Ototoxicity effects of low exposure to solvent mixture among paint manufacturing workers

Audiological Tests Used in the Evaluation of the Effects of Solvents on the Human Auditory System: A Mixed Methods Review

This study aimed to scope the literature, identify knowledge gaps, appraise results, and synthesize the evidence on the audiological evaluation of workers exposed to solvents. We searched Medline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and NIOSHTIC-2 up to March 22, 2021. Using Covidence, two authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data. National Institute of Health Quality Assessment Tools was used in the quality evaluation of included studies; the Downs and Black checklist was used to assess the risk of bias. Of 454 located references, 37 were included. Twenty-five tests were studied: two tests to measure hearing thresholds, one test to measure word recognition in quiet, six electroacoustic procedures, four electrophysiological tests, and twelve behavioral tests to assess auditory processing skills. Two studies used the Amsterdam Inventory for Auditory Disability and Handicap. The quality of individual studies was mostly considered moderate, but the overall quality of evidence was considered low. The discrepancies between studies and differences in the methodologies/outcomes prevent recommending a specific test battery to assess the auditory effects of occupational solvents. Decisions on audiological tests for patients with a history of solvent exposures require the integration of the most current research evidence with clinical expertise and stakeholder perspectives.

Evaluating the potential impact of ototoxicant exposure on worker health

Occupational exposure to ototoxicants, substances that can cause hearing loss alone or exacerbate hearing loss when exposure occurs in combination with noise, is a workplace hazard that is poorly understood. A review of existing research indicates that some solvents and heavy metals may be ototoxic, but few studies have attempted to estimate the impact of ototoxicant exposure on the United States worker population. Researchers examined trends in workplace exposure to ototoxicants among workers in the United States by comparing exposure data collected by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration against worker hearing loss data provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for 2012-2019. The study found that the noise exposure data was strongly correlated to the hearing loss data using Pearson's correlation (p < .001), confirming that the exposure data collected by OSHA is predictive of the risk of occupational illness as reported by BLS. Chi-square analysis indicates that reported hearing loss was more common among industry subsectors with exposure to ototoxicants than those without exposure to ototoxicants. These findings suggest that workers with coexposure to ototoxicants and noise may be at a higher risk of experiencing hearing loss than those exposed to noise alone, and action should be taken to minimize this risk.

Temporary and Permanent Auditory Effects Associated with Occupational Coexposure to Low Levels of Noise and Solvents

This study aimed to assess temporary and permanent auditory effects associated with occupational coexposure to low levels of noise and solvents. Cross-sectional study with 25 printing industry workers simultaneously exposed to low noise (<80 dBA TWA) and low levels of solvents. The control group consisted of 29 industry workers without the selected exposures. Participants answered a questionnaire and underwent auditory tests. Auditory fatigue was measured by comparing the acoustic reflex threshold before and after the workday. Workers coexposed to solvents and noise showed significantly worse results in auditory tests in comparison with the participants in the control group. Auditory brainstem response results showed differences in III−V interpeak intervals (p = 0.046 in right ear; p = 0.039 in left ear). Mean dichotic digits scores (exposed = 89.5 ± 13.33; controls = 96.40 ± 4.46) were only different in the left ear (p = 0.054). The comparison of pre and postacoustic reflex testing indicated mean differences (p = 0.032) between the exposed (4.58 ± 6.8) and controls (0 ± 4.62) groups. This study provides evidence of a possible temporary effect (hearing fatigue) at the level of the acoustic reflex of the stapedius muscle. The permanent effects were identified mainly at the level of the high brainstem and in the auditory ability of binaural integration.

Pure Tone Audiometry Evaluation Method Effectiveness in Detecting Hearing Changes Due to Workplace Ototoxicant, Continuous Noise, and Impulse Noise Exposures

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to compare the relative risks (RR) of hearing impairment due to co-exposure of continuous noise, impulse noise, metal ototoxicants, and organic solvent ototoxicants using several pure tone audiometry (PTA) evaluation methods.

DESIGN

Noise and ototoxicant exposure and PTA records were extracted from a DoD longitudinal repository and were analyzed for U.S. Air Force personnel (n = 2372) at a depot-level aircraft maintenance activity at Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma using an historical cohort study design. Eight similar exposure groups based on combinations of ototoxicant and noise exposure were created: (1) Continuous noise (reference group); (2) Continuous noise + Impulse noise; (3) Metal exposure + Continuous noise; (4) Metal exposure + Continuous noise + Impulse noise; (5) Solvent exposure + Continuous noise; (6) Solvent exposure + Continuous noise + Impulse noise; (7) Metal exposure + Solvent exposure + Continuous noise; and (8) Metal exposure + Solvent exposure + Continuous noise + Impulse noise. RR of hearing impairment compared to the Continuous noise-exposed reference group was assessed with five PTA evaluation methods including (1) U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Significant Threshold Shift (STS), (2) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) age-adjusted STS, (3) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) STS, (4) NIOSH Material Hearing Impairment, and (5) All Frequency Threshold Average.

RESULTS

Hearing impairment was significantly worse for SEG (2) combined exposure to continuous noise and impulse noise only for the PTA evaluation method (2) OSHA Age Adjusted with an RR of 3.11, [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.16-8.31] and was nearly significantly different using PTA evaluation method (4) NIOSH Material Hearing Impairment with an RR of 3.16 (95% CI, 0.99-10.15). Despite no significant differences for SEGs with an ototoxicant exposure, PTA evaluation method (3) NIOSH STS was most sensitive in detecting hearing changes for SEG (8) Metal exposure + Solvent exposure + Continuous noise + Impulse noise as demonstrated by a RR of 1.12 (95% CI, 0.99-1.27).

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that a single PTA evaluation technique may not be adequate in fully revealing hearing impairment risk due to all stressors and tailoring the PTA evaluation technique to the hazards present in the workplace could better detect hearing impairment. Additionally, results suggest that PTA may not be effective as the sole technique for evaluating hearing impairment due to ototoxicant exposure with continuous noise co-exposure.

Effect of noise and ototoxicants on developing standard threshold shifts at a U.S. Air Force depot level maintenance facility

Noise exposure has traditionally been considered the primary risk factor for hearing loss. However, ototoxicants commonly found in occupational settings could affect hearing loss independently, additively, or synergistically when combined with noise exposures. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the combined effect of metal and solvent ototoxicants, continuous noise, and impulse noise on hearing loss. Noise and ototoxicant exposure and pure-tone audiometry results were analyzed for U.S. Air Force personnel (n = 2,372) at a depot-level aircraft maintenance activity at Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma. Eight similar exposure groups based on combinations of ototoxicant and noise exposure were created including: (1) Continuous noise (reference group); (2) Continuous noise + Impulse noise; (3) Metal exposures + Continuous noise; (4) Metal exposures + Continuous noise + Impulse noise; (5) Solvent exposure + Continuous noise; (6) Solvent exposures + Continuous noise + Impulse noise; (7) Metal exposure + Solvent exposures + Continuous noise; and (8) Metal exposure + Solvent exposures + Continuous noise + Impulse noise. Hearing loss was assessed at center octave band frequencies of 500-6,000 Hz and using National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Standard Threshold Shift (STS) criteria. Hearing changes were significantly worse at 2,000 Hz in the Metal exposure + Solvent exposure + Continuous noise group compared to the Continuous noise only reference group (p = 0.023). The Metal exposure + Solvent exposure + Continuous noise group had a significantly greater relative risk (RR) of 2.44; 95% CI [1.24, 4.83] for developing an STS at 2,000 Hz. While not statistically significant, the Solvent exposure + Continuous noise group had a RR of 2.32; 95%CI [1.00, 5.34] for developing an STS at 1,000 Hz. These results indicate that noise exposure may dominate hearing loss at ≥3,000 Hz while combined effects of concomitant exposure to ototoxic substances and noise are only noticeable at ≤2,000 Hz. These results also suggest combined exposures to ototoxicants and noise presents a greater hearing loss risk than just noise.

Exposure to lead, mercury, styrene, and toluene and hearing impairment: evaluation of dose-response relationships, regulations, and controls

The risk of hearing loss from exposure to ototoxic chemicals is not reflected in occupational exposure limits and most jurisdictions. The aims of this research were to investigate dose-response relationships between exposure to lead, mercury, toluene, and styrene and hearing impairment based on current epidemiological evidence, conduct cross-jurisdictional comparisons, and investigate control measures for exposure to ototoxic chemicals. Ovid Medline and Ovid Embase databases were used to find relevant publications. A total of 86 epidemiological studies met the eligibility criteria for final evaluation. When significant associations between exposure and outcome were identified, exposure levels were evaluated to determine whether No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) and Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) could be identified. Cross-jurisdictional comparisons included the U.K., U.S., Canada, and Australia occupational health and safety legislations. The majority of lead (75%), styrene (74%), and toluene (77%) studies showed significantly increased risks of hearing loss from exposure to these substances, although numerous studies on toluene (70%) and styrene (16%) compared auditory function between "solvent mixture" or "noise and solvent mixture" exposed groups and controls and not necessarily on groups exposed to a single agent. Based on five studies, blood lead ranges of 1-1.99 μg/dL to 2.148-2.822 μg/dL were identified as NOAELs while blood lead levels of 2 μg/dL up to 2.823-26.507 μg/dL were identified as LOAELs for hearing loss. Except for general duty clauses, the U.S., Canadian, and Australian jurisdictions have set no enforceable regulations specific to ototoxic chemical exposures. A biological exposure index of 2 μg/dL is recommended for prevention of hearing impairment from lead exposure. Based on Safe Work Australia, noise exposure limits may be reduced to 80 dB(A) for 8 hr. Other recommendations include performing audiometric testing and controlling exposure through all routes of entry.

Audiometric findings of printing press workers exposed to noise and organic solvents

OBJECTIVE

To determine if exposure to organic solvents and noise is associated with audiometric results among workers from a printing press in Mexico City.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

STUDY SAMPLE

One hundred and seventy-six male workers at a printing press in Mexico City exposed to noise and organic solvents, including xylene, and 103 non-exposed male workers as reference group. Hearing thresholds were assessed with pure-tone audiometry.

RESULTS

Poorer hearing thresholds were observed among printing workers than non-exposed controls, particularly among groups with over 5 years of exposure. Hearing thresholds differences were observed in the frequencies above 500 Hz, especially in 4000 Hz in all exposure groups compared to the reference. Adjusted models for age and previous exposure to noise and organic solvents showed worse hearing thresholds as years of seniority increased -β coefficients (95% CI): ≤5 years: 3.06 dB (0.01, 6.10); >5-10 years: 4.51 dB (1.13, 7.89); >10 years: 4.58 dB (1.20, 7.96). Further analyses showed no interaction between noise and organic solvents on hearing thresholds, considering both current and previous occupational exposures.

CONCLUSION

Exposure to noise levels that were below recommended exposure limits and organic solvents were associated with poorer hearing thresholds than those observed among non-exposed study participants. This suggests that workers exposed to solvents should be included in hearing conservation programmes, even when noise exposures are below 85 dB. If only noise levels were taken into consideration in the risk assessment of this worker population, the risk of hearing effects could have been overlooked.

Acquired Central Auditory Processing Disorder in Service Members and Veterans

Purpose A growing body of evidence suggests that military service members and military veterans are at risk for deficits in central auditory processing. Risk factors include exposure to blast, neurotrauma, hazardous noise, and ototoxicants. We overview these risk factors and comorbidities, address implications for clinical assessment and care of central auditory processing deficits in service members and veterans, and specify knowledge gaps that warrant research. Method We reviewed the literature to identify studies of risk factors, assessment, and care of central auditory processing deficits in service members and veterans. We also assessed the current state of the science for knowledge gaps that warrant additional study. This literature review describes key findings relating to military risk factors and clinical considerations for the assessment and care of those exposed. Conclusions Central auditory processing deficits are associated with exposure to known military risk factors. Research is needed to characterize mechanisms, sources of variance, and differential diagnosis in this population. Existing best practices do not explicitly consider confounds faced by military personnel. Assessment and rehabilitation strategies that account for these challenges are needed. Finally, investment is critical to ensure that Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense clinical staff are informed, trained, and equipped to implement effective patient care.

Inhalation exposure to volatile organic compounds in the printing industry

This study reports on the occupational inhalation exposure to VOCs of workers in the Kuwaiti printing industry. Using the evacuated canister methodology, we targeted 72 VOCs in three printeries and compared the concentrations to previous reports and relevant occupational exposure levels (OELs). We found that recent efforts in the printing industry to reduce VOC usage had been successful, as concentrations of key hazardous VOCs were substantially lower than anticipated. On the other hand, nearly all target VOCs were found. Non-production areas were sampled along with the offset printing areas, another strength of this study, and revealed exposures to hazardous VOCs among administers and digital printer and CTP operators. Exposure to ototoxic VOCs amounted to 1-3% of the OEL, consisting mostly of ethylbenzene, which was likely in use in two of the study printeries. Exposure to carcinogenic or probably carcinogenic VOCs was 15-20% of the OEL at four locations across the three printeries, consisting mostly of vinyl chloride and benzyl chloride. Vinyl chloride VOC was partially sourced from outdoors, but was also likely used inside the study printeries. Interestingly, concentrations of vinyl chloride were similar in most sampling locations to that of CFC-114, a CFC banned by the Montreal Protocol and not commonly used as a refrigerant. This unexpected finding suggests further study is warranted to identify the use of these VOCs in printeries. Exposure to hazardous VOCs up to nearly 50% of the OEL, consisting largely of bromoform and vinyl chloride. Bromoform was found in all the study printeries, sourced partially from outdoor air. The higher concentrations found inside the study printeries likely resulted from the use of the desalinated water for washing. This finding raises of emissions from sources other than blanket washes, and inks, etc. adding to the total VOC load in printery indoor air. Implications: Results from this study indicate that efforts to reduce worker exposure to VOCs particularly dangerous to human health in recent years have been successful, but there is still much to be done to protect workers. Exposures to ototoxic and carcinogenic VOCs were identified, among both production and non-production workers. Unexpected findings included the apparent use in printing activities of the carcinogen vinyl chloride and CFC-114, banned under the Montreal Protocol. Observed lapses in safety procedures included failure to utilize ventilation systems and closing doors between work areas, indicating management and worker education should remain a priority.

Auditory system dysfunction in Brazilian gasoline station workers

Objective: To examine the auditory system of Brazilian gasoline station workers using an extensive audiological test battery. Design: This was a cross-sectional study. The audiological evaluation included a questionnaire, pure-tone audiometry, acoustic immittance tests, transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs), distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs), auditory brainstem response (ABR) and P300 auditory-evoked potentials. Study sample: A total of 77 Brazilian gasoline station workers were evaluated, and their results were compared with those of 36 participants who were not exposed to chemicals or noise at work. The gasoline station employees worked in 18 different gas stations, and the noise area measurements from all gas stations revealed time-weighted averages below 85 dBA. Results: Of the 77 gasoline station workers evaluated, 67.5% had audiometric results within the normal range, but 59.7% reported difficulties in communication in noisy places. Gasoline station workers showed significantly poorer results than non-exposed control participants in one or more conditions of each of the audiological tests used, except P300. Conclusions: The results suggest that the gasoline station workers have both peripheral and central auditory dysfunctions that could be partly explained by their exposure to gasoline.

I’m Wearing My Hearing Protection – Am I Still At Risk for Hearing Loss? Lurking Ototoxins in the Military Environment

Objective

Information is summarized from the overall body of published literature regarding ototoxic chemicals encountered outside of clinical exposures, largely in occupational settings. While summarizing the most common non-pharmaceutical ototoxins, this review provides clinically relevant information and recommendations such that hearing health professionals may adopt a more comprehensive and appropriate diagnostic case history, test battery, documentation scheme, and education delivery.

Methods

Solvents, metals, and asphyxiants literature was reviewed using PubMed, national and international agency websites, and communications with known ototoxicity experts.

Results

Initial intentions to summarize the existing programs for occupational ototoxicity monitoring fell short when it was discovered that such programs have not yet formalized across the major oversight agencies in the United States. Instead, recommended guidance documents and fact sheets, which highlight existing occupational exposure limits and suggest monitoring and education are discussed.

Conclusions

While evidence in humans is limited, potentially ototoxic substances are worthy of improved surveillance and further research to understand their ototoxic mechanisms, effects, and possible mitigation strategies. A triad approach of monitoring, protecting, and educating is recommended for effective prevention of hearing loss: the Department of Defense Hearing Center of Excellence’s Comprehensive Hearing Health Program model employs such an approach.

Hearing

The main hazard for hearing in the workplace is noise. Organic solvents and heavy metals may increase the danger of developing occupational hearing loss, particularly in the case of co-exposure with noise. While noise produces damage predominantly to the cochlea, chemicals may be responsible for pathologic changes in both peripheral and central parts of the auditory pathway. Noise-induced hearing loss develops slowly over the years, although its progression is most dynamic during the first 10-15 years of exposure. Pure-tone audiometry indicates a bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, affecting predominantly high frequencies, with typical notch at 3-6 kHz in the early stages of the disease. Where there is co-exposure to noise and chemicals, the noise effect on hearing threshold shifts is dominant; however chemicals seem to increase the vulnerability of the cochlea to the damage by noise, particularly at its low and moderate levels. According to European Directive 2003/10/EC, the employer is obliged to implement hearing prevention programs when the A-weighted equivalent 8-hour level of noise (LAEX8 hr) exceeds 80 dB. Since chemicals may impair intelligibility of speech despite a lack of audiometric hearing threshold shift, implementation of speech audiometry, particularly speech in noise tests, is recommended in prevention programs.