Paustenbach D, Alarie Y, Kulle T, Schachter N, Smith R, Swenberg J, Witschi H, Horowitz S B
McLaren/Hart/ChemRisk, Alameda, CA 94501, USA.
J Toxicol Environ Health. 1997 Feb 21;50(3):217-63.
In recent years, several regulatory agencies and professional societies have recommended an occupational exposure limit (OEL) for formaldehyde. This article presents the findings of a panel of experts, the Industrial Health Foundation panel, who were charged to identify an OEL that would prevent irritation. To accomplish this task, they critiqued approximately 150 scientific articles. Unlike many other chemicals, a large amount of data is available upon which to base a concentration-response relationship for human irritation. A mathematical model developed by Kane et al. (1979) for predicting safe levels of exposure to irritants based on animal data was also evaluated. The panel concluded that for most persons, eye irritation clearly due to formaldehyde does not occur until at least 1.0 ppm. Information from controlled studies involving volunteers indicated that moderate to severe eye, nose, and throat irritation does not occur for most persons until airborne concentrations exceed 2.0-3.0 ppm. The data indicated that below 1.0 ppm, if irritation occurs in some persons, the effects rapidly subside due to "accommodation." Based on the weight of evidence from published studies, the panel found that persons exposed to 0.3 ppm for 4-6 h in chamber studies generally reported eye irritation at a rate no different than that observed when persons were exposed to clean air. It was noted that at a concentration of 0.5 ppm (8-h TWA) eye irritation was not observed in the majority of workers (about 80%). Consequently, the panel recommended an OEL of 0.3 ppm as an 8-h time-weighted average (TWA) with a ceiling value (CV) of 1.0 ppm (a concentration not to be exceeded) to avoid irritation. The panel believes that the ACGIH TLV of 0.3 ppm as a ceiling value was unnecessarily restrictive and that this value may have been based on the TLV Committee's interpretation of the significance of studies involving self-reported responses at concentrations less than 0.5 ppm. The panel concluded that any occupational or environmental guideline for formaldehyde should be based primarily on controlled studies in humans, since nearly all other studies are compromised by the presence of other contaminants. The panel also concluded that if concentrations of formaldehyde are kept below 0.1 ppm in the indoor environment (where exposures might occur 24 h/d) this should prevent irritation in virtually all persons. The panel could not identify a group of persons who were hypersensitive, nor was there evidence that anyone could be sensitized (develop an allergy) following inhalation exposure to formaldehyde. The panel concluded that there was sufficient evidence to show that persons with asthma respond no differently than healthy individuals following exposure to concentrations up to 3.0 ppm. Although cancer risk was not a topic that received exhaustive evaluation, the panel agreed with other scientific groups who have concluded that the cancer risk of formaldehyde is negligible at airborne concentrations that do not produce chronic irritation.
近年来,多个监管机构和专业协会已针对甲醛推荐了职业接触限值(OEL)。本文介绍了一个专家小组——工业卫生基金会小组的研究结果,该小组负责确定一个能预防刺激的OEL。为完成这项任务,他们对约150篇科学文章进行了评判。与许多其他化学品不同,有大量数据可用于建立人类刺激的浓度-反应关系。还评估了凯恩等人(1979年)开发的一个基于动物数据预测刺激性物质安全接触水平的数学模型。该小组得出结论,对于大多数人来说,明显由甲醛引起的眼部刺激至少要到1.0 ppm才会出现。来自涉及志愿者的对照研究的信息表明,对于大多数人来说,直到空气中浓度超过2.0 - 3.0 ppm才会出现中度至重度的眼、鼻和咽喉刺激。数据表明,在1.0 ppm以下,如果某些人出现刺激,由于“适应”,影响会迅速消退。基于已发表研究的证据权重,该小组发现,在舱室研究中暴露于0.3 ppm达4 - 6小时的人员,报告眼部刺激的发生率与暴露于清洁空气的人员所观察到的发生率没有差异。值得注意的是,在浓度为0.5 ppm(8小时时间加权平均)时,大多数工人(约80%)未观察到眼部刺激。因此,该小组建议将OEL设定为0.3 ppm作为8小时时间加权平均(TWA),上限值(CV)为1.0 ppm(不得超过的浓度)以避免刺激。该小组认为美国政府工业卫生学家会议(ACGIH)将0.3 ppm作为上限值的阈限值(TLV)限制过严,该值可能是基于TLV委员会对涉及浓度低于0.5 ppm时自我报告反应的研究重要性的解读。该小组得出结论,任何针对甲醛的职业或环境指南都应主要基于人体对照研究,因为几乎所有其他研究都因存在其他污染物而受到影响。该小组还得出结论,如果室内环境中甲醛浓度保持在0.1 ppm以下(在这种环境中可能每天24小时接触),这实际上应能防止几乎所有人出现刺激。该小组无法确定一组过敏人群,也没有证据表明任何人在吸入甲醛后会致敏(产生过敏)。该小组得出结论,有足够证据表明哮喘患者在接触浓度高达3.0 ppm后与健康个体的反应没有差异。虽然癌症风险并非得到详尽评估的主题,但该小组同意其他科学团体的观点,即得出在不会产生慢性刺激的空气中甲醛浓度下癌症风险可忽略不计的结论。