Journal Information
Vol. 35. Issue S2.
The 3rd International Nursing and Health Sciences Students and Health Care Professionals Conference (INHSP)
Pages S450-S454 (January 2021)
Visits
Not available
Vol. 35. Issue S2.
The 3rd International Nursing and Health Sciences Students and Health Care Professionals Conference (INHSP)
Pages S450-S454 (January 2021)
Open Access
Exposure analysis of lead (Pb) and chromium (Cr) in workplace workshop PT. X
Visits
2245
Ari Widyantoro, Fina Binazir Maziya
Corresponding author
, Azham Umar Abidin
Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Planning, Universitas Islam Indonesia, Indonesia
This item has received

Under a Creative Commons license
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Tables (10)
Table 1. Secondary data on the distribution of lead and chromium concentrations in the air of the 2017 Workshop.
Table 2. Duration of workshop staff exposure.
Table 3. Distribution of non-carcinogenic effect intake (intake) values based on real-time and lifetime lead exposure to individual workshop employees.
Table 4. Distribution of intake (intake) carcinogenic effects based on realtime and lifetime lead and chromium exposures to individual workshop employees.
Table 5. Distribution of Risk Quotient (RQ) values based on realtime and lifetime exposure of lead and chromium to individual workshop employees.
Table 6. Distribution of intake values for non-carcinogenic effects based on realtime and lifetime exposures to workshop employees.
Table 7. Distribution of Risk Quotient (RQ) values based on realtime and lifetime lead exposure to Workshop employees.
Table 8. Distribution of intake values for carcinogenic effects based on realtime and lifetime exposures to workshop employees.
Table 9. The distribution of the Excess Cancer Risk (ECR) value is based on realtime and lifetime for the Workshop employees.
Table 10. Data from the calculation of risk control options for non-cancerous effects on safe lead and chromium exposures to workshop employees.
Show moreShow less
Special issue
This article is part of special issue:
Vol. 35. Issue S2

The 3rd International Nursing and Health Sciences Students and Health Care Professionals Conference (INHSP)

More info
Abstract
Objective

The workshop (pipe repair place) owned by PT. X is potential for heavy metal exposure which can exceed the quality standards. This study is to identify and analyze the risk of heavy metal exposure from the production process and compare it with the quality standards for the workplace that have been set by the government.

Methods

This research is a quantitative study using the method of environmental health risk analysis (EHRA).

Result

The concentration of risk agents that could cause adverse health effects of non-carcinogenic due to lead exposure was 15 workers both realtime and lifetime, chromium exposure was 6 workers in realtime and 15 workers for lifetime. While the results of carcinogenic effects due to lead exposure were 1 worker for lifetime and chromium was 15 workers both realtime and lifetime.

Conclusion

Efforts to control heavy metals can be carried out through technical engineering, administrative control, and personal protective equipment.

Keywords:
Chromium
Environmental health risk analysis
Industrial hygiene
Lead
Occupational safety and health
Full Text
Introduction

Air pollution caused by exposure to heavy metals is very influential in the long term. Also, heavy metal pollutants are suspended in the air and can move around to the most remote areas. Because heavy metal pollutants are contained in dust floating in the ambient air. When inhaled by humans through the respiratory tract, it can penetrate the inside of the lungs, into blood vessels to the heart. The heavy metal is contained in particulates PM2.5.1

Environmental health risk analysis is an assessment of health risks that may occur at any time in a human population at risk. This predictive assessment produces quantitative risk characteristics, risk management options and communication strategies to minimize these risks.2 Environmental quality data with agent-specific and site-specific, anthropometric characteristics and activity patterns of the exposed population are required for this study.3

MethodsVariables

Employment and epidemiology: place and work unit, length of work, elements of protection, hygiene methods in the workplace, the workload on weekdays, presence of protection protocols, reasons for committing violations and the person responsible answer for referral, date of appearance of symptoms, positive and negative tests, pre-test contacts, isolation and characteristics, and return to work.

Data collection

The questionnaire was distributed directly to the workshop workers by direct contact, conduct several interview questions with management Data collection that include the concentration of heavy metals in the air, questionnaires, and interviews.

Data analysis

This research was a quantitative study that used the method of environmental health risk analysis (EHRA). The tools and materials were: stationery; Air Sampler Impinger; Questionnaire sheets; EHRA Guidelines; Monitoring results document; Field documentations and activities. Meanwhile, to determine the heavy metal content, it was carried out by a third party, namely PT. Secondary.

To analyze the value of lead and chromium heavy metal intake from the intake of inhalation agents referred to the Ministry of Health, the implementation steps were:

Exposure assessment

In analyzed the exposure to the value of Chromium, it was done by calculating the intake or intake of the risk agent. In this study, the intake calculation was carried out in the inhalation (inhalation) exposure pathway with the formula as follows:4,5

Risk characterization was the final stage of this research method. Risk characterization aimed to determine the risk of the agent to be analyzed. In the ARKL guidelines, risk characterization was divided into 2, namely carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic. Based on the EPA, lead and chromium (VI) are carcinogenic metals, so to determine the level of carcinogenic risk, the calculation is used as follows:

Steps taken to calculate the risk characterization for non-cancerous effects, it could be seen by dividing the Intake value by the RfD or RfC value as follows5:

ResultResearch environmental conditions

The population in this study was known to be 15 people, consisting of 4 welder members, 2 helpers, 2 pipefitters, 1 mechanical engineering assistant, 1 civil leader, 1 field supervisor, 1 HSE officer, 1 admin RAM, and 2 drivers. The sample was all employees who work in the workshop. The sampling method was the total population.

The formal working days were 5 working days, Monday to Friday, then 2 days off, but they make a shift schedule for Saturday, Sunday and overnight for a week for 1 team each. The sources of exposure to Lead and Chromium in the Workshop were from welding, cutting, soldering/brazing, and grinding. The workshop did not have a special room to carry out these activities, so the warehouse and rest area for workers became one in the workshop. So workers can be easily exposed to these heavy metals.

Concentrations of lead and chromium in air

See Table 1.

Table 1.

Secondary data on the distribution of lead and chromium concentrations in the air of the 2017 Workshop.

Location/point of measurement  Substance name  Physical form  Maximum particle size (μg/m3Measurement results (mg/m3)a  Threshold value (mg/m3)b 
Workshop PT. X  Lead  Particle  0.10  0.44  0.05 
  Chromium  Particle  0.10  0.1  0.5 
a

Data Source: Work Environment Quality Monitoring Report (Industrial Hygiene) PT. X (Secondary Data).6

b

Threshold values reference: Regulation of the Minister of Manpower of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5 of 2018 concerning Occupational Safety and Health in the Work Environment.7

Duration of exposure

See Table 2.

Table 2.

Duration of workshop staff exposure.

Respondent  Conc. of lead in air/C (mg/m3Conc. of chromium in air/C (mg/m3Exposure time/tE (h/day)  Freq. of exposure/fE (day/year)  Duration of exposure/Dt (year) 
Welder  0.44  0.1  296  25 
Welder  0.44  0.1  296  25 
Welder  0.44  0.1  296  24 
Welder  0.44  0.1  296 
Helper  0.44  0.1  296  10 
Helper  0.44  0.1  296 
Pipe fitter  0.44  0.1  296 
Pipe fitter  0.44  0.1  296 
Mechanical eng. assist.  0.44  0.1  296  25 
Civil leader  0.44  0.1  247  24 
Field supervisor  0.44  0.1  296 
HSE officer  0.44  0.1  296 
RAM admin  0.44  0.1  247  25 
Driver  0.44  0.1  296 
Driver  0.44  0.1  296 
Analysis of lead and chromium exposure on workers

For carcinogenic or cancer-causing exposures, the calculations were almost the same, but there was a slight difference, namely the average period of exposure to cancer, which was 70 years (Tables 3 and 4).

Table 3.

Distribution of non-carcinogenic effect intake (intake) values based on real-time and lifetime lead exposure to individual workshop employees.

