Diagnostic biomarkers in workers exposed to ethylene oxide

Introduction. The leading adverse factor in the production of ethylene oxide is air pollution in the work area (ethylene oxide, ethylene glycol, dichloroethane, ethylene) during technological operations related to equipment depressurization. Oxides are highly toxic compounds with a risk of acute inhalation poisoning and have irritating, narcotic, general toxic, mutagenic and carcinogenic effects. The identification of early signs of exposure to low concentrations of ethylene oxide on the body of workers in order to timely carry out therapeutic and preventive measures is relevant.

The study aims to explore laboratory biomarkers, criteria of changes when exposed to ethylene oxide on the body of workers.

Materials and methods. The scientists conducted a study at a petrochemical plant. To identify early signs of the influence of environmental factors on the body of the examined, the authors conducted an in-depth hematological, biochemical and immunological examination of 219 ethylene oxide production workers.

Results. Experts identified informational laboratory markers when exposed to harmful industrial factors in the production of ethylene oxide: excess of the average content of reticulocytes (9.9%), lymphocytes (34.2%), monocytes (6.9%) from the control values, increased alkaline phosphatase (29.8%), total protein (25.9%), decreased albumin levels (by 17.8%), α₁‑globulins (by 32.8%), α₂-globulins (by 19.0%), β-globulins (by 15.5%), with a simultaneous increase in the level of γ-globulins (by 6.9%), a decrease in the average level of class A immunoglobulins (36.1%), Class M (22.9%), Class J (38.1%), phagocytosis (75.5%), increased lysozyme activity (by 97.5%).

Limitations. The study is limited by the number of respondents (219 workers).

Conclusion. Based on the data obtained, the researchers identified biomarkers characterized by high diagnostic information content when exposed to harmful industrial factors, reflecting changes in peripheral blood parameters, biochemical status, cellular and humoral immunity in ethylene oxide production workers. The identified diagnostic complexes make it possible to justify measures to establish monitoring of the health status of employees.

Ethics. The study was approved at the meeting of the bioethical Commission of the Ufa Research Institute of Occupational Health and Human Ecology dated 04/18/2024 No. 02-04.

Contribution:
Gimranova G.G. — research concept and design, text writing, editing;
Masyagutova L.M. — data collection and processing, text writing, editing;
Shaikhlislamova E.R. — writing the text;
Karimova L.K. — data collection and processing, writing text;
Beigul N.A. — writing the text;
Volgareva A.D. — data collection and processing;
Zaidullin I.I. — writing the text.

Funding. The study had no funding.

Conflict of interests. The authors declare no conflict of interests.

Received: 10.02.2025 / Accepted: 12.02.2025 / Published: 05.03.2025

1. Beskov V.S., Safronov V.S. General chemical technology and principles of industrial ecology. Moscow: Chemistry; 1999 (in Russian).

2. Zimakov P.V., Dyment O.N. Ethylene oxide. Moscow: Chemistry; 1987: 16–20 (in Russian).

3. Winder C. Toxicology of gases, vapours and particulates. In Winder C., Stacey N.H., eds. Occupational toxicology, 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.; 2004: 399–424. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781482289282-18

4. Lynch H.N., Kozal J.S., Russell A.J., et al. Systematic review of the scientific evidence on ethylene oxide as a human carcinogen. Chem Biol Interact. 2022; 364: 110031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbi.2022.110031

5. 1,3-Butadiene, Ethylene Oxide and Vinyl Halides (Vinyl Fluoride, Vinyl Chloride and Vinyl Bromide). IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Vol. 97. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2008. ISBN 978-92-832-1297-3.

6. Anand V.P., Cogdill C.P., Klausner K.A., et al. Reevaluation of ethylene oxide hemolysis and irritation potential. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A. 2003; 64(4): 648–654. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.10422

7. Fennell T.R., Brown C.D. A physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for ethylene oxide in mouse, rat, and human. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2001; 173(3): 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1006/taap.2001.9184

8. Heath L., Gaskin Sh., Pisaniello D., Crea J., Logan M., Baxter Ch. Skin Absorption of Ethylene Oxide Gas Following Exposures Relevant to HAZMAT Incidents. Ann. Work Expo Health. 2017; 61(5): 589–595. https://doi.org/10.1093/annweh/wxx030

9. Abelev G.I., Al'tshteyn A.D., Belitskiy G.A., et al. In: Zaridze D.G., ed. Carcinogenesis: Manual. Rus. Academy of Medical Sciences, State Institution Russian Oncology Research Center named after N.N. Blokhin, Research Institute of Carcinogenesis. Moscow: Meditsina; 2004, ISBN 5-225-04787-4:3000 (in Russian).

10. Medical Management Guidelines (MMGs). Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/MMG/MMGLanding.aspx

11. Adám B., Bárdos H., Adány R. Increased genotoxic susceptibility of breast epithelial cells to ethylene oxide. Mutat Res. 2005; 585(1-2): 120–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrgentox.2005.04.009

12. Högstedt B., Bergmark E., Törnqvist M., Osterman-Golkar S. Chromosomal aberrations and micronuclei in lymphocytes in relation to alkylation of hemoglobin in workers exposed to ethylene oxide and propylene oxide. Hereditas. 1990; 113(2): 133–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-5223.1990.tb00076.x

13. IARC, 2012. Chemical Agents and Related Occupations. IARC Monographs 100F. Lyon (FR): International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2012. ISBN-13: 978-9283213239. ISBN-13: 978-9283201380.

14. Vincent M.J., Kozal J.S., Thompson W.J., Maier A., Dotson G.S., Best E.A., Mundt K.A. Ethylene Oxide: Cancer Evidence Integration and Dose-Response Implications. Dose Response. 2019; 17(4): 1559325819888317. https://doi.org/10.1177/1559325819888317. PMID: 31853235; PMCID: PMC6906442.

15. Khudoley V.V. Carcinogens: characteristics, patterns, mechanisms of action. SPb.: Research Institute of Chemistry of St. Petersburg State University; 1999. ISBN 5-7997-0170-4 (in Russian).

16. Jinot J., Fritz J.M., Vulimiri S.V., Keshava N. Carcinogenicity of ethylene oxide: key findings and scientific issues. Toxicol Mech Methods. 2018; 28(5): 386–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/15376516.2017.1414343

17. Park R.M. Associations between exposure to ethylene oxide, job termination, and cause-specific mortality risk. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2020; 63(7): 577–588. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.23115

18. Karimova L.K., Bakirov A.B., Kaptsov V.A., Gimranova G.G., eds. Occupational Hygiene in Oil Production and Refining. Ufa: Mir Pechati; 2017: 191–199 (in Russian).

19. Harmful Substances. Section 4. Heterocyclic Compounds. Three-Membered Heterocyclic Compounds. New Handbook of a Chemist and Technologist. Radioactive Substances. Harmful Chemical Substances. Hygienic Standards. SPb.: MMIV; 2004 (in Russian).

20. Galimova R.R., Timasheva G.V., Valeeva E.T., Bakirov A.B. Assessment of early metabolic disorders in workers of modern petrochemical production. Population health and habitat. 2018; 3(300): 4–6 (in Russian).

21. Timasheva G.V., Valeeva E.T., Masyagutova L.M., Karimova L.K., Bakirov A.B., Repina E.F. Early diagnostic and prognostic criteria for health disorders in workers of the chemical complex. Klin. lab. diagn. 2020; 12(65): 750–56 (in Russian).

22. Kudaeva I.V., Budarina L.A., Masnavieva L.B. State of protein metabolism in firefighters. Bulletin of the SB RAMS. 2012; 6: 24–7 (in Russian).