BACKGROUND: The observed deficit of lung cancer in farmers has been partly attributed to exposure to organic dusts and endotoxins based largely on surrogate metrics. To move beyond these surrogates for etiological studies, we characterized task-based and time-weighted average (TWA) exposure to inhalable endotoxin, (1 → 3)-β-D-glucan, and dust in Iowa farmers. METHODS: We collected 320 personal inhalable dust samples from 32 farmers during 69 sample days in 2015 and 2016. Samples were collected using Button aerosol samplers and analyzed for endotoxin using a kinetic chromogenic amebocyte lysate assay, and for (1 → 3)-β-D-glucan using a Limulus endpoint assay. We assessed relationships between bioaerosol concentrations and selected tasks and farm characteristics using linear mixed-effects models. RESULTS: Bedding work, hog handling, and working in barn/confinement buildings, grain bins, and grain elevators were associated with higher endotoxin exposure. We found a monotonic trend between higher endotoxin concentrations and increasing number of animals. Bedding work, cleaning, and feed/grain storage work were associated with higher (1 → 3)-β-D-glucan concentrations. The median concentrations by task spanned one order of magnitude for inhalable dust and two orders of magnitude for endotoxin and (1 → 3)-β-D-glucan. Pearson correlations between endotoxin and glucan concentrations were 0.22 for TWA exposure and 0.56 for task samples. CONCLUSIONS: This characterization of exposure factors that influence bioaerosol concentrations can support the development of refined bioaerosol exposure metrics for future etiologic analyses of cancer and other health outcomes in farmers.
BACKGROUND: The observed deficit of lung cancer in farmers has been partly attributed to exposure to organic dusts and endotoxins based largely on surrogate metrics. To move beyond these surrogates for etiological studies, we characterized task-based and time-weighted average (TWA) exposure to inhalable endotoxin, (1 → 3)-β-D-glucan, and dust in Iowa farmers. METHODS: We collected 320 personal inhalable dust samples from 32 farmers during 69 sample days in 2015 and 2016. Samples were collected using Button aerosol samplers and analyzed for endotoxin using a kinetic chromogenic amebocyte lysate assay, and for (1 → 3)-β-D-glucan using a Limulus endpoint assay. We assessed relationships between bioaerosol concentrations and selected tasks and farm characteristics using linear mixed-effects models. RESULTS: Bedding work, hog handling, and working in barn/confinement buildings, grain bins, and grain elevators were associated with higher endotoxin exposure. We found a monotonic trend between higher endotoxin concentrations and increasing number of animals. Bedding work, cleaning, and feed/grain storage work were associated with higher (1 → 3)-β-D-glucan concentrations. The median concentrations by task spanned one order of magnitude for inhalable dust and two orders of magnitude for endotoxin and (1 → 3)-β-D-glucan. Pearson correlations between endotoxin and glucan concentrations were 0.22 for TWA exposure and 0.56 for task samples. CONCLUSIONS: This characterization of exposure factors that influence bioaerosol concentrations can support the development of refined bioaerosol exposure metrics for future etiologic analyses of cancer and other health outcomes in farmers.
Authors: Sadegh Samadi; Frank J C M van Eerdenburg; Ali-Reza Jamshidifard; Giovanna P Otten; Marijke Droppert; Dick J J Heederik; Inge M Wouters Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol Date: 2012-05-02 Impact factor: 5.563
Authors: Catherine C Lerro; Stella Koutros; Gabriella Andreotti; Dale P Sandler; Charles F Lynch; Lydia M Louis; Aaron Blair; Christine G Parks; Srishti Shrestha; Jay H Lubin; Paul S Albert; Jonathan N Hofmann; Laura E Beane Freeman Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2019-02-25 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Johnny Garcia; Deborah H Bennett; Daniel Tancredi; Marc B Schenker; Diane Mitchell; Stephen J Reynolds; Frank M Mitloehner Journal: Int J Hyg Environ Health Date: 2012-05-12 Impact factor: 5.840
Authors: Ioannis Basinas; Torben Sigsgaard; Hans Kromhout; Dick Heederik; Inge M Wouters; Vivi Schlünssen Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol Date: 2013-11-27 Impact factor: 5.563
Authors: Sadegh Samadi; Inge M Wouters; Rosa Houben; Ali-Reza Jamshidifard; Frank Van Eerdenburg; Dick J J Heederik Journal: Ann Occup Hyg Date: 2009-06-26
Authors: Hugo Pfister; Laurent Madec; Pierre Le Cann; Nathalie Costet; Martine Chouvet; Stéphane Jouneau; Laurent Vernhet Journal: Environ Res Date: 2018-05-11 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: M C Alavanja; D P Sandler; S B McMaster; S H Zahm; C J McDonnell; C F Lynch; M Pennybacker; N Rothman; M Dosemeci; A E Bond; A Blair Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 1996-04 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Melissa C Friesen; Felicia Hung; Shuai Xie; Susan M Viet; Nicole C Deziel; Sarah J Locke; Pabitra R Josse; Jean-François Sauvé; Gabriella Andreotti; Peter S Thorne; Laura E Beane-Freeman; Jonathan N Hofmann Journal: Ann Work Expo Health Date: 2022-10-11 Impact factor: 2.779
Authors: Jonathan D Nilles; Dooyoung Lim; Michael P Boyer; Brittany D Wilson; Rebekah A Betar; Holly A Showalter; Darren Liu; Elitsa A Ananieva Journal: Environ Geochem Health Date: 2022-04-05 Impact factor: 4.609
Authors: Chamari B A Mampage; Dagen D Hughes; Lillian M Jones; Nervana Metwali; Peter S Thorne; Elizabeth A Stone Journal: Atmos Environ X Date: 2022-06-06