Estimation of formaldehyde occupational exposure limit based on genetic damage in some Iranian exposed workers using benchmark dose method
- 160 Downloads
The present study evaluated an occupational exposure level for formaldehyde employing benchmark dose (BMD) approach. Dose–response relationship was determined by utilizing cumulative occupational exposure dose and DNA damage. Based on this goal, outcome of comet assay for some Iranian exposed people in occupational exposure individuals was used. In order to assess formaldehyde exposure, 53 occupationally exposed individuals selected from four melamine tableware workshops and 34 unexposed subjects as a control group were examined. The occupational exposure dose was carried out according to the NIOSH-3500 method, and the DNA damage was obtained by employing comet assay in peripheral blood cells. EPA Benchmark Dose Software was employed for calculating BMD and BMDL. Cumulative exposure dose of formaldehyde was between of 2.4 and 1972 mg. According to the findings of the current study, the induction of DNA damage in the exposed persons was increased tail length and tail moment (p < 0.001), when compared to controls. Finally, an acceptable dose–response relationship was obtained in three-category information between formaldehyde cumulative exposure doses and genetic toxicity. BMDL was 0.034 mg/m3 (0.028 ppm), corresponding to genetic damage of peripheral blood cells. It can be concluded that the occupational permissible limit in Iranian people could be at levels lower than OSHA standards.
KeywordsFormaldehyde DNA damages Benchmark dose Occupational exposure limit Comet assay
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences.
- American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist (ACGIH) (2012) Threshold limit values for chemical substances and physical agents and biological exposure indices. ACGIH, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) (2006) The MAK-collection for occupational health and safety: MAK value documentations. Vol. 22. Wiley-VCH, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) (2016) List of MAK and BAT values 2016 Maximum Concentrations and Biological Tolerance Values at the Workplace. Wiley-VCH, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
- Ding W, Bishop ME, Lyn-Cook LE, Davis KJ, Manjanatha MG (2016) In vivo alkaline comet assay and enzyme-modified alkaline comet assay for measuring DNA strand breaks and oxidative DNA damage in rat liver. J Vis Exp 111:e53833Google Scholar
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2012) Benchmark dose technical guidance. Risk assessment forum. US EPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (2012) Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, Chapter R8. ECHA, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
- European Commission (EC) (2006) SCOEL/REC/125 Formaldehyde: Recommendation from the Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits for Formaldehyde. European Commission, Social Affairs & Equal Opportunties, Luxembourg CityGoogle Scholar
- International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (2006) Formaldehyde, 2-butoxyethanol and 1-tertbutoxypropan-2-ol. In: IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, vol 88. IARC, LyonGoogle Scholar
- International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (2012) Chemical Agents and Related Occupations A Review of Human Carcinogens. In: IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, vol 100 F. IARC, LyonGoogle Scholar
- International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) (2009) Principles for modelling dose-response for the risk assessment of chemicals vol 239. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- Kaden D, Mandin C, Nielsen G, Wolkoff PE (2010) WHO guidelines for indoor air quality: selected pollutants. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- Lin D, Guo Y, Yi J, Kuang D, Li X, Deng H, Huang K, Guan L, He Y, Zhang X, Hu D, Zhang Z, Zheng H, Zhang X, McHale CM, Zhang L, Wu T (2013) Occupational exposure to formaldehyde and genetic damage in the peripheral blood lymphocytes of plywood workers. J Occup Health 55:284–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Musak L, Smerhovsky Z, Halasova E, Osina O, Letkova L, Vodickova L, Polakova V, Buchancova J, Hemminki K, Vodicka P (2013) Chromosomal damage among medical staff occupationally exposed to volatile anesthetics, antineoplastic drugs, and formaldehyde. Scand J Work Environ Health 39:618–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (2007) NIOSH pocket guide to Chemical Hazards & Other Databases[CD-ROM]. CDC, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
- National Research Council (NRC) (2014) Review of the formaldehyde profile in the National Toxicology Program 12th report on carcinogens. The National Academies Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- National Toxicology Program (NTP) (2010) Final report on carcinogens backgrouend document for formaldehyde U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Research Triangle ParkGoogle Scholar
- Occupational Health and Safty Administration (OSHA) (2012) Occupational safety and health standards. Toxic and hazardous substances: formaldehyde. 29CFR1910.1048. OSHA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Peteffi GP et al (2015) Evaluation of genotoxicity in workers exposed to low levels of formaldehyde in a furniture manufacturing facility. Toxicol Ind Health 074823371:5584250Google Scholar
- Pu X, Wang Z, Klaunig JE (2015) Alkaline Comet Assay for assessing DNA damage in individual cells. Curr Protoc Toxicol 3.12:11–13.12 11Google Scholar
- Shahidi M, Mozdarani H, Mueller W-U (2010) Radiosensitivity and repair kinetics of gamma-irradiated leukocytes from sporadic prostate cancer patients and healthy individuals assessed by alkaline comet assay. Iran Biomed J 14(67)Google Scholar