Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Health Risk Assessment of Occupational Exposure to Hexavalent Chromium in Iranian Workplaces: a Meta-analysis Study

  • Published:
Biological Trace Element Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium (Cr+6) has reported in different industries. The Cr6+ has the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects. The aim of this study was to provide a meta-analysis and health risk assessment of occupational exposure to Cr6+ in Iranian workplaces. Databases including Scopus, Web of Sciences (WOS), and Scientific Information Database (SID), as a national database, were searched from 2000 to February 2021. The related studies to occupational exposure to Cr6+ were selected by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol. Lung cancer and non-cancer risk (nasal mucosal irritation, atrophy, and perforation) of Cr6+ were estimated by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) method, based on the Monte Carlo simulation (MCS). Also, the results of spirometry and biomonitoring of previous studies were reviewed. We found 14 articles based on inclusion criteria. Pooled concentration of Cr6+ was estimated 0.037 ± 0.002 mg/m3 which was higher than the recommended exposure limit by the ACGIH (0.002 mg/m3). The mean lung cancer risk was estimated to be 5.49E-2, which was considerable risk. In the Cr6+-exposed workers, all parameters of pulmonary function had decreased. The level of Cr6+ in urinary and blood samples was higher than threshold limit. Results indicated that exposure to Cr6+ and its health risk were more than recommended exposure limit. The results of present study could be helpful for health policy maker to control exposure to Cr6+ in workplaces.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

References

  1. Isıklı B et al (2003) Effects of chromium exposure from a cement factory. Environ Res 91(2):113–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. McDermott S et al (2015) Systematic review of chromium and nickel exposure during pregnancy and impact on child outcomes. J Toxicol Environ Health A 78(21–22):1348–1368

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Seidler A et al (2013) Systematic review and quantification of respiratory cancer risk for occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 86(8):943–955

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Pesch B et al (2018) Exposure to hexavalent chromium in welders: results of the WELDOX II field study. Ann Work Expos Health 62(3):351–361

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Golbabaie F et al (2007) Feasibility of biological monitoring for evaluating of exposure to Cr6 in electroplating workshops. J Sch Public Health Inst Public Health Res 5(3):15–22

    Google Scholar 

  6. Mozafari P et al (2016) Feasibility of biological effective monitoring of chrome electroplaters to chromium through analysis of serum malondialdehyde. Int J Occup Environ Med 7(4):199

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hazrati S, RezazadehAzari M, Fazlzadeh M (2016) Evaluation of workers exposure to hexavalent chromium compounds in a cement industry. J Occup Environ Health 1(1):35–40

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rasoul GMA et al (2017) Health-related disorders on occupational exposure to chromium in a leather tanning factory (Menoufia, Egypt). Menoufia Med J 30(1):92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fazli Z et al (2017) Non-carcinogenic risk assessment of occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium in two. J Health Field 4(1):18–24

  10. Zhang X-H et al (2011) Chronic occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium causes DNA damage in electroplating workers. BMC Public Health 11(1):224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fazli Z et al (2016) Occupational and environmental risk assessment of inhalation exposure to hexavalent chromium for cancerous effects. J Occup Environ Health 2(3):181–190

    Google Scholar 

  12. Golbabaei F et al (2012) Assessment of welders exposure to carcinogen metals from manual metal arc welding in gas transmission pipelines, Iran. Iran J Public Health 41(8):61

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Higgins JP et al (2019) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. John Wiley & Sons

  14. Agrawal A, Rasouli M (2019) Creating bibliographies using endnote. EndNote 1-2-3 Easy! Springer, pp 211–276

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Liberati A et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 62(10):e1–e34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pierce CA (2008) Review of comprehensive meta-analysis (version 2.2.027). Organ Res Methods 11(1):188–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106296641

  17. Ras RT et al (2013) Flow-mediated dilation and cardiovascular risk prediction: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol 168(1):344–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kuroki T et al (2017) Legionella prevalence and risk of legionellosis in Japanese households. Epidemiol Infect 145(7):1398–1408

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Nasirzadeh N, Mohammadian Y, Fakhri Y (2020) Concentration and cancer risk assessment of asbestos in Middle East countries: a systematic review-meta-analysis. Int J Environ Anal Chem 7:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/03067319.2020.1856375

  20. ACGIH (2011) Guide to occupational exposure values. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Publication No. 0389

  21. IARC (1990) IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, chromium, nickel and welding. Based on a Meeting Held in LyonL 49

  22. EPA (2004) Risk assessment guidance for superfund. Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) 1:1–89

  23. EPA (2011) Exposure factors handbook: 2011 edition. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/052F, pp 1–466

  24. Zarandi SM et al (2019) Concentration, sources and human health risk of heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons bound PM 2.5 ambient air, Tehran, Iran. Environ Geochem Health 41(3):1473–1487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Dehghani M et al (2018) Characteristics and health effects of BTEX in a hot spot for urban pollution. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 155:133–143

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. EPA (2017) Use of Monte Carlo simulation in risk assessments. Region 3 technical guidance manual, risk assessment. Available at https://www.epa.gov/risk/use-monte-carlo-simulation-risk-assessments. Accessed 14 Aug 2021

  27. Rubinstein RY, Kroese DP (2016) Simulation and the Monte Carlo method, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons 10:279–311

  28. Fakhri Y et al (2019) The concentration of potentially toxic elements (PTEs) in honey: a global systematic review and meta-analysis and risk assessment. Trends Food Sci Technol 91:498–506

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Golbabaei F et al (2007) Feasibility of biological monitoring for evaluating of exposure to cr6 in electroplating workshops. J School Public Health Institute Public Health Research 5(3)15–22

  30. Zendehdel R, Fazli Z, Rezazadeh Azari M (2019) Neurological risk assessment of co-exposure to heavy metals (chromium and nickel) in chromium-electroplating workers. Work 63(3):355–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Zare S et al (2017) Designing, constructing and installing a local exhaust ventilation system to minimize welders’ exposure to welding fumes. Arch Hyg Sci 6(4):356–362

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Mousavian NA, Mansouri N, Nezhadkurki F (2017) Estimation of heavy metal exposure in workplace and health risk exposure assessment in steel industries in Iran. Measurement 102:286–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Jafari AJ, Assari MJ (2004) Respiratory effects from work-related exposure to welding fumes in Hamadan, Iran. Arch Environ Health Int J 59(3):116–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Pouransari M (2020) Risk assessment of occupational exposure to heavy metals (lead, chromium, cadmium) in cement respirable particles in a cement factory. Iran Occup Health 17(1):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  35. Dehghan SF, Mehrifar Y (2019) Occupational exposure to welding fumes and gases during different arc welding processes. Int J Occup Hyg 11(2):136–45

  36. ACGIH (2018) TLVs and BEIs: based on the documentation of the threshold limit values for chemical substances and physical agents & biological exposure indices. Cincinnati, Publication No:45240–4148

  37. Honaryar MK et al (2019) Welding fumes and lung cancer: a meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies. Occup Environ Med 76(6):422–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sorahan T et al (1998) Lung cancer mortality in nickel/chromium platers, 1946–95. Occup Environ Med 55(4):236–242

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Sciannameo V et al (2019) Cancer mortality and exposure to nickel and chromium compounds in a cohort of Italian electroplaters. Am J Ind Med 62(2):99–110

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Shouroki FK et al (2018) Biological monitoring and lung function assessment among workers exposed to chromium in the ceramic industry. J Res Health Sci 18(1):408

    Google Scholar 

  41. Neghab M et al (2015) Acute and chronic respiratory effects of chromium mists. J Health Sci Surveill Syst 3(3):119–124

    Google Scholar 

  42. Pourtaghi G et al (2009) Pulmonary effects of occupational exposure to welding fumes. Aust J Basic Appl Sci 3(4):3291–3296

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Omland Ø et al (2014) Occupational chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic literature review. Scand J Work Environ Health 40 (1):19–35

  44. König P et al (2018) Is an FEV1 of 80% predicted a normal spirometry in cystic fibrosis children and adults? Clin Respir J 12(8):2397–2403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Medbø A, Melbye H (2007) Lung function testing in the elderly—can we still use FEV1/FVC< 70% as a criterion of COPD? Respir Med 101(6):1097–1105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Huang Y-L (1999) Lipid peroxidation in workers exposed to hexavalent chromium. J Toxicol Environ Health A 56(4):235–247

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Pan C-H, Jeng HA, Lai C-H (2018) Biomarkers of oxidative stress in electroplating workers exposed to hexavalent chromium. J Expos Sci Environ Epidemiol 28(1):76–83

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Muller CD et al (2020) Occupational risk assessment of exposure to metals in chrome plating workers. Drug Chem Toxicol 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/01480545.2020.1731527

  49. Liu H-H et al (2009) Health risk assessment by measuring plasma malondialdehyde (MDA), urinary 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine (8-OH-dG) and DNA strand breakage following metal exposure in foundry workers. J Hazard Mater 170(2–3):699–704

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Hashim Z et al (2015) Occupational risk and relationship between chromium and nickel in metal working fluid with chromium and nickel levels in blood and urine among machinists in Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia. Int J Sci Basic Appl Res 21:38–59

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our special appreciation people who helped to collecting and analyzing data in this study. Especially Mrs. Zahra beigzadeh, Ph.D student of occupational health engineering at Tehran University of medical sciences.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Occupational Health Engineering, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran

    Nafiseh Nasirzadeh

  2. Department of Occupational Health Engineering, Faculty of Health, Tabriz University of Medical Science, 5165665931, Tabriz, Iran

    Yousef Mohammadian & Golnoush Dehgan

Authors
  1. Nafiseh Nasirzadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yousef Mohammadian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Golnoush Dehgan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Data collection was performed by Golnoush Dehgan, and analysis was performed by Nafiseh Nasirzadeh and Yousef Mohammadian. The first draft of the manuscript was written by three authors, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yousef Mohammadian.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

We had not applied for ethics committee approval, as it was based on the available studies or literature search method; it was not experimental.

Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nasirzadeh, N., Mohammadian, Y. & Dehgan, G. Health Risk Assessment of Occupational Exposure to Hexavalent Chromium in Iranian Workplaces: a Meta-analysis Study. Biol Trace Elem Res 200, 1551–1560 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-021-02789-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-021-02789-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation