Kolanz M E, Madl A K, Kelsh M A, Kent M S, Kalmes R M, Paustenbach D J
Brush Wellman Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Appl Occup Environ Hyg. 2001 May;16(5):593-614. doi: 10.1080/10473220119613.
The primary beryllium industry has generated a large amount of data on airborne beryllium concentrations that has been used to characterize exposure by task-specific activities, job category, individual worker, and processing area using a variety of methods. These methods have included high-volume breathing zone sampling, high-volume process sampling, high- and low-volume respirable and area sampling, real-time monitoring, and personal sampling. Many of the beryllium studies have used these air sampling methods to assess inhalation exposure and chronic beryllium disease (CBD) risk to beryllium; however, available data do not show a consistent dose-response relationship between airborne concentrations of beryllium and the incidence of CBD. In this article, we describe the air sampling and exposure assessment methods that have been used, review the studies that have estimated worker exposures, discuss the uncertainties associated with the level of beryllium for which these studies have reported an increased risk of CBD, and identify future investigative exposure assessment strategies. Our evaluation indicated that studies of beryllium workers are often not directly comparable because they (1) used a variety of exposure assessment methods that are not necessarily representative of individual worker exposures, (2) rarely considered respirator use, and (3) have not evaluated changes in work practices. It appears that the current exposure metric for beryllium, total beryllium mass, may not be an appropriate measurement to predict the risk of CBD. Other exposure metrics such as mass of respirable particles, chemical form, and particle surface chemistry may be more related to the prevalence of CBD than total mass of airborne beryllium mass. In addition, assessing beryllium exposure by all routes of exposure (e.g., inhalation, dermal uptake, and ingestion) rather than only inhalation exposure in future studies may prove useful.
主要铍行业已经产生了大量关于空气中铍浓度的数据，这些数据已被用于通过特定任务活动、工作类别、个体工人以及加工区域，采用多种方法来描述暴露情况。这些方法包括大流量呼吸带采样、大流量工艺采样、高流量和低流量可吸入颗粒物及区域采样、实时监测以及个人采样。许多铍研究都使用这些空气采样方法来评估铍的吸入暴露和慢性铍病（CBD）风险；然而，现有数据并未显示空气中铍浓度与CBD发病率之间存在一致的剂量反应关系。在本文中，我们描述了所使用的空气采样和暴露评估方法，回顾了估计工人暴露情况的研究，讨论了这些研究报告的与CBD风险增加相关的铍水平所存在的不确定性，并确定了未来的调查性暴露评估策略。我们的评估表明，铍工人的研究往往无法直接进行比较，因为它们（1）使用了多种不一定能代表个体工人暴露情况的暴露评估方法，（2）很少考虑呼吸器的使用，以及（3）没有评估工作实践的变化。目前铍的暴露指标，即铍的总质量，似乎可能不是预测CBD风险的合适测量方法。其他暴露指标，如可吸入颗粒物质量[1]、化学形态和颗粒表面化学性质，可能比空气中铍的总质量与CBD的患病率更相关。此外，在未来的研究中，通过所有暴露途径（如吸入、皮肤吸收和摄入）而非仅通过吸入暴露来评估铍暴露可能会被证明是有用的。
[1] 原文中“mass of respirable particles”直译为“可吸入颗粒物质量”，但在中文语境下可能不太清晰，或许可根据具体专业背景进一步优化表述，比如“可吸入颗粒的质量”等，这里暂按原文翻译。
