Vanessa R Coffman1, Devon J Hall2, Nora Pisanic3, David C Love3,4, Maya Nadimpalli5,6, Meredith McCormack3,7,8, Marie Diener-West8,9,10,11,12,13, Meghan F Davis3,4,7, Christopher D Heaney3,4,8,10,14,15,16. 1. Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 2. Rural Empowerment Association for Community Help (REACH), Warsaw, North Carolina, USA. 3. Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 4. Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 5. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, USA. 6. Stuart B. Levy Center for Integrated Management of Antimicrobial Resistance (Levy CIMAR), Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 7. School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 8. Johns Hopkins Center for Global Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 9. Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 10. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 11. Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 12. Johns Hopkins Center for Clinical Trials and Evidence Synthesis, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 13. Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 14. Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 15. Johns Hopkins Education and Research Center for Occupational Safety and Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 16. Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University Water Institute, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Whiting School of Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Respiratory disease among industrial hog operation (IHO) workers is well documented; however, it remains unclear whether specific work activities are more harmful and if personal protective equipment (PPE), as used by workers, can reduce adverse health outcomes. METHODS: IHO workers (n = 103) completed baseline and up to eight bi-weekly study visits. Workers reported typical (baseline) and transient (bi-weekly) work activities, PPE use, and physical health symptoms. Baseline and longitudinal associations were assessed using generalized logistic and fixed-effects logistic regression models, respectively. RESULTS: At baseline, reports of ever versus never drawing pig blood, applying pesticides, and increasing years worked at any IHO were positively associated with reports of eye, nose, and/or throat irritation. Over time, transient exposures, associated with dustiness in barns, cleaning of barns, and pig contact were associated with increased odds of sneezing, headache, and eye or nose irritation, particularly in the highest categories of exposure. When PPE was used, workers had lower odds of symptoms interfering with sleep (odds ratio [OR]: 0.1; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.01-0.8), and eye or nose irritation (OR: 0.1; 95% CI: 0.02-0.9). Similarly, when they washed their hands eight times or more per shift (median frequency) versus less frequently, the odds of any respiratory symptom were reduced (OR: 0.3; 95% CI: 0.1-0.8). CONCLUSIONS: In this healthy volunteer worker population, increasingly unfavorable IHO activities were associated with self-reported eye, nose, throat, and respiratory health symptoms. Strong protective associations were seen between PPE use and handwashing and the odds of symptoms, warranting further investigation.
INTRODUCTION: Respiratory disease among industrial hog operation (IHO) workers is well documented; however, it remains unclear whether specific work activities are more harmful and if personal protective equipment (PPE), as used by workers, can reduce adverse health outcomes. METHODS: IHO workers (n = 103) completed baseline and up to eight bi-weekly study visits. Workers reported typical (baseline) and transient (bi-weekly) work activities, PPE use, and physical health symptoms. Baseline and longitudinal associations were assessed using generalized logistic and fixed-effects logistic regression models, respectively. RESULTS: At baseline, reports of ever versus never drawing pig blood, applying pesticides, and increasing years worked at any IHO were positively associated with reports of eye, nose, and/or throat irritation. Over time, transient exposures, associated with dustiness in barns, cleaning of barns, and pig contact were associated with increased odds of sneezing, headache, and eye or nose irritation, particularly in the highest categories of exposure. When PPE was used, workers had lower odds of symptoms interfering with sleep (odds ratio [OR]: 0.1; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.01-0.8), and eye or nose irritation (OR: 0.1; 95% CI: 0.02-0.9). Similarly, when they washed their hands eight times or more per shift (median frequency) versus less frequently, the odds of any respiratory symptom were reduced (OR: 0.3; 95% CI: 0.1-0.8). CONCLUSIONS: In this healthy volunteer worker population, increasingly unfavorable IHO activities were associated with self-reported eye, nose, throat, and respiratory health symptoms. Strong protective associations were seen between PPE use and handwashing and the odds of symptoms, warranting further investigation.
Authors: Ioannis Basinas; Vivi Schlünssen; Hisamitsu Takai; Dick Heederik; Øyvind Omland; Inge M Wouters; Torben Sigsgaard; Hans Kromhout Journal: Ann Occup Hyg Date: 2013-06-22
Authors: Britt-Marie Sundblad; Karin Sahlander; Alexandra Ek; Maria Kumlin; Marianne Olsson; Kjