4.7 Article

Cancer mortality in workers exposed to organochlorine compounds in the pulp and paper industry:: An international collaborative study

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES
卷 114, 期 7, 页码 1007-1012

出版社

US DEPT HEALTH HUMAN SCIENCES PUBLIC HEALTH SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1289/ehp.8588

关键词

epidemiology; mortality; neoplasms; organochlorines; pulp and paper industry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study was to evaluate cancer mortality in pulp and paper industry workers exposed to chlorinated organic compounds. We assembled a multinational cohort of workers employed between 1920 and 1996 in 11 countries. Exposure to both volatile and nonvolatile organochlorine compounds was estimated at the department level using an exposure matrix. We conducted a standardized mortality ratio (SMR) analysis based on age and calendar-period-specific national mortality rates and a Poisson regression analysis. The study population consisted of 60,468 workers. Workers exposed to volatile organochlorines experienced a deficit of all-cause [SMR = 0.91; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.89-0.931 and all-cancer (SMR = 0.93; 95% Cl, 0.89-0.97) mortality, with no evidence of increased risks for any cancer of a priori interest. There was a weak, but statistically significant, trend of increasing risk of all-cancer mortality with increasing weighted cumulative exposure. A similar deficit in all-cause (SMR = 0.94; 95% Cl, 0.91-0.96) and all-cancer (SMR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-1.00) mortality was observed in those exposed to nonvolatile organochlorines. No excess risk was observed in cancers of a priori interest, although mortality from Hodgkin disease was elevated (SMR = 1.76; 95% CI, 1.02-2.82). In this study we found little evidence that exposure to organochlorines at the levels experienced in the pulp and paper industry is associated with an increased risk of cancer, apart from a weak but significant association between all-cancer mortality and weighted cumulative volatile organochlorine exposure.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据