Review of carcinogenicity of hexavalent chrome and proposal of revising approval standards for an occupational cancers in Korea
10.1186/s40557-018-0215-2
- Author:
Jungwon KIM
1
;
Sangyun SEO
;
Yangho KIM
;
Dae Hwan KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Kosin University College of Medicine, Busan, Republic of Korea. hedoc68@gmail.com.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Hexavalent chromium;
Occupational exposure;
Cancer;
Lung neoplasm
- MeSH:
Chromium;
Compensation and Redress;
International Agencies;
Korea;
Lung Neoplasms;
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (U.S.);
Nickel;
Occupational Diseases;
Occupational Exposure;
Paranasal Sinus Neoplasms;
Toxicology;
United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration;
World Health Organization
- From:Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
2018;30(1):7-
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to suggest revised recognition standards for occupational disease due to chromium (VI) by reflecting recent domestic and international research works and considering domestic exposure status with respect to target organs, exposure period, and cumulative exposure dose in relation to the chromium (VI)-induced occupational disease compensation. METHODS: In this study, the reports published by major international institutions such as World Health Organization (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (2012), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) (2006), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (2013), American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) (2004), National Toxicology Program (NTP) (2014), and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ASTDR) (2012) were reviewed and the recent research works searched by PubMed were summarized. RESULTS: Considering the recent research works and the domestic situation, only lung cancer is conserved in the legislative bill in relation to chromium (VI), and the exposure period is not included in the bill. Nasal and paranasal sinus cancer was excluded from the list of cancers that are compensated as the chromium (VI)- induced occupational disease, while lung cancer remains in the list. In the view of legislative unity, considering the fact that only the cancers having sufficient evidence are included in the conventional list of cancers compensated as occupational disease, nasal and paranasal sinus cancer having limited evidence were excluded from the list. The exposure period was also removed from the legislative bill due to the insufficient evidence. Recent advices in connection with cumulative exposure dose were proposed, and other considerable points were provided with respect to individual occupational relevance. CONCLUSIONS: It is suggested that the current recognition standard which is “Lung cancer or nasal and paranasal sinus cancer caused by exposure to chromium (VI) or compounds thereof (exposure for two years or longer), or nickel compounds” should be changed to “Lung cancer caused by exposure to chromium (VI) or compounds thereof, and lung cancer or nasal and paranasal sinus cancer caused by exposure to nickel compounds”.
