Heederik D, Houba R
Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Occupational and Environmental Health Group, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80176, 3508 TD, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Ann Occup Hyg. 2001 Apr;45(3):175-85.
Quantitative risk assessments have been made for wheat dust and allergen exposure and wheat sensitization using classical epidemiological approaches based on simple categorizations in exposure groups. Such analyses suggest the existence of an exposure threshold level for wheat specific sensitization and were used as input in recently conducted risk assessments for wheat flour by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists and the Dutch Expert Committee on Occupational Standards. More advanced statistical analyses were applied using generalized additive modeling and smoothed plots to evaluate the shape of the exposure response relationship in greater detail and evaluate the presence of exposure thresholds.
Data were used from a recently conducted epidemiological study in bakery workers. Information was available on wheat sensitization (IgE antibodies), inhalable dust levels and wheat allergen levels. Initial analyses were based on simple exposure categorizations for inhalable dust and allergen exposure. A more detailed analysis using non-parametric generalized additive models (GAM models) and smoothing plots allowed inspection of the presence of an exposure threshold of evaluation of 'no' or 'lowest observed effect levels' (NOELs, LOELs) using exposure data on the individual level.
All analyses showed an increasing sensitization risk with increasing exposure. The classical epidemiological analyses gave evidence for the existence of an exposure threshold or 'no observed effect level (NOEL)' for specific wheat sensitization between 0.5 and 1 mg/m3 of inhalable dust. The more advanced analyses did not suggest any evidence for the existence of an exposure threshold. However, estimates of a LOEL obtained by considering an arbitrary increase in sensitization risk between 1.5 and 2 as undesirable, were close to the NOEL from the classical analyses and would therefore not lead to an essentially different exposure limit. The criterion of an increase in wheat sensitization risk was based on the risk in non-wheat dust exposed populations.
Exposure response modeling using different classical epidemiological approaches and advanced statistical methods resulted in health based LOEL or NOEL estimates within a relatively close range. But when sensitization accompanied by asthma or rhinitis symptoms was considered as critical endpoint, steeper exposure-response relationships were observed which would lead to lower LOEL values.
已采用经典流行病学方法,基于暴露组的简单分类,对小麦粉尘和过敏原暴露以及小麦致敏情况进行了定量风险评估。此类分析表明存在小麦特异性致敏的暴露阈值水平,并被用作美国政府工业卫生学家会议和荷兰职业标准专家委员会最近进行的小麦粉风险评估的输入数据。使用广义相加模型和光滑曲线进行了更先进的统计分析,以更详细地评估暴露反应关系的形状,并评估暴露阈值的存在情况。
使用了最近一项针对面包店工人的流行病学研究的数据。可获取有关小麦致敏(IgE抗体)、可吸入粉尘水平和小麦过敏原水平的信息。初始分析基于可吸入粉尘和过敏原暴露的简单暴露分类。使用非参数广义相加模型(GAM模型)和光滑曲线进行的更详细分析,允许利用个体水平的暴露数据检查暴露阈值的存在情况,或评估“未观察到效应水平”(NOELs)或“最低观察到效应水平”(LOELs)。
所有分析均显示,随着暴露增加,致敏风险也增加。经典流行病学分析证明,对于可吸入粉尘在0.5至1毫克/立方米之间,存在特定小麦致敏的暴露阈值或“未观察到效应水平(NOEL)”。更先进的分析未表明存在暴露阈值的任何证据。然而,通过将致敏风险在1.5至2之间的任意增加视为不良情况而获得的LOEL估计值,与经典分析中的NOEL接近,因此不会导致本质上不同的暴露限值。小麦致敏风险增加的标准基于未暴露于小麦粉尘人群的风险。
使用不同的经典流行病学方法和先进统计方法进行的暴露反应建模,得出了基于健康的LOEL或NOEL估计值,且范围相对接近。但是,当将伴有哮喘或鼻炎症状的致敏视为关键终点时,观察到更陡峭的暴露反应关系,这将导致更低的LOEL值。