No abstract

No abstract

Arsenic is widely distributed in the environment by natural and human means. The potential for adverse health effects from inorganic arsenic depends on the level and route of exposure. To estimate potential health risks of inorganic arsenic, the apportionment of exposure among sources of inorganic arsenic is critical. In this study, daily inorganic arsenic intake of U.S. adults from food, water, and soil ingestion and from airborne particle inhalation was estimated. To account for variations in exposure across the U.S., a Monte Carlo approach was taken using simulations for 100,000 individuals representing the age, gender, and county of residence of the U.S. population based on census data. Our analysis found that food is the greatest source of inorganic arsenic intake and that drinking water is the next highest contributor. Inhalation of airborne arsenic-containing particles and ingestion of arsenic-containing soils were negligible contributors. The exposure is best represented by the ranges of inorganic arsenic intake (at the 10 th and 90 th percentiles), which were 1.8 to 11.4 µg/day for males and 1.3 to 9.4 µg/day for females. Regional differences in inorganic arsenic exposure were due mostly to consumption of drinking water containing differing inorganic arsenic content rather than to food preferences.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Methods: Meta-analysis and review of 14 occupational cohort and four case-control studies of workers exposed to trichloroethylene (TCE) to investigate the relation between TCE exposure and the risk of nonHodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). Studies were selected and categorised based on a priori criteria, and results from random effects meta-analyses are presented. Results: The summary relative risk estimates (SRRE) for the group of cohort studies that had more detailed information on TCE exposure was 1.29 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.66) for the total cohort and 1.59 (95% CI 1.21 to 2.08) for the seven studies that identified a specific TCE exposed sub-cohort. SRREs for three studies with cumulative exposure information were 1.8 (95% CI 0.62 to 5.26) for the lowest exposure category and 1.41 (95% CI 0.61 to 3.23) for the highest category. Comparison of SRREs by levels of TCE exposure did not indicate exposure-response trends. The remaining cohort studies that identified TCE exposure but lacked detailed exposure information had an SRRE of 0.843 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.98). Case-control studies had an SRRE of 1.39 (95% CI 0.62 to 3.10). Statistically significant findings for the Group 1 studies were driven by the results from the subgroup of multiple industry cohort studies (conducted in Europe) (SRRE = 1.86; 95% CI 1.27 to 2.71). The SRRE for single industry cohort studies was not significantly elevated (SRRE = 1.25; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.79). Conclusions: Interpretation of overall findings is hampered by variability in results across the Group 1 studies, limited exposure assessments, lack of evidence of exposure response trends, lack of supportive information from toxicological and mechanistic data, and absence of consistent findings in epidemiologic studies of exposure and NHL. Although a modest positive association was found in the TCE sub-cohort analysis, a finding attributable to studies that included workers from multiple industries, there is insufficient evidence to suggest a causal link between TCE exposure and NHL.

No abstract