Respondent  Lead (mg/kg/day)Chromium (mg/kg/day)
  Realtime  Lifetime  Realtime  Lifetime 
Welder  0.0193  0.0211  0.0044  0.0048 
Welder  0.0228  0.0249  0.0052  0.0057 
Welder  0.0203  0.0231  0.0046  0.0053 
Welder  0.0020  0.0277  0.0005  0.0063 
Helper  0.0075  0.0205  0.0017  0.0046 
Helper  0.0029  0.0265  0.0007  0.0060 
Pipe fitter  0.0028  0.0252  0.0006  0.0057 
Pipe fitter  0.0053  0.0242  0.0012  0.0055 
Mechanical eng. assist.  0.0202  0.0222  0.0046  0.0050 
Civil leader  0.0159  0.0182  0.0036  0.0041 
Field supervisor  0.0079  0.0271  0.0018  0.0062 
HSE officer  0.0019  0.0254  0.0004  0.0058 
ram admin  0.0208  0.0229  0.0047  0.0052 
Driver  0.0029  0.0268  0.0007  0.0061 
Driver  0.0027  0.0247  0.0006  0.0056 
Table 4.

Distribution of intake (intake) carcinogenic effects based on realtime and lifetime lead and chromium exposures to individual workshop employees.

Respondent  Lead (mg/kg/day)Chromium (mg/kg/day)
  Realtime  Lifetime  Realtime  Lifetime 
Welder  0.0083  0.0090  0.0019  0.0021 
Welder  0.0098  0.0107  0.0022  0.0024 
Welder  0.0087  0.0099  0.0020  0.0023 
Welder  0.0009  0.0119  0.0002  0.0027 
Helper  0.0032  0.0088  0.0007  0.0020 
Helper  0.0012  0.0114  0.0003  0.0026 
Pipe fitter  0.0012  0.0108  0.0003  0.0025 
Pipe fitter  0.0023  0.0104  0.0005  0.0024 
Mechanical eng. assist.  0.0087  0.0095  0.0020  0.0022 
Civil leader  0.0068  0.0078  0.0016  0.0018 
Field supervisor  0.0034  0.0116  0.0008  0.0026 
Hse officer  0.0008  0.0109  0.0002  0.0025 
Ram admin  0.0089  0.0098  0.0020  0.0022 
Driver  0.0013  0.0115  0.0003  0.0026 
Driver  0.0012  0.0106  0.0003  0.0024 
Workers risk characteristics

The workshop was carried out in 2 stages, by finding the value of the Risk Quotient (RQ) and Excess Cancer Risk (ECR). In the RQ, an RfC (Reference Concentration) value was required for each heavy metal, lead 0.0014mg/kg/day and chromium 0.00286mg/kg/day. The ECR requires a CSF (Cancer Slope Factor) value for each heavy metal CSF: lead 0.0085mg/kg/day and chromium 0.5mg/kg/day. Apart from RQ and ECR, the calculation of risk characteristics also required a non-carcinogenic intake for RQ and a carcinogenic intake for ECR.

After obtaining the RQ value, the following assumptions were used:

  • If RQ1, then the hazard concentration is not at risk of causing non-carcinogenic health effects.

  • If RQ>1, then hazard concentrations are at risk of causing non-carcinogenic health effects.

While the characteristics for the cancer effect could be determined by multiplying the Intake value with the CSF value.

After obtaining the ECR value, the following assumptions were used:

  • If the ECR10−4, then the hazard concentration is not yet at risk of causing carcinogenic health effects.

  • If the ECR>10−4, then the hazard concentration is at risk of causing carcinogenic health effects.

In conclusion, at realtime exposure, all employees exposed to chromium were at risk of cancer effects, and none of the employees exposed to lead were at risk of cancer effects. Also, a lifetime exposure, all employees exposed to chromium had a risk of cancer effects, and 1 employee exposed to lead had a risk of cancer effects (Table 5).

Table 5.

Distribution of Risk Quotient (RQ) values based on realtime and lifetime exposure of lead and chromium to individual workshop employees.

