You are not currently logged in.
Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Behavior of aluminum in aluminum welders and manufacturers of aluminum sulfate—impact on biological monitoring
Vesa Riihimäki, Sinikka Valkonen, Bernt Engström, Antti Tossavainen, Pertti Mutanen and Antero Aitio
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health
Vol. 34, No. 6 (December 2008), pp. 451-462
Published by: the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, the Danish National Research Centre for the Working Environment, and the Norwegian National Institute of Occupational Health
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40967743
Page Count: 12
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Objectives The suitability of determining aluminum in serum or urine as a form of biological monitoring was critically assessed. Methods Airborne and internal aluminum exposure was assessed for 12 aluminum welders in a shipyard and 5 manufacturers of aluminum sulfate. Particles were characterized with X-ray diffraction and scanning electron microscopy. Aluminum in air and biological samples was analyzed using electrothermal atomic absorption spectrometry. Basic toxicokinetic features were inferred from the data. Results The mean 8-hour time-weighted average concentration of aluminum was 1.1 (range 0.008–6.1) mg/m³ for the shipyard and 0.13 (range 0.02–0.5) mg/m³ for the aluminum sulfate plant. Welding fume contained aluminum oxide particles <0.1 µm in diameter and their agglomerates, whereas bauxite and aluminum sulfate particles ranged from 1 to 10 µm in diameter. The shipyard welders' mean postshift serum and urinary concentrations of aluminum (S-Al and U-Al, respectively) were 0.22 and 3.4 µmol/l, respectively, and the aluminum sulfate workers' corresponding values were 0.13 and 0.58 µmol/l. Between two shifts, the welders' S-Al concentration decreased by about 50% (P<0.01), but their U-Al concentration did not change (P= 0.64). No corresponding temporal changes occurred among the aluminum sulfate workers. After aluminum welding at the shipyard had ceased, the median S-Al concentration decreased by about 50% (P=0.007) within a year, but there was no change (P=0.75) in the corresponding U-Al concentration. Conclusions About 1% of aluminum in welding fume appears to be rapidly absorbed from the lungs, whereas an undetermined fraction is retained and forms a lung burden. A higher fractional absorption of aluminum seems possible for aluminum sulfate workers without evidence of a lung burden. After rapid absorption, aluminum is slowly mobilized from the lung burden and dominates the S-Al and U-Al concentrations of aluminum welders. For kinetic reasons, S-Al or U-Al concentrations cannot be used to estimate the accumulation of aluminum in the target organs of toxicity. However, using U-Al analysis to monitor aluminum welders' lung burden seems practical.
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health © 2008 Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health