational health risks.

Keywords

EPA inhalation risk assessment model Printing room Occupational health Risk assessment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all the technicians at the laboratory of the Institute of Disease Control and Prevention of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army for their contribution during sample test.

Author contributions

Zhengquan Yuan, Chao Liu, and Qiang Wang designed the study. Mingxing Su, Rubao Sun, and Qiang Wang performed the experiments. Xun Zhang, Shen Wang, and Ping Zhang provided the materials and helped analyze the results. Mingxing Su discussed, drafted, and wrote the paper.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

11356_2018_1802_MOESM1_ESM.docx (63 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 62 kb)

References

  1. Bello D, Martin J, Santeufemio C, Sun Q, Lee Bunker K, Shafer M, Demokritou P (2013) Physicochemical and morphological characterisation of nanoparticles from photocopiers: implications for environmental health. Nanotoxicology 7:989–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Betha R, Selvam V, Blake DR, Balasubramanian R (2011) Emission characteristics of ultrafine particles and volatile organic compounds in a commercial printing center. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 61:1093–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Grana M, Vicentini L, Pietroiusti A, Magrini A (2015) Ultrafine particle emissions from laser printers. Giornale italiano di medicina del lavoro ed ergonomia 37:135–143Google Scholar
  4. Grgić I, Bratec J, Bešter RM (2016) Indoor nanoparticles measurements in workplace environment: the case of printing and photocopy center. Acta Chim Slov 63:327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. He C, Morawska L, Taplin L (2007) Particle emission characteristics of office printers. Environ Sci Technol 41:6039–6045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ICMM (2009) Good practice guidance on occupational health risk assessment. International Council on Mining & Metals. http://www.icmm.com/gpg-occupational-health
  7. Jaakkola MS, Yang L, Ieromnimon A, Jaakkola JJK (2007) Office work, SBS and respiratory and sick building syndrome symptoms. Occup Environ Med 64:178–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Khatri M, Bello D, Gaines P, Martin J, Pal AK, Gore R, Woskie S (2013) Nanoparticles from photocopiers induce oxidative stress and upper respiratory tract inflammation in healthy volunteers. Nanotoxicology 7:1014–1027.  https://doi.org/10.3109/17435390.2012.691998 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Martin J, Demokritou P, Woskie S, Bello D (2017) Indoor air quality in photocopy centers, nanoparticle exposures at photocopy workstations, and the need for exposure controls annals of work exposures and health 61:110–122 doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/annweh/wxw016
  10. NHFPC (2015) Statistical bulletin on health and family planning development in China in 2015. Planning and Information Department of the national health and Family Planning Commission. http://www.nhfpc.gov.cn. Accessed 2016.07.20
  11. Pirela SV, Pyrgiotakis G, Bello D, Thomas T, Castranova V, Demokritou P (2014) Development and characterization of an exposure platform suitable for physico-chemical, morphological and toxicological characterization of printer-emitted particles (PEPs). Inhal Toxicol 26:400–408.  https://doi.org/10.3109/08958378.2014.908987 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pirela SV, Martin J, Bello D, Demokritou P (2017) Nanoparticle exposures from nano-enabled toner-based printing equipment and human health: state of science and future research needs. Crit Rev Toxicol 47:678–704.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2017.1318354 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Quang TN, He C, Morawska L, Knibbs LD (2013) Influence of ventilation and filtration on indoor particle concentrations in urban office buildings. Atmos Environ 79:41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schmid S, Jecklin MC, Zenobi R (2010) Degradation of volatile organic compounds in a non-thermal plasma air purifier. Chemosphere 79:124–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Stefaniak AB, Breysse PN, Murray MP, Rooney BC, Schaefer J (2000) An evaluation of employee exposure to volatile organic compounds in three photocopy centers. Environ Res 83:162–173.  https://doi.org/10.1006/enrs.2000.4061 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tang T, Hurrass J, Gminski R, Mersch-Sundermann V (2012) Fine and ultrafine particles emitted from laser printers as indoor air contaminants in German offices. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 19:3840–3849.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-011-0647-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. U.S. EPA (2009) Risk assessment guidance for superfund volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part F, Supplemental Guidance for Inhalation Risk Assessment). https://www.epa.gov/risk/risk-assessment-guidance-superfund-rags-part-f
  18. U.S. EPA (2017) Methods for derivation of inhalation reference concentrations and application of inhalation dosimetry. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=71993
  19. U.S. EPA, Ord, Ncea, Irisd (1999) Integrated Risk Information System United States Environmental Protection Agency—EPAGoogle Scholar
  20. Wang H, He C, Morawska L, McGarry P, Johnson G (2012) Ozone-initiated particle formation, particle aging, and precursors in a laser printer. Environ Sci Technol 46:704–712.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es203066k CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wensing M, Schripp T, Uhde E, Salthammer T (2008) Ultra-fine particles release from hardcopy devices: sources, real-room measurements and efficiency of filter accessories. Sci Total Environ 407:418–427.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.08.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Academy of Military Medical Science, Academy of Military ScienceBeijingChina
  2. 2.Institute of Disease Control and Prevention of the Chinese People’s Liberation ArmyBeijingChina
  3. 3.Institute of Pharmacology and ToxicologyAcademy of Military Medical SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations