834
Views
3
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

Exposure to benzene in a pooled analysis of petroleum industry case-control studies

, , , &
Pages 863-872 | Published online: 16 Oct 2017
 

ABSTRACT

Cases of lymphohematopoietic cancer from three petroleum industry cohorts, matched to controls from the respective cohort, were pooled into single study. Average benzene exposure was quantitatively estimated in ppm for each job based on measured data from the relevant country, adjusted for the specific time period, site and job exposure characteristics and the certainty of the exposure estimate scored. The probability of dermal exposure and of peak exposure was also assessed. Before risk was examined, an exposure estimate comparison and rationalisation exercise was performed across the studies to ensure accuracy and consistency of approach. This article evaluates the final exposure estimates and their use in the risk assessments.

Overall benzene exposure estimates were low: 90% of participants accumulated less than 20 ppm-years. Mean cumulative exposure was estimated as 5.15 ppm-years, mean duration was 22 years, and mean exposure intensity was 0.2 ppm. 46% of participants were allocated a peak exposure (>3 ppm at least weekly). 40% of participants had a high probability of dermal exposure (based on the relative probability of at least weekly exposure).

There were differences in mean intensity of exposure, probability of peak, and/or dermal exposure associated with job category, job site, and decade of exposure. Terminal Operators handling benzene-containing products were the most highly exposed group, followed by Tanker Drivers carrying gasoline. Exposures were higher around 1940–1950 and lower in more recent decades.

Overall confidence in the exposure estimates was highest for recently held jobs and for white-collar jobs. We used sensitivity analyses, which included and excluded case-sets on the basis of exposure certainty scores, to inform the risk assessment.

The above analyses demonstrated that the different patterns of exposure across the three studies are largely attributable to differences in jobs, site types, and time frames rather than study. This provides reassurance that the previous rationalisation of exposures achieved inter-study consistency and that the data could be confidently pooled.

Acknowledgments

Eileen Pearlman and Dave Verma contributed to the exposure assessment comparison exercise.

Funding

This work was supported by Conservation for Clean Air and Water Europe; the American Petroleum Institute; Aromatic Producers Association; Energy Institute: Australian Institute of Petroleum; and the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 61.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 148.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.