How to deal with uncertainties regarding the occupational exposure to antineoplastic mixtures: additive effect should always be considered?

Risk assessment considerations - The concept that “safe levels of exposure” for humans can be identified for individual chemicals is central to the risk assessment of compounds with known toxicological profiles. Selection of agents for combination chemotherapy regimens involves minimize overlapping of mechanisms of action, antitumor activity and toxicity profile. Although the toxicological profile and mechanism of action of each individual drug is well characterized, the toxicological interactions between drugs are likely, but poorly established at occupational exposure context. The synergistic nature of interactions may help in understanding the adverse health effects observed in healthcare workers, where exposure situations are characterized by complex mixtures of chemical agents, and the levels of individual exposing agents are often not sufficiently high to explain the health complaints. However, if a substance is a genotoxic carcinogen, this would be the “lead effect”; normally, no OEL based on a NOEL would be derived and the level would be set so low that it would be unlikely that other effects would be expected. Aim of the study - Recently research project developed in Portuguese Hospitals characterize the occupational exposure to antineoplastic agents and the health effects related. The project aimed to assess exposure of the different risk groups that handle antineoplastic agents in the hospital setting, namely during preparation and administration of these drugs. Here it is presented and discussed the results in a study developed in two hospitals from Lisbon.

Occupational exposure to Aflatoxin B1 in a Portuguese poultry slaughterhouse

Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) is a secondary metabolite produced by the fungi Aspergillus flavus and is the most potent hepatocarcinogen known in mammals and has been classified by the International Agency of Research on Cancer as Group 1 carcinogen. Although dietary exposure to AFB1 has been extensively documented, there are still few studies dedicated to the problem of occupational exposure. Considering recent findings regarding AFB1 occupational exposure in poultry production, it was considered relevant to clarify if there is also exposure in poultry slaughterhouses. Occupational exposure assessment to AFB1 was done with a biomarker of internal dose that measures AFB1 in the serum by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Thirty workers from a slaughterhouse were enrolled in this study. A control group (n = 30) was also considered in order to know AFB1 background levels for Portuguese population. Fourteen workers (47.0%) showed detectable levels of AFB1 with values from 1.06 to 4.03ng ml(-1), with a mean value of 1.73ng ml(-1). No AFB1 was detected in serum of individuals used as controls. Despite uncertainties regarding the exposure route that is contributing more to exposure (inhalation or dermal) is possible to state that exposure to AFB1 is occurring in the slaughterhouse studied. It seems that reducing AFB1 contamination in poultry production can have a positive result in this occupational setting.