Comparative assessment of carcinogenic risk of respiratory exposure to 1,3-Butadiene in a petrochemical industry by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and Singapore Health Department methods

• Main Authors: Mohsen Sadeghi Yarandi, Farideh Golbabaei, Ali Karimi, Ali Asghar Sajedian, Vahid Ahmadi
• Format: Article
• Language: fas
• Published: Tehran University of Medical Sciences 2020-08-01
• Series: بهداشت و ایمنی کار
• Subjects: 1; 3-butadiene; carcinogenic risk; us environmental protection agency method; singapore health department method
• Online Access: http://jhsw.tums.ac.ir/article-1-6371-en.html

Introduction: 1,3-Butadiene is a carcinogenic compound that can be emitted to the atmosphere from several sources like petrochemical industry. One way to determine the level of carcinogenic and health effects of respiratory exposure to pollutants in the workplace is to use risk assessment methods. The aim of this study was to comparative assessment of carcinogenic risk of respiratory exposure to 1,3-Butadiene in a petrochemical industry by the US Environmental Protection Agency and Singapore Health Department methods. Material and method:  This cross-sectional study was carried out in 2018 in a petrochemical industry that producing copolymer ABS (acrylonitrile, butadiene, styrene) in Iran. Occupational exposure to 1,3-Butadiene was measured according to the NIOSH 1024 method. Cancer risk assessment was done according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and Singapore semi-quantitative methods. Results: The average occupational exposure to 1,3-Butadiene during work shift among all participants was 560.82 ± 811.36 µg.m-3 (0.253 ± 0.367 ppm) and in all cases was below the occupational exposure limit. The average lifetime cancer risk in USEPA method in the present study was 2.71 × 10-3, Also in this method 82.2% of all exposed workers were in the definite carcinogenic risk level and 17.8% were in the probable carcinogenic risk level. The results of the Singapore health department method showed that 91.2% of all subjects were in the probable carcinogenic risk level and 8.8% were in the definite risk level. Conclusion: The findings of the present study showed that the results of the Singapore semi quantitative risk assessment method are not in good agreement with the results of the quantitative risk assessment method proposed by the US Environmental Protection Agency. Therefore, given the high accuracy and thoroughness of the US Environmental Protection Agencychr('39')s risk assessment methodology as a worldwide reference method for assessing the carcinogenic and health risk of exposure to chemicals, it is recommended to use this method instead of the Singapore method in future studies.