» Articles » PMID: 31823257

Assessment of the Health Risk Related to Exposure to Ultrafine, Fine, and Total Particulates and Metals in a Metal Finishing Plant

Overview
Publisher Springer
Date 2019 Dec 12
PMID 31823257
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The materials and byproducts of the processes used in the metal finishing industry are released as particle contaminants into the air in the workplace. The present study aimed to determine the concentrations and size distributions of these particles and of elements chromium, nickel, copper, manganese, cobalt, and lead (Cr, Ni, Cu, Mn, Co, and Pb, respectively) in a metal finishing industry and evaluate their potential health risks. Particles that are airborne from the dipping baths in the plant were sampled using a Sioutas cascade impactor at five different size fractions (PM, PM, PM, PM, PM) and gravimetric analyses were conducted on the sampled filters. The GF-AAS 600 graphite atomic absorption spectrophotometer (PerkinElmer Corporation, Waltham, MA, USA) was used to analyze the elements and the method of USEPA was used to assess the health risk. The ratio of fine particles (PM) to total suspended particles (TSPs) was 0.6. We observed that 50% of TSPs were composed of PM and that 68-88% of the metals were found in the fine particle fractions. Pb, Cr, and Mn were significantly positively correlated in the PM fraction, and the highest linear relationship was found between Pb and Cr (r = 0.85, p < 0.01). The total hazard quotient (HQ) for PM was 1.43, which is higher than the acceptable limit of 1.0. The excess lifetime cancer risk (ELCR) for hexavalent chromium (Cr[VI]) in PM was 6.09 × 10 for female workers and 6.54 × 10 for male workers, which are higher than the acceptable limit of 1.0 × 10, while total ELCRs for female and male workers were 6.21 × 10 and 6.21 × 10, respectively. The lifetime cancer risk associated with Cr(VI) in Cr electroplating plants should be taken into consideration as a significant health risk for the workers.

Citing Articles

Investigation of metal concentration distribution and corresponding health exposure assessment of fabricated metal product manufacturers.

Lan C, Ou L, Liu H, Peng C Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):13662.

PMID: 38871786 PMC: 11176342. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-64277-0.


Evaluation of airborne total suspended particulates and heavy metals in anodizing and electroplating surface treatment process.

Kim D, Jung S, Yoon C Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):22537.

PMID: 34795314 PMC: 8602259. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-01577-9.

References
1.
Wu F, Wu W, Kuo H, Liu C, Wang R, Lai J . Effect of genotoxic exposure to chromium among electroplating workers in Taiwan. Sci Total Environ. 2001; 279(1-3):21-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0048-9697(01)00685-4. View

2.
Tola S, Kilpio J, Virtamo M . Urinary and plasma concentrations of nickel as indicators of exposure to nickel in an electroplating shop. J Occup Med. 1979; 21(3):184-8. View

3.
Bright P, Burge P, OHickey S, Gannon P, Robertson A, Boran A . Occupational asthma due to chrome and nickel electroplating. Thorax. 1997; 52(1):28-32. PMC: 1758409. DOI: 10.1136/thx.52.1.28. View

4.
Zhang X, Zhang X, Wang X, Jin L, Yang Z, Jiang C . Chronic occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium causes DNA damage in electroplating workers. BMC Public Health. 2011; 11:224. PMC: 3094242. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-224. View

5.
Gordon T . Metalworking fluid--the toxicity of a complex mixture. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2003; 67(3):209-19. DOI: 10.1080/15287390490266864. View