Respondent  Lead (mg/kg/day)Chromium (mg/kg/day)
  Realtime  Lifetime  Realtime  Lifetime 
Welder  13.75  15.08  1.53  1.68 
Welder  16.26  17.82  1.81  1.98 
Welder  14.48  16.54  1.61  1.84 
Welder  1.44  19.78  0.16  2.20 
Helper  5.33  14.61  0.59  1.63 
Helper  2.07  18.94  0.23  2.11 
Pipe fitter  1.97  17.99  0.22  2.00 
Pipe fitter  3.79  17.31  0.42  1.93 
Mechanical eng. assist.  14.45  15.83  1.61  1.76 
Civil leader  11.38  12.99  1.27  1.45 
Field supervisor  5.65  19.35  0.63  2.15 
HSE officer  1.33  18.17  0.15  2.02 
RAM admin  14.89  16.32  1.66  1.82 
Driver  2.10  19.14  0.23  2.13 
Driver  1.93  17.65  0.21  1.96 
Estimation of health risk characteristic of lead and chromium exposure to a workshop worker population

Tables 6–9.

Table 6.

Distribution of intake values for non-carcinogenic effects based on realtime and lifetime exposures to workshop employees.

Lead (mg/kg/day)  Realtime  0.0120 
  Lifetime  0.0250 
Chromium (mg/kg/day)  Realtime  0.0027 
  Lifetime  0.0057 
Table 7.

Distribution of Risk Quotient (RQ) values based on realtime and lifetime lead exposure to Workshop employees.

Lead (mg/kg/day)  Realtime  8.59  Risky 
  Lifetime  17.83  Risky 
Chromium (mg/kg/day)  Realtime  0.96  Not risky 
  Lifetime  1.98  Risky 
Table 8.

Distribution of intake values for carcinogenic effects based on realtime and lifetime exposures to workshop employees.

Lead (mg/kg/day)  Realtime  0.0052 
  Lifetime  0.0107 
Chromium (mg/kg/day)  Realtime  0.0012 
  Lifetime  0.0024 
Table 9.

The distribution of the Excess Cancer Risk (ECR) value is based on realtime and lifetime for the Workshop employees.

Lead (mg/kg/day)  Realtime  0.000044  Not risky 
  Lifetime  0.000091  Not risky 
Chromium (mg/kg/day)  Realtime  0.000585  Risky 
  Lifetime  0.001216  Risky 
Risk management

Table 10.

Table 10.

Data from the calculation of risk control options for non-cancerous effects on safe lead and chromium exposures to workshop employees.

Lead
Component  Preliminary data  Safe variable 
Concentration (C0.44mg/m3  0.16mg/m3 
Exposure time (tE8h/day  3h/day 
Frequency of exposure (fE296 day/year  103 day/year 
Duration of exposure (Dt30 year  3 years 
Chromium
Component  Preliminary data  Safe variable 
Concentration (C0.1mg/m3  0.07mg/m3 
Exposure time (tE8h/day  6h/day 
Frequency of exposure (fE296 day/year  200 day/year 
Duration of exposure (Dt30 years  3 years 
Discussion

According to research conducted by Tan (2016),8 it showed that the concentration of heavy metals in indoor dust was influenced by local human activities and atmospheric transportation could have harmful effects on human health. Also, research has shown that heavy metals could cause adverse health effects.9 The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified chromium, and lead as carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic elements. Heavy metals such as Cr and Pb are widespread environmental pollutants and can cause harmful health effects, such as cancer.10 Some examples of carcinogenic effects are respiratory disease, cardiovascular death, nervous system damage, and slow growth.11

In the workshop, it is necessary to carry out an analysis of the health risks of the work environment. The values of Risk Quotient (RQ) and Excess Cancer Risk (ECR) in the workshop work environment exceed the safe values, which are more than 1 and more than 10−4. To reduce the RQ and ECR concentrations, it can control the risk agent concentration and contact time which is done by reducing the frequency and time of exposure.

The concentration of lead and chromium heavy metals in the workshop is directly proportional to the busy work of the workshop. From the results of the questionnaire given, workshop workers complained about several diseases that indicated the worker had experienced non-carcinogenic effects such as appetite and weight loss, muscle and joint pain, fever, itching, and severe headaches. When equated with the results of the calculation of this analysis, there are several workers whose RQ values exceed 1. This is evidence that these workers have experienced non-carcinogenic effects. Also, the non-carcinogenic effects and carcinogenic effects are getting worse because more than half of the respondents smoke actively, both moderate to mild smoker status.

Control of the risk of dangerous heavy metals can be carried out using the OHSAS 18001:200712 guidelines which are more specific with the OHS/Hazard Control Hierarchy approach, namely Elimination, Substitution, Engineering Control, Administrative Control, and Personal Protectice Equipment. Considering that welding work is the most important thing in the continuity of the Workshop, Elimination and Substitution cannot be used. One of to prevent exposure heavy metals and to minimalize the risk potential occupational disease and occupational accident with implementation of occupational health and safety management system.13

Conclusion

The results showed the concentration of risky agents that could cause non-carcinogenic adverse health effects due to real-time exposure to lead by 15 workers and chromium by 6 workers. In the lifetime exposure to lead and chromium as many as 15 workers. Furthermore, the risk agents that could cause carcinogenic health effects due to real-time chromium exposure were 15 workers. In the lifetime exposure to lead as much as 1 worker and chromium as much as 15 workers. For the calculation of the population of workshop workers, the non-cancer risk due to real-time exposure was Lead, while for lifetime exposure was lead and chromium. Also, the cancer risk due to real-time and lifetime exposure was chromium.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
[1]
Department of Health and Ageing, Environmental Health Risk Assessment.
Guidelines for assessing human health risks from environmental hazards.
(2002),
[2]
Y. Thamrin, D. Pisaniello, S. Stewart.
Time trends and predictive factors for safety perceptions among incoming South Australian university students.
J Safety Res, 41 (2010), pp. 59-63
[3]
D. Djafri.
Prinsip Dan Metode Analisis Risiko Kesehatan Lingkungan.
J Kesehat Masy Andalas, 8 (2014), pp. 100
[4]
C. Hilda Dewi, N. Kholifah, S. Al Firdausi, et al.
Analisis Risiko Kesehatan Lingkungan Kadar Timbal dalam Kerang Darah di Wilayah Pesisir Kota Makassar:8.
(2015),
[5]
Kemenkes.
Direktorat Jenderal PP dan PL Kementerian Kesehatan tahun.
Direktorat Jenderal PP dan PL, (2012),
[6]
Secondary.
Laporan Monitoring Kualitas Lingkungan Kerja (Industrial Higiene).
PT. Secondary, (2017),
[7]
Kementrian Ketenagakerjaan Indonesia.
Peraturan Menteri Ketenaga Kerjaan Republik Indonesia No. 5 tahun 2018 tentang Keselamatan dan Kesehatan Kerja Lingkungan Kerja.
J Pendidikan Teknol dan Kejuru, 4 (2018), pp. 200-207
[8]
S.Y. Tan, S.M. Praveena, E.Z. Abidin, et al.
A review of heavy metals in indoor dust and its human health-risk implications.
Rev Environ Health, 31 (2016), pp. 447-456
[9]
S. Kamran, A. Shafaqat, H. Samra, et al.
Heavy metals contamination and what are the impacts on living organisms.
Greener J Environ Manag Public Saf, 2 (2013), pp. 172-179
[10]
P.B. Tchounwou, A.K. Patlolla, J.A. Centeno.
Invited reviews: carcinogenic and systemic health effects associated with arsenic exposure—a critical review.
Toxicol Pathol, 31 (2003), pp. 575-588
[11]
A. Turner, B. Hefzi.
Levels and bioaccessibilities of metals in dusts from an arid environment.
Water Air Soil Pollut, 210 (2010), pp. 483-491
[12]
A.P. Bacchetta.
B-BS and occupational health and safety management systems.
G Ital Med Lav Ergon, 32 (2007), pp. A55-A58
[13]
A.U. Abidin, I. Ramadhan.
Penerapan Job Safety Analysis, Pengetahuan Keselamatan dan Kesehatan Kerja terhadap Kejadian Kecelakaan Kerja di Laboratorium Perguruan Tinggi.
J Berk Kesehat, 5 (2019), pp. 76

Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 3rd International Nursing, Health Science Students & Health Care Professionals Conference. Full-text and the content of it is under responsibility of authors of the article.

Copyright © 2021. SESPAS
Idiomas
Gaceta Sanitaria
Article options
Tools
es en

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?