AIM: The aim of this study was to verify the presence of a relationship between formaldehyde exposure in the work environment with biological markers of exposure and of effect. METHODS: Exposure to formaldehyde (FA) of 36 workers in different laboratories of a Cancer Research Institute and biomarkers of exposure, such as formaldehyde human serum albumin conjugate (FA-HSA) and biomarkers of effect, such as chromosome aberration (CA), micronuclei (MN) and sister chromatid exchanges (SCEs) were measured in peripheral blood lymphocytes of the same workers. RESULTS: Individual FA levels of exposure ranged from 4.9 microg/m(3) to 268.7 microg/m(3). Subjects with high FA exposure showed a significant increase of the biomarker of exposure FA-HSA, but biomarkers of effect did not show any significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: A significant relationship was observed between occupational exposure to FA and a biological marker of exposure (FA-HSA). The markers of effect used (CA, MN and SCE) failed to indicate the presence of genetic damage.
AIM: The aim of this study was to verify the presence of a relationship between formaldehyde exposure in the work environment with biological markers of exposure and of effect. METHODS: Exposure to formaldehyde (FA) of 36 workers in different laboratories of a Cancer Research Institute and biomarkers of exposure, such as formaldehydehuman serum albumin conjugate (FA-HSA) and biomarkers of effect, such as chromosome aberration (CA), micronuclei (MN) and sister chromatid exchanges (SCEs) were measured in peripheral blood lymphocytes of the same workers. RESULTS: Individual FA levels of exposure ranged from 4.9 microg/m(3) to 268.7 microg/m(3). Subjects with high FA exposure showed a significant increase of the biomarker of exposure FA-HSA, but biomarkers of effect did not show any significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: A significant relationship was observed between occupational exposure to FA and a biological marker of exposure (FA-HSA). The markers of effect used (CA, MN and SCE) failed to indicate the presence of genetic damage.
Authors: Lorenz R Rhomberg; Lisa A Bailey; Julie E Goodman; Ali K Hamade; David Mayfield Journal: Crit Rev Toxicol Date: 2011-06-02 Impact factor: 5.635
Authors: Luca G Regazzoni; Hasmik Grigoryan; Zhiying Ji; Xi Chen; Sarah I Daniels; Deyin Huang; Sylvia Sanchez; Naijun Tang; Fenna C M Sillé; Anthony T Iavarone; Evan R Williams; Luoping Zhang; Stephen M Rappaport Journal: Toxicol Lett Date: 2017-01-16 Impact factor: 4.372
Authors: Min Yang; Maria Ospina; Chui Tse; Stephen Toth; Samuel P Caudill; Hubert W Vesper Journal: Chem Res Toxicol Date: 2017-07-17 Impact factor: 3.739