Chemical carcinogenic and mutagenic agents in the workplace, Poland, 2008–2010
More details
Hide details
Instytut Medycyny Pracy im. prof. J. Nofera / Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, Łódź, Poland (Zakład Bezpieczeństwa Chemicznego / Department of Chemical Safety)
Katarzyna Konieczko   

Zakład Bezpieczeństwa Chemicznego, Instytut Medycyny Pracy im. prof. J. Nofera, św. Teresy 8, 91-348 Łódź
Med Pr 2013;64(2):181–192
Background: The aim of this paper is to present a concise but comprehensive information on the occurrence of carcinogenic or mutagenic agents in Polish enterprises and the number of workers exposed to those agents reported to the central register by employers. Objectives and responsibilities of the register, as well as the range and methods of data gathering are discussed. Material and Methods: Data concerning carcinogenic or mutagenic chemical substances and technological processes reported to central register in 2008-2010 were analyzed. Results: In 2008-2010 more than 300 carcinogenic or mutagenic chemical substances were reported to the register. Approximately 2500 plants reported above 150 000 per-person-exposures annually. Among all technological processes regarded as occupational carcinogens, hardwood dusts exposure (about 660 companies; 11 000-13 000 exposed workers each year) and exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) present in coal products (117-125 plantsl 3000 exposed per year) were reported. Conclusions: The most widespread carcinogenic/mutagenic substances were: benzene, chromium(VI) compounds: potassium dichromate and chromate, chromium(VI) trioxide and other chromium compounds, ethylene oxide, asbestos, benzo[a]pyrene and gasoline. The highest number of men was exposed to particular PAHs and benzene , and the majority of women was exposed to benzene, potassium dichromate and chromate, acrylamide, ethylene oxide and gasoline. The lack of clear-cut definitione of occupational exposure to carcinogen creates a problem faced by employers in defining the accurate number of exposed workers. Med Pr 2013;64(2):181–192