T Kraus1, P Schramel, K H Schaller, P Zöbelein, A Weber, J Angerer. 1. Institute and Outpatient Clinic for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine of the University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Schillerstrabetae 25 and 29, D-91054 Erlangen, Germany. thomas.p.kraus@rzmail.uni-erlangen.de
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the exposure to tungsten, cobalt, and nickel in a plant producing hard metals. The main components of hard metals are tungsten carbide and cobalt metal. According to recent studies, these two components may be responsible for both fibrogenic and carcinogenic effects. METHODS: 87 workers were investigated (86 male, one female) with a median age of 42 (range 22-58) and a mean duration of exposure of 13 years (range 1-27 years). Stationary and personal air sampling, and biological monitoring were carried out. RESULTS: Ambient monitoring yielded maximum tungsten concentrations of 417 microg/m3 in the production of heavy alloys. A maximum cobalt concentration of 343 microg/m3 and a maximum nickel concentration of 30 microg/m3 were found at the sintering workshop. The highest urinary cobalt concentrations were found in the powder processing department. The mean concentration was 28.5 microg/g creatinine and the maximum value was 228 microg/g creatinine. The maximum nickel concentration in urine of 6.3 microg/g creatinine was detected in the department producing heavy alloys. The highest tungsten concentrations excreted in urine were found in grinders and had a mean value of 94.4 microg/g creatinine and a maximum of 169 microg/g creatinine. Due to the different solubility and bioavailability of the substance, there was no correlation between the tungsten concentrations in air and urine on a group basis. CONCLUSIONS: Despite its low solubility, tungsten carbide is bioavailable. The different bioavailability of tungsten metal and tungsten compounds has to be considered in the interpretation of ambient and biological monitoring data in the hard metal producing industry. The bioavailability increases in the order: tungsten metal, tungsten carbide, tungstenate. Only if both monitoring strategies are considered in combination can a valid and effective definition of high risk groups be derived.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the exposure to tungsten, cobalt, and nickel in a plant producing hard metals. The main components of hard metals are tungsten carbide and cobalt metal. According to recent studies, these two components may be responsible for both fibrogenic and carcinogenic effects. METHODS: 87 workers were investigated (86 male, one female) with a median age of 42 (range 22-58) and a mean duration of exposure of 13 years (range 1-27 years). Stationary and personal air sampling, and biological monitoring were carried out. RESULTS: Ambient monitoring yielded maximum tungsten concentrations of 417 microg/m3 in the production of heavy alloys. A maximum cobalt concentration of 343 microg/m3 and a maximum nickel concentration of 30 microg/m3 were found at the sintering workshop. The highest urinary cobalt concentrations were found in the powder processing department. The mean concentration was 28.5 microg/g creatinine and the maximum value was 228 microg/g creatinine. The maximum nickel concentration in urine of 6.3 microg/g creatinine was detected in the department producing heavy alloys. The highest tungsten concentrations excreted in urine were found in grinders and had a mean value of 94.4 microg/g creatinine and a maximum of 169 microg/g creatinine. Due to the different solubility and bioavailability of the substance, there was no correlation between the tungsten concentrations in air and urine on a group basis. CONCLUSIONS: Despite its low solubility, tungsten carbide is bioavailable. The different bioavailability of tungsten metal and tungsten compounds has to be considered in the interpretation of ambient and biological monitoring data in the hard metal producing industry. The bioavailability increases in the order: tungsten metal, tungsten carbide, tungstenate. Only if both monitoring strategies are considered in combination can a valid and effective definition of high risk groups be derived.
Authors: J J Moulin; P Wild; S Romazini; G Lasfargues; A Peltier; C Bozec; P Deguerry; F Pellet; A Perdrix Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 1998-08-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: G Lasfargues; P Wild; J J Moulin; B Hammon; B Rosmorduc; C Rondeau du Noyer; M Lavandier; J Moline Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 1994-11 Impact factor: 2.214
Authors: João Paulo B Ximenez; Ariane Zamarioli; Melissa A Kacena; Rommel Melgaço Barbosa; Fernando Barbosa Journal: Biol Trace Elem Res Date: 2020-04-30 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: Kara Miller; Charlotte M McVeigh; Edward B Barr; Guy W Herbert; Quiteria Jacquez; Russell Hunter; Sebastian Medina; Selita N Lucas; Abdul-Mehdi S Ali; Matthew J Campen; Alicia M Bolt Journal: Toxicol Sci Date: 2021-11-24 Impact factor: 4.109
Authors: Giuseppe De Palma; Paola Manini; Michela Sarnico; Stefania Molinari; Pietro Apostoli Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2009-06-03 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Horst Christoph Broding; Bernhard Michalke; Thomas Göen; Hans Drexler Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2008-11-26 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Andrea L Armstead; Valerie C Minarchick; Dale W Porter; Timothy R Nurkiewicz; Bingyun Li Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Matteo Goldoni; Simona Catalani; Giuseppe De Palma; Paola Manini; Olga Acampa; Massimo Corradi; Roberto Bergonzi; Pietro Apostoli; Antonio Mutti Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 9.031