Charles J Chen1, Kevin J Moore, Cristina A Fernandez, Kristopher L Arheart, William G LeBlanc, Manuel Cifuentes, Laura A McClure, Sharon L Christ, Lora E Fleming, David J Lee, Alberto J Caban-Martinez. 1. Department Public Health Sciences, University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida (Mr Chen, Mr Moore, Dr Fernandez, Mr Arheart, Dr LeBlanc, Ms McClure, Drs Fleming, Lee, Caban-Martinez); European Centre for Environment and Human Health and University of Exeter Medical School, Knowledge Spa, Royal Cornwall Hospital, Truro, Cornwall, UK (Dr Fleming); Department of Public Health, Regis College, Weston, Massachusetts (Dr Cifuentes); and Department of Human Development & Family Studies, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana (Dr Christ).
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: "Green collar" workers serve in occupations that directly improve environmental quality and sustainability. This study estimates and compares the prevalence of select physical and chemical exposures among green versus non-green U.S. workers. METHODS: Data from the U.S. 2010 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) Occupational Health Supplement were linked to the Occupational Information Network (ONET) Database. We examined four main exposures: 1) vapors, gas, dust, fumes (VGDF); 2) secondhand tobacco smoke; 3) skin hazards; 4) outdoor work. RESULTS: Green-collar workers were significantly more likely to report exposure to VGDF and outdoor work than nongreen-collar workers [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.25; 95% CI = 1.11 to 1.40; AOR = 1.44 (1.26 to 1.63), respectively]. Green-collar workers were less likely to be exposed to chemicals (AOR = 0.80; 0.69 to 0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Green-collar workers appear to be at a greater risk for select workplace exposures. As the green industry continues to grow, it is important to identify these occupational hazards in order to maximize worker health.
OBJECTIVE: "Green collar" workers serve in occupations that directly improve environmental quality and sustainability. This study estimates and compares the prevalence of select physical and chemical exposures among green versus non-green U.S. workers. METHODS: Data from the U.S. 2010 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) Occupational Health Supplement were linked to the Occupational Information Network (ONET) Database. We examined four main exposures: 1) vapors, gas, dust, fumes (VGDF); 2) secondhand tobacco smoke; 3) skin hazards; 4) outdoor work. RESULTS: Green-collar workers were significantly more likely to report exposure to VGDF and outdoor work than nongreen-collar workers [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.25; 95% CI = 1.11 to 1.40; AOR = 1.44 (1.26 to 1.63), respectively]. Green-collar workers were less likely to be exposed to chemicals (AOR = 0.80; 0.69 to 0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Green-collar workers appear to be at a greater risk for select workplace exposures. As the green industry continues to grow, it is important to identify these occupational hazards in order to maximize worker health.
Authors: Paul Brennan; Patricia A Buffler; Peggy Reynolds; Anna H Wu; H Erich Wichmann; Antonio Agudo; Göran Pershagen; Karl-Heinz Jöckel; Simone Benhamou; Raymond S Greenberg; Franco Merletti; Carlos Winck; Elizabeth T H Fontham; Michaela Kreuzer; Sarah C Darby; Francesco Forastiere; Lorenzo Simonato; Paolo Boffetta Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Paul D Blanc; Mark D Eisner; John R Balmes; Laura Trupin; Edward H Yelin; Patricia P Katz Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 2.214
Authors: M Radespiel-Tröger; M Meyer; A Pfahlberg; B Lausen; W Uter; O Gefeller Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2008-07-23 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Geoffrey M Calvert; Sara E Luckhaupt; Aaron Sussell; James M Dahlhamer; Brian W Ward Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2012-07-20 Impact factor: 2.214
Authors: Kristopher L Arheart; David J Lee; Noella A Dietz; James D Wilkinson; John D Clark; William G LeBlanc; Berrin Serdar; Lora E Fleming Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Paul A Schulte; Lauralynn T McKernan; Donna S Heidel; Andrea H Okun; Gary Scott Dotson; Thomas J Lentz; Charles L Geraci; Pamela E Heckel; Christine M Branche Journal: Environ Health Date: 2013-04-15 Impact factor: 5.984