Send letter to journal:
Re: Mortality results for polyurethane manufacture understated

Dear Editor

Sorahan and Nichols,[1] writing in this journal, incorrectly understate the strength of evidence for work-related increased mortality among their cohort of production workers in the UK flexible polyurethane foam industry. Their study actually found “some” evidence for a work-related increase in all-cause mortality, respiratory disease mortality, and lung cancer mortality in this exposure circumstance, especially taking into account the healthy worker effect.[2] We are concerned to correct this error, because the UAW represents substantial numbers of workers exposed to this process, and the UK data provides the first evidence of a mortality hazard in this industry, in contrast to two previous, perhaps weaker studies.[3,4]

The authors observed an all-cause SMR among men of 107 (101 to 113), a respiratory disease SMR of 120 (101 to 141). Elevated mortality of similar magnitude from these causes was observed among the smaller number of women, and the SMRs for both genders combined were significantly elevated. Elevated SMRs for all-cause and respiratory disease mortality are hardly ever seen in occupational cohorts except for foundry and asbestos workers. Typically, the SMR for all-cause mortality is about 80, and SMR for most cancer causes about 90 in the absence of exposure to a carcinogen at the site.[5] We have observed SMRs for all-cause mortality as low as 60 in UAW vehicle assembly and stamping cohorts.[6] We are surprised that these authors mentioned a deficit for all-causes in the abstract of their previous study of this cohort, but make no mention of the excess in the present paper.[7]

For lung cancer, the authors noted a significant SMR of 181 (126 to 251) for lung cancer among women. They discount this partly because the SMR of 107 (90 to 227) among men was only slightly elevated compared to the general population, without also noting that the combined SMR was 117 (101 to 136) and statistically significantly elevated. The authors also fail to mention that the SMRs for pancreatic cancer were elevated to a similar degree in both genders, and the combined SMR was 147 (1.02 to 2.12) and significantly elevated. We believe that consistency in direction of effect is more important than statistical significance, especially in view of the healthy worker effect bias against seeing an effect if it were there.

These findings apply to an exposure circumstance with several suspect agents. The isocyanates are most prominently associated with non- malignant respiratory disease. Therefore, the increase in mortality from this cause is of distinct interest. In addition, pancreatic cancer was noted in gavage studies of toluene diisocyanate.[8] In our experience, the most substantial exposure with carcinogenic risk in foam molding is methylene chloride,[9] although brominated and chlorinated alcohol flame retardants, and formaldehyde are usually present in foam molding operations. Catalyst amines may also be absorbed through the skin in physiologically significant amounts.[10] These multiple exposures, often in different parts of the process, including off-gassing from stored foam, undermine the ability to see an effect of isocyanates alone.

We now turn to the exposure response portion of the study. Health related termination of exposure has previously been noted as an obstacle to finding an exposure response effect based on duration.[11] Those with highest exposure to isocyanates would be expected to be sensitized and migrate into lower exposure jobs; in any event, there were only 19 of 1652 deceased workers with more than 5 years in higher exposed jobs, no lung cancer victims and only 2 respiratory disease victims. In our view, the absence of an exposure response relationship in a cohort with such a small higher exposed group detracts little from our concern for occupational cause of an observed excess.

More damaging to the evidence of occupational causation is the absence of a monotonic increasing trend with latency from first exposure: The general trend of increased risk in exposure strata greater than 10 years latency, clearly significant for all-cause mortality, is not seen in those with greater than 30 years latency. However, we note that the all cause and respiratory disease SMRs are at unity or above for this long latency strata, itself a highly unusual observation. The confidence intervals overlap between strata, so while there is not a significant increase, there is no inverse latency response relationship. In addition, much the largest portion of this long latency group must have come from two of the eleven plants (Factory 3 and 4 in Table 1) where exposures may have contrasted to other 9 facilities.

In summary, this study has found a highly unusual and statistically significant elevation in all cause mortality and respiratory disease mortality in the cohort as a whole, consistently in both men and women. For women alone, and men and women combined there was significantly increased mortality for lung cancer, and for both genders combined, pancreatic cancer. This is certainly “some evidence” for work related mortality, respiratory disease mortality, and cancer mortality in the exposure circumstance of polyurethane foam production. The nature of the cohort gave little prospect for observing an exposure response relationship, if it were there. We also note that, unlike all the other papers in this edition of the journal, these authors have neglected to acknowledge their funding source.

Reference

(1) T. Sorahan and L. Nichols, "Mortality and cancer morbidity of production workers in the UK flexible polyurethane foam industry: updated findings, 1958-98." Occup Environ Med (2002) 59, 751-8.

(2) A. J. McMichael, "Standardized mortality ratios and the "healthy worker effect": Scratching beneath the surface." J Occup Med (1976) 18, 165-8.

(3) T. M. Schnorr, K. Steenland, G. M. Egeland, M. Boeniger, and D. Egilman, "Mortality of workers exposed to toluene diisocyanate in the polyurethane foam industry." Occup Environ Med (1996) 53, 703-7 .

(4) L. Hagmar, H. Welinder, and Z. Mikoczy, "Cancer incidence and mortality in the Swedish polyurethane foam manufacturing industry." Br J Ind Med (1993) 50, 537-43.

(5) R. M. Park, N. A. Maizlish, L. Punnett, R. Moure-Eraso, and M. A. Silverstein, "A comparison of PMRs and SMRs as estimators of occupational mortality." Epidemiology (1991) 2, 49-59.

(6) R. Park, J. Krebs, and F. Mirer, "Mortality at an automotive stamping and assembly complex." Am J Ind Med (1994) 26, 449-63.

(7) T. Sorahan and D. Pope, "Mortality and cancer morbidity of production workers in the United Kingdom flexible polyurethane foam industry." Br J Ind Med (1993) 50, 528-36.

(8) National Toxicology Program,"TR-251: Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Commercial Grade 2,4 (80%)- and 2,6 (20%)- Toluene Diisocyanate (CAS No. 26471-62-5) in F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Gavage Studies)."; 86

(9) NIEHS, TR-306: Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Dichloromethane (Methylene Chloride) (CAS No. 75-09-2) in F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Inhalation Studies), (1986).

(10) E. L. Baker, D. C. Christiani, D. H. Wegman, M. Siroky, C. A. Niles, and R. G. Feldman, "Follow-up studies of workers with bladder neuropathy caused by exposure to dimethylaminopropionitrile." Scand J Work Environ Health (1981) 7 Suppl 4, 54-9.