Related Experiment Videos
Cancer mortality among coke oven workers
Environmental Health Perspectives
|October 1, 1983
Summary
The 1977 OSHA standard for coke oven emissions may still pose excess lung cancer risks. Epidemiologic data suggest risks decrease with updated models, but confounding factors limit precise estimation.
Area of Science:
- Occupational Health
- Epidemiology
- Environmental Science
Background:
- The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) established a standard for coke oven emissions in January 1977.
- This standard set a permissible exposure limit of 150 micrograms/m³ for the benzene-soluble fraction of total particulate matter (BSFTPM).
- Epidemiologic evidence has linked coke oven emissions to increased lung cancer risk.
Purpose of the Study:
- To review epidemiologic evidence concerning the OSHA standard for coke oven emissions.
- To assess the lung cancer risk associated with coke oven work under the established standard.
- To evaluate dose-response relationships between exposure duration/location and lung cancer mortality.
Main Methods:
- Review of existing epidemiologic studies on coke oven workers.
- Analysis of lung cancer mortality data in relation to employment duration and location.
- Application of linear and quadratic dose-response models to estimate excess relative risk.
Main Results:
- An excess relative risk for lung cancer, as high as 16-fold, was observed in topside coke oven workers with 15+ years of exposure.
- A consistent dose-response relationship between employment factors and lung cancer mortality was identified.
- Dose-response models predict a 30-50% increased relative risk under a linear model and 3-7% under a quadratic model, even with the OSHA standard.
Conclusions:
- While the OSHA standard may reduce risks, excess lung cancer risks likely persist for coke oven workers.
- Lung cancer mortality data from other steelworkers suggest potential overestimation of excess risk.
- Further dose-response analysis is limited by a lack of information on crucial confounding factors.