Advertisement

Varied exposure to carcinogenic, mutagenic, and reprotoxic (CMR) chemicals in occupational settings in France

  • Nathalie HavetEmail author
  • Alexis Penot
  • Magali Morelle
  • Lionel Perrier
  • Barbara Charbotel
  • Béatrice Fervers
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To explore varied exposure to carcinogenic, mutagenic, and reprotoxic chemicals (CMR) for French employees.

Methods

Our study assessed data from the French national cross-sectional survey of occupational risks (SUMER) that was conducted in 2010 in a national representative sample of employees. We selected 28 CMR agents that were classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer or European Union as being known or presumed to have CMR potential in humans. The association of individual and job characteristics with exposure prevalence, duration, and intensity of the CMR agents during a 1-week period was examined using multilevel logistic regression analysis.

Results

Overall, 10.4% of employees in 2010 were exposed to one or more CMR agents at their workplace, and 3.4% were subjected to multiple CMR exposures. Blue-collar workers, night-shift workers and workers with short-term employment contracts experienced higher exposure prevalence (p < 0.01) and intensity (p < 0.05). Blue-collar workers and shift workers experienced also longer exposure duration (p < 0.001). Conversely, managers, workers of large companies, and women were less exposed to CMR agents (p < 0.001). The presence of a Committee for Health, Safety, and Working Conditions, and intervention by Occupational Health and Safety officers were significantly associated with reduced exposure intensities (p < 0.001 and p < 0.05). Establishment of European CMR regulations and the existence of an applicable substitution principle reduced the exposure duration (p < 0.001) and intensity (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Our results point out disparities in CMR exposure and identify high-priority targets for prevention measures to help reducing social health discrepancies.

Keywords

Occupational exposure Health inequalities Carcinogenic Mutagenic Reprotoxic chemicals 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Sophie Domingues for her editing job on the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None.

Funding

This study was funded by the French Directorate of Research, Studies and Statistics Coordination (Direction de l’animation de la recherche, des études et des statistiques - DARES) of the French Ministry of Labor, in the framework of the call for “Risques du travail: autour de SUMER 2010” project.

References

  1. Borghans L, Golsteyn B, Heckman J, Meijers H (2009) Gender differences in risk aversion and ambiguity aversion. J Eur Econ Assoc 7:649–659. doi: 10.3386/w14713 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carey RN, Driscoll TR, Peters S et al (2014) Estimated prevalence of exposure to occupational carcinogens in Australia (2011–2012). Occup Environ Med 71:55–62. doi: 10.1136/oemed-2013-101651 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cavet M, Léonard M (2013) Les expositions aux produits chimiques cancérogènes en 2010, DARES Analyses 54. Ministère du Travail, de l’Emploi, de la Formation professionnelle et du Dialogue social; Paris, French. http://travail-emploi.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/2013-054-2.pdf. Accessed 14 Oct 2016
  4. Certin J, Fayol M, Fauquet A et al (2007) Résultats de la campagne de contrôle 2006 sur l’utilisation des agents cancérogènes, mutagènes et toxiques pour la reproduction dans l’industrie, Hygiène et sécurité au travail N°207, INRS; p77–84. French http://www.inrs.fr/dms/inrs/CataloguePapier/ND/TI-PR-27/pr27.pdf. Accessed 14 Oct 2016
  5. Douglas M (1992) Risk and blame. Essays in cultural theory. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duclos D (1987) La construction sociale du risque: le cas des ouvriers de la chimie face aux dangers industriels. Rev Fr Soc 28:17–42. (French) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Douglas M, Wildavski A (1983) Risk and culture. University of California, Press BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  8. Eng A, ‘t Mannetje A, McLean D et al (2011) Gender differences in occupational exposure patterns. Occup Environ Med 68:888–894. doi: 10.1136/oem.2010.064097 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eurogip (2009) Occupational risk prevention in SMEs in Europe. Thematic report. Paris; Sept 24. http://www.eurogip.fr/en/projects/publications-d-eurogip/161-occupational-risk-prevention-in-smes-in-europe. Accessed 14 Oct 2016
  10. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (2012) Workshop on Carcinogens and Work-Related Cancer; Sept. 3–4; Berlin, Germany https://osha.europa.eu/en/tools-and-publications/seminars/workshop-on-carcinogens-and-work-related-cancer Accessed 14 Oct 2016
  11. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (2014) Exposure to carcinogens and work-related cancer: A review of assessment methods. European risk observatory report https://osha.europa.eu/fr/tools-and-publications/publications/reports/report-soar-work-related-cancer. Accessed 14 Oct 2016.
  12. Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J et al (2013) Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer 49:1374–1403. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.12.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fleischer NL, Diez Roux AV, Hubbard AE (2012) Inequalities in body mass index and smoking behavior in 70 countries: evidence for a social transition in chronic disease risk. Am J Epidemiol 175:167–176. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwr314 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fort E, Ndagire S, Gadegbeku B, Hours M, Charbotel B (2016) Working conditions and occupational risk exposure in employees driving for work. Accid Anal Prev 89:118–127. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2016.01.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. François M (1991) Le travail temporaire en milieu industriel: incidences sur les conditions de travail et la santé des travailleurs. Le Trav Hum 54:21–4 (French) Google Scholar
  16. Gan Y, Yang C, Tong X et al (2015) Shift work and diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Occup Environ Med 72:72–78. doi: 10.1136/oemed-2014-102150 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guida F, Papadopoulos A, Menivielle G et al (2011) Risk of lung cancer and occupational history: results of a french population-based case-control study, the ICARE study. J Occup Environ Med 53:1068–1077. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0b013e318229ab2e CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guignon N, Sandret N (2005) Les expositions aux produits cancérogènes, mutagènes et reprotoxiques, Documents pour le Médecin du Travail Etudes et enquêtes N° 104 INRS, p 471–83, French http://www.inrs.fr/media.html?refINRS=TF%20144. Accessed 14 Oct. 2016.
  19. Halmon-Cholet S (2000) Moins qualifiés, plus exposés. Santé-Travail n°33 Oct. (French) Google Scholar
  20. Harding A, Darnton A (2010) Asbestosis and mesothelioma among British asbestos workers (1971–2005). Am J Ind Med 53:1070–1080. doi: 10.1002/ajim.20844 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Héran-Le Roy O, Niedhammer I, Sandre N, Leclerc A (1999) Manual materials handling and related occupational hazards; a national survey in France. Int J Ind Ergonom 24:365–377. doi: 10.1016/S0169-8141(99)00004-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hildesheim A, Dosemeci M, Chan C et al (2001) Occupational exposure to wood, formaldehyde, and solvents and risk of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer Epidemiol, Biomarkers Prev 10:1145–1153. doi: 10.1136/oem.57.6.376 Google Scholar
  23. Kauppinen T, Uuksulainen S, Saalo A, Mäkinen I (2013) Trends in occupational exposure to chemical agents in Finland in 1950–2020. Ann Occup Hyg 57:593–609. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/mes090 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kogevinas, M, Pearce, N, Susser, M, Boffetta, P (1997) Social inequalities and cancer eds IARC scientific publications no. 138, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon. https://www.iarc.fr/en/publications/pdfs-online/epi/sp138/SP138.pdf. Accessed 14 Oct 2016.
  25. Kreuzer M, Pohlabeln H, Ahrens W et al (1999) Occupational risk factors for lung cancer among young men. Scand J Work Environ Health 25:422–429. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.455 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kromhout H, Loomis D (1996) The influence of seniority on occupational exposures to magnetic fields. Am J Ind Med 29:570. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(199605)29:5<570::AID-AJIM19>3.0.CO;2-Y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lacourt A, Leffondré K, Gramond C et al (2012) Temporal patterns of occupational asbestos exposure and risk of pleural mesothelioma. Eur Respir J 39:1304–1312. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00005111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lesuffleur T, Chastang JF, Sandret N, Niedhammer I (2014) Psychosocial factors at work and sickness absence: results from the French National SUMER Survey. Am J Ind Med 57:695–708. doi: 10.1002/ajim.22317 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Niedhammer I, Chastang JF, David S et al (2008) The contribution of occupational factors to social inequalities in health: findings from the national French SUMER survey. Soc Sci Med 67:1870–1881. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.09.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Niedhammer I, Lesuffleur T, Algava E, Chastang JF (2015) Classic and emergent psychosocial work factors and mental health. Occup Med 65:126–134. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqu173 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Niedhammer I, Lesuffleur T, Coutrot T, Chastang JF (2016) Contribution of working conditions to occupational inequalities in depressive symptoms: results from the national French SUMER survey. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 89:1025–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oakes W, Chapman S, Borland R et al (2004) “Bulletproof skeptics in life’s jungle”: with self-exempting beliefs about smoking most predict lack of progression towards quitting? Prev Med 39:776–782. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pepłońska B, Burdelak W, Bukowska A, Krysicka J, Konieczko K (2013) Night shift work characteristics and occupational co-exposures in industrial plants in Łódź, Poland. Int J Occup Med Environ Health 26:522–534. doi: 10.2478/s13382-013-0126-y Google Scholar
  34. Peretti-Watel P, Constance J, Guilbert P et al (2007) Smoking too few cigarettes to be at risk? Smokers’ perceptions of risk and risk denial, a French Survey. Tob Control 16:351–356. doi: 10.1136/tc.2007.020362 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peters CE, Ge CB, Hall AL, Davies HW, Demers PA (2015) CAREX Canada: an enhanced model for assessing occupational carcinogen exposure. Occup Environ Med 72:64–71. doi: 10.1136/oemed-2014-102286 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A (2008) Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata. Stata Press, College Station TexasGoogle Scholar
  37. Rushton L, Hutchings S, Brown T (2008) The burden of cancer at work: estimation as the first step to prevention. Occup Environ Med 65:789–800. doi: 10.1136/oem.2007.037002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sedar B, Tornero-Velez R, Echeverria D et al (2006) Predictors of occupational exposure to styrene and styrene-7,8-oxide in the reinforced plastics industry. Occup Environ Med 63:707–712. doi: 10.1136/oem.2005.025205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Soudry C (2012) Le comité d’hygiène, de sécurité et des conditions de travail, INRS; Fiche technique ED 896. http://www.inrs.fr/dms/inrs/CataloguePapier/ED/TI-ED-896/ed896.pdf, Accessed 14 Oct. 2016. (French)
  40. Stevens RG, Hansen J, Costa G et al (2011) Considerations of circadian impact for defining ‘shift work’ in cancer studies: IARC Working Group Report. Occup Environ Med 68:154–162. doi: 10.1136/oem.2009.053512 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thind K, Karmali S, House R (1991) Occupational exposure of electrical utility linemen to pentachlorophenol. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 52:547–552. doi: 10.1080/15298669191365180 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Toch-Marquardt M, Menvielle G, Eikemo T et al (2014) Occupational class inequalities in all-cause and cause specific mortality among middle-aged men in 14 European populations during the early 2000s. PLoS One 9:e108072. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0108072 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vermeulen R, Hartog JD, Swuste P et al (2000) Trends in exposure to inhalable particulate and dermal contamination in rubber manufacturing industry: effectiveness of control measures implemented over a nine year period. Ann Occup Hyg 44(:):343–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vyas MV, Garg AX, Iansavichus AV et al (2012) Shift work and vascular events: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 26(345):e4800. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e4800 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wong R, Chen P, Du C et al (2002) An increased standardized mortality ratio for liver cancer among polyvinyl chloride workers in Taiwan. Occup Environ Med 59:405–409. doi: 10.1136/oem.59.6.405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nathalie Havet
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alexis Penot
    • 2
  • Magali Morelle
    • 3
  • Lionel Perrier
    • 3
  • Barbara Charbotel
    • 4
  • Béatrice Fervers
    • 5
  1. 1.Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, ISFA, Laboratoire SAFUniversité de LyonLyonFrance
  2. 2.ENS Lyon, GATE-UMR 5824-CNRSUniversité de LyonLyon Cedex 7France
  3. 3.Cancer Centre Léon Bérard, Direction de la Recherche Clinique et de l’innovation, GATE - UMR 5824-CNRSUniversité de LyonLyon Cedex 08France
  4. 4.Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, IFSTTAR, UMRESTTE, Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud Service des maladies professionnelles, Hospices Civils de LyonUniversité de LyonLyon Cedex 08France
  5. 5.Department Cancer and EnvironmentUniversité de Lyon, Centre Léon BérardLyon Cedex 08France

Personalised recommendations