REVIEW PAPER
Occupational exposure to chromium(VI) compounds
1 1 | Centralny Instytut Ochrony Pracy – Państwowy Instytut Badawczy / Central Institute for Labour Protection – National Research Institute, Warszawa, Poland
(Zakład Zagrożeń Chemicznych, Pyłowych i Biologicznych, Pracownia Toksykologii / Department of Chemical Hazards, Aerosol and Biological Hazards, Laboratory of Toxicology) |
2 | Instytut Medycyny Pracy im. prof. J. Nofera / Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, Łódź, Poland
(Zakład Bezpieczeństwa Chemicznego / Department of Chemical Safety) |
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Jolanta Skowroń
Centralny Instytut Ochrony Pracy – Państwowy Instytut Badawczy, Zakład Zagrożeń Chemicznych, Pyłowych i Biologicznych, Pracownia Toksykologii, ul. Czerniakowska 16, 00-701 Warszawa
Centralny Instytut Ochrony Pracy – Państwowy Instytut Badawczy, Zakład Zagrożeń Chemicznych, Pyłowych i Biologicznych, Pracownia Toksykologii, ul. Czerniakowska 16, 00-701 Warszawa
Med Pr 2015;66(3):407–427
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
chemical agents in the workplaceoccupational hygiene (occupational health)norms and standards for occupational hygiene (occupational health)chemical agents in the environment
ABSTRACT
This article discusses the effect of chromium(VI) (Cr(VI)) on human health under conditions of acute and chronic exposure in
the workplace. Chromium(VI) compounds as carcinogens and/or mutagens pose a direct danger to people exposed to them.
If carcinogens cannot be eliminated from the work and living environments, their exposure should be reduced to a minimum.
In the European Union the proposed binding occupational exposure limit value (BOELV) for chromium(VI) of 0.025 mg/m³
is still associated with high cancer risk. Based on the Scientific Commitee of Occupational Exposure Limits (SCOEL) document
chromium(VI) concentrations at 0.025 mg/m³ increases the risk of lung cancer in 2–14 cases per 1000 exposed workers. Exposure
to chromium(VI) compounds expressed in Cr(VI) of 0.01 mg Cr(VI)/m3 is responsible for the increased number of lung cancer
cases in 1–6 per 1000 people employed in this condition for the whole period of professional activity. Med Pr 2015;66(3):407–427
RELATED ARTICLE