Comparison of the chemical health risk assessment of exposure to metal fumes for the furnace operator of a foundry industry using quantitative and semi-quantitative methods

Abstract

Heavy metals have several adverse effects on the workers' bodies due to their accumulation in the vital organs. Besides that, the current study aimed to assess the health risk of exposure to metal fumes for furnace operators working in a foundry industry based on the three different methods. The current sectional descriptive-analytical research conducted on a foundry industry in Isfahan (Iran) in 2022. Three common methods currently available, including the Semi-Quantitative Risk Assessment Method (SQRCA) and two methods provided based on the US-EPA provided technique, were used in this study. At first, the extent of people's exposure to metal fumes of Fe, Ni, Cr, and Mn was measured. Then, the chemical risk assessment of exposure to these metals' fumes was done using the three methods, and their results were compared. The SPSS Ver.25 has been used for data analysis and comparison in the current study. Results indicated that the furnace operator's exposure to all four metals was above the allowed limit of occupational exposure. The chemical risk assessment results also showed that in the first method (US-EPA-based), the risk of exposure for all workers was acceptable, while in the second method (SQCRA), the risk level of a majority of workers was medium, and in the third method (US-EPA-based), the risk level of a majority of workers was not acceptable. Comparing the methods showed that average risk scores in the first and second methods were significant compared to the exposure to fumes with equivalent concentration (P _value<0.05). The average score of carcinogenicity risk in method 3 was significant compared to the concentration of chromium and nickel (P- _value < 0.05), but it was not significant for iron and manganese and the non-carcinogenic risk of chromium and nickel. Chemical exposure risk level for the furnace operator was approximately moderate in all three methods. In terms of complexity and information required to implement the method, all three methods were almost the same, with the difference that the results of the first method cannot be generalized to other people who have the same job conditions because individual information such as a person's weight is used to calculate its score.