Objectives To examine mortality patterns and cancer incidence in a pooled cohort of 29 993 US career firefighters employed since 1950 and followed through 2009. Methods Mortality and cancer incidence were evaluated by life table methods with the US population referent. Standardised mortality (SMR) and incidence (SIR) ratios were determined for 92 causes of death and 41 cancer incidence groupings. Analyses focused on 15 outcomes of a priori interest. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the potential for significant bias. Results Person-years at risk totalled 858 938 and 403 152 for mortality and incidence analyses, respectively. All-cause mortality was at expectation (SMR=0.99, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.01, n=12 028). There was excess cancer mortality (SMR=1.14, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.18, n=3285) and incidence (SIR=1.09, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.12, n=4461) comprised mainly of digestive (SMR=1.26, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.34, n=928; SIR=1.17, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.25, n=930) and respiratory (SMR=1.10, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.17, n=1096; SIR=1.16, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.24, n=813) cancers. Consistent with previous reports, modest elevations were observed in several solid cancers; however, evidence of excess lymphatic or haematopoietic cancers was lacking. This study is the first to report excess malignant mesothelioma (SMR=2.00, 95% CI 1.03 to 3.49, n=12; SIR=2.29, 95% CI 1.60 to 3.19, n=35) among US firefighters. Results appeared robust under differing assumptions and analytic techniques. Conclusions Our results provide evidence of a relation between firefighting and cancer. The new finding of excess malignant mesothelioma is noteworthy, given that asbestos exposure is a known hazard of firefighting.

Dosimetry for toxicology studies involving carbon nanotubes (CNT) is challenging because of a lack of detailed occupational exposure assessments. Therefore, exposure assessment findings, measuring the mass concentration of elemental carbon from personal breathing zone (PBZ) samples, from 8 U.S.-based multi-walled CNT (MWCNT) manufacturers and users were extrapolated to results of an inhalation study in mice.

Objectives To examine exposure–response relationships between surrogates of firefighting exposure and select outcomes among previously studied US career firefighters. Methods Eight cancer and four non-cancer outcomes were examined using conditional logistic regression. Incidence density sampling was used to match each case to 200 controls on attained age. Days accrued in firefighting assignments (exposed-days), run totals (fire-runs) and run times (fire-hours) were used as exposure surrogates. HRs comparing 75th and 25th centiles of lagged cumulative exposures were calculated using loglinear, linear, log-quadratic, power and restricted cubic spline general relative risk models. Piecewise constant models were used to examine risk differences by time since exposure, age at exposure and calendar period. Results Among 19 309 male firefighters eligible for the study, there were 1333 cancer deaths and 2609 cancer incidence cases. Significant positive associations between fire-hours and lung cancer mortality and incidence were evident. A similar relation between leukaemia mortality and fire-runs was also found. The lung cancer associations were nearly linear in cumulative exposure, while the association with leukaemia mortality was attenuated at higher exposure levels and greater for recent exposures. Significant negative associations were evident for the exposure surrogates and colorectal and prostate cancers, suggesting a healthy worker survivor effect possibly enhanced by medical screening. Conclusions Lung cancer and leukaemia mortality risks were modestly increasing with firefighter exposures. These findings add to evidence of a causal association between firefighting and cancer. Nevertheless, small effects merit cautious interpretation. We plan to continue to follow the occurrence of disease and injury in this cohort.

Recent evidence has suggested the potential for wide-ranging health effects that could result from exposure to carbon nanotubes (CNT) and carbon nanofibers (CNF). In response, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) set a recommended exposure limit (REL) for CNT and CNF: 1 µg m⁻³ as an 8-h time weighted average (TWA) of elemental carbon (EC) for the respirable size fraction. The purpose of this study was to conduct an industrywide exposure assessment among US CNT and CNF manufacturers and users. Fourteen total sites were visited to assess exposures to CNT (13 sites) and CNF (1 site). Personal breathing zone (PBZ) and area samples were collected for both the inhalable and respirable mass concentration of EC, using NIOSH Method 5040. Inhalable PBZ samples were collected at nine sites while at the remaining five sites both respirable and inhalable PBZ samples were collected side-by-side. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) PBZ and area samples were also collected at the inhalable size fraction and analyzed to quantify and size CNT and CNF agglomerate and fibrous exposures. Respirable EC PBZ concentrations ranged from 0.02 to 2.94 µg m⁻³ with a geometric mean (GM) of 0.34 µg m⁻³ and an 8-h TWA of 0.16 µg m⁻³. PBZ samples at the inhalable size fraction for EC ranged from 0.01 to 79.57 µg m⁻³ with a GM of 1.21 µg m⁻³. PBZ samples analyzed by TEM showed concentrations ranging from 0.0001 to 1.613 CNT or CNF-structures per cm³ with a GM of 0.008 and an 8-h TWA concentration of 0.003. The most common CNT structure sizes were found to be larger agglomerates in the 2–5 µm range as well as agglomerates >5 µm. A statistically significant correlation was observed between the inhalable samples for the mass of EC and structure counts by TEM (Spearman ρ = 0.39, P < 0.0001). Overall, EC PBZ and area TWA samples were below the NIOSH REL (96% were 1 μg m⁻³. Until more information is known about health effects associated with larger agglomerates, it seems prudent to assess worker exposure to airborne CNT and CNF materials by monitoring EC at both the respirable and inhalable size fractions. Concurrent TEM samples should be collected to confirm the presence of CNT and CNF.

There is still uncertainty about the potential health hazards of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) particularly involving carcinogenicity. However, the evidence is growing that some types of CNTs and nanofibers may have carcinogenic properties. The critical question is that while the carcinogenic potential of CNTs is being further investigated, what steps should be taken to protect workers who face exposure to CNTs, current and future, if CNTs are ultimately found to be carcinogenic? This paper addresses five areas to help focus action to protect workers: (i) review of the current evidence on the carcinogenic potential of CNTs; (ii) role of physical and chemical properties related to cancer development; (iii) CNT doses associated with genotoxicity in vitro and in vivo; (iv) workplace exposures to CNT; and (v) specific risk management actions needed to protect workers. Am. J. Ind. Med. 55:395–411, 2012. Published 2012. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Toxicological evidence suggests the potential for a wide range of health effects from exposure to carbon nanotubes (CNTs) and carbon nanofibers (CNFs). To date, there has been much focus on the use of direct-reading instruments (DRIs) to assess multiple airborne exposure metrics for potential exposures to CNTs and CNFs due to their ease of use and ability to provide instantaneous results. Still, uncertainty exists in the usefulness and interpretation of the data. To address this gap, air-monitoring was conducted at six sites identified as CNT and CNF manufacturers or users and results were compared with filter-based metrics. Particle number, respirable mass, and active surface area concentrations were monitored with a condensation particle counter, a photometer, and a diffusion charger, respectively. The instruments were placed on a mobile cart and used as area monitors in parallel with filter-based elemental carbon (EC) and electron microscopy samples. Repeat samples were collected on consecutive days, when possible, during the same processes. All instruments in this study are portable and routinely used for industrial hygiene sampling. Differences were not observed among the various sampled processes compared with concurrent indoor or outdoor background samples while examining the different DRI exposure metrics. Such data were also inconsistent with results for filter-based samples collected concurrently at the same sites [Dahm MM, Evans DE, Schubauer-Berigan MK et al. (2012) Occupational exposure assessment in CNT and nanofiber primary and secondary manufacturers. Ann Occup Hyg; 56: 542–56]. Significant variability was seen between these processes as well as the indoor and outdoor backgrounds. However, no clear pattern emerged linking the DRI results to the EC or the microscopy data (CNT and CNF structure counts). Overall, no consistent trends were seen among similar processes at the various sites. The DRI instruments employed were limited in their usefulness in assessing and quantifying potential exposures at the sampled sites but were helpful for hypothesis generation, control technology evaluations, and other air quality issues. The DRIs employed are nonspecific, aerosol monitors, and, therefore, subject to interferences. As such, it is necessary to collect samples for analysis by more selective, time-integrated, laboratory-based methods to confirm and quantify exposures.