HBM4EU Chromates Study: Determinants of Exposure to

Overview

This source page is a mechanical bulk-ingest record for a PDF in the research-pulls corpus. It preserves source-level identity, routeable product/analyte scope, and exact extracted numeric lines for later human or fresh-context audit. It does not derive HMTc thresholds, percentiles, or brand-by-brand comparisons.

Key numbers

The worker extracted the full PDF text with layout preservation twice and compared extraction hashes before commit. The following lines are copied from numeric/table-bearing regions of the PDF and retain the source units and wording where legible:

Karen S. Galea 7 , Lode Godderis 6,8 , Ivo Iavicoli 9 , Beata Janasik 10 , Kate Jones 11 , Elizabeth Leese 11 ,
10 Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, 91-348 Lodz, Poland; beata.janasik@imp.lodz.pl (B.J.);
questionnaire (16). However, not all the collected information could provide data suitable
variables. Determinants of exposure included in the analysis are presented in Table 1.
( <LOQ = 12 LOQ) (25). This approach was already used in the previous paper describing
(mean, median, and percentiles 75 (P75) and 95 (P95)) and qualitative variables (frequen-
5% was considered for all the analysis. Due to the low number of observations in some
tional conditions, are presented in Table S1.
Approximately 40% of workers were from metallurgy, and 15.0% of workers were from
stainless-steel welders). Almost half of the workers (48.9%) were employed in the welding
activities, followed by chromate plating (22.6%) and painting (13.0%).
duration (78.9%) and fixed day shifts (60.9%). Ten companies, corresponding to 68 workers
(17.0%), did not report any previous environmental (air and/or dermal) monitoring and/or
biomonitoring campaigns. Of the workers, 70.9% were employed in companies that have
Concerning previous training in OSH issues, most of the workers (83.7%) were engaged in
was possible to wash their hands during the work shift (97.5%), and there was a dedicated
The main characteristics of the studied population are summarised in Table S2. As
already reported (17), exposed workers were mainly men (97.7%), and the age distribution
was 42 ± 11 years old (mean ± SD). Considering the distribution by country of the enrolled
participants, it ranged between 4.0% (Luxembourg) and 17.7% (Belgium). The participating
lived mainly in urban areas (63.7%), with most of the workers reporting a low density of
traffic (52.1%). Regarding smoking status, a total of 140 (35.6%) workers were smokers, and
and in other jobs in the metal industry (Table S2).
Mean length of experience in their jobs varied between 1.5 years for painting or
machining, fitter, cutter, grinder, with a maximum of 39 years) (Table S2). The self-reported
levels of U-Cr only for welders (n = 162, rs = 0.191, p = 0.015 and n = 158, rs = 0.168, p = 0.034,
Table 2 presents the results of total Cr and Cr(VI) in air samples and total Cr in hand
Table 2. Levels of total Cr and Cr(VI) in industrial hygiene samples (air and hand wipe samples).
Bath plating 77 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.7 2.3 <LOQ–8.4
Wipe Painting 32 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 <LOQ–0.3
samples Machining 25 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.3 <LOQ–1.4
(n = 34) and showed that exposure to Cr still occurs even when RPE is used (GM of 3.7 µg/m3 ).
U-Cr concentrations measured from the different activity sectors are presented in Table 3
Table 3. Urinary concentrations of total Cr in the population of workers studied and compared with
welding (rs = 0.797), bath plating (rs = 0.892) and painting (rs = 0.703) (Table 3). Regarding
ing (rs = 0.797), bath plating (rs = 0.892) and painting (rs = 0.703) (Table 3). Reg
“chromium electroplating dipping” by process type: manual (n = 67) or automatic
mium electroplating dipping” by process type: manual (n = 67) or automatic n = 16). B n = 16). Box
tal line inside the box is the median (50th percentile). The lower and upper ends of the whiskers are
Concerning (39.5%) activities,
tungsten inert gas (TIG) (39.5%) and shielded metal arc welding (SMAW) (17.4
Table 4. Heatmap representing Spearman coefficient correlation (rs ) analysis for total Cr and Cr(VI)

Methods (brief)

Karen S. Galea 7 , Lode Godderis 6,8 , Ivo Iavicoli 9 , Beata Janasik 10 , Kate Jones 11 , Elizabeth Leese 11 ,
lode.godderis@kuleuven.be (L.G.); katrien.poels@kuleuven.be (K.P.); jelle.verdonck@kuleuven.be (J.V.)
10 Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, 91-348 Lodz, Poland; beata.janasik@imp.lodz.pl (B.J.);
wojciech.wasowicz@imp.lodz.pl (W.W.)
reduction in exposure. HBM and occupational hygiene data were collected from 399 workers and
and respirable dust of Cr and Cr(VI) and Cr from hand wipes were collected. Data on the RMMs
were collected by questionnaires. We studied the association between different exposure parameters
tasks of short duration, such as collecting samples from Cr baths (17). It was hypothesised
biomarkers, occupational hygiene samples and by use of contextual information with the
samples (urine) and industrial hygiene samples (air and hand wipe); and collection of
and hand wipe samples results) and contextual data collected using two questionnaires
All the samples were collected between October 2018 and December 2020, following
the procedures defined in dedicated SOPs (16). The samples analyses were performed as
Personal inhalable dust was sampled in the breathing zone using an IOM sampling
head (flow rate 2 L/min), whereas the respirable dust fraction was collected using the
the ones recommended by the samplers’ manufacturers. The samplers were placed in the
welders, alternatively, the SKC Mini-sampler was used, loaded with a pre-weighed 13 mm
samplers were used only in the UK, Belgium and Luxembourg for the collection of total Cr.

Implications

This page makes the source discoverable for category-level evidence routing. Values remain source-native and should be used only with the stated matrix, species, basis, geography, and censoring context from the paper. The page does not convert total mercury to methylmercury or use total arsenic as inorganic arsenic.

Wiki pages this source may touch

Verification notes

Identity check: DOI, raw handle, candidate cite-key, and SHA-256 were compared against existing wiki/sources/ pages before creation.
Full-PDF read: pdftotext -layout was run on the full PDF twice; extracted text hashes matched before the page was written.
Numeric verification: numeric/table-bearing lines were selected mechanically from the verified extraction and preserved without unit conversion or rounding.
Brand firewall: the worker skips PDFs when extracted numeric lines appear brand/manufacturer-sensitive; this page contains category-level or species-level evidence only.
HMTc firewall: no threshold, percentile, pass/fail, clean/dirty, or certification math is stated.

Update history

The five most recent substantive edits to this page, classified major (evidence or structure moved), correction (a published value or statement was wrong and has been fixed), or minor (narrative rewritten without changing the underlying evidence). Each description is derived from what the edit did to this page; the linked commit is the authoritative record, routine regeneration passes are excluded, and the full version history lives in git. When DOI minting comes online (see schema docs), each entry below will also link to a version-pinned DataCite DOI.

Commit	Date	Change	Description
b01ec52c	2026-08-04	major	2 sections added
d49e450f	2026-08-03	major	5 sections added; narrative text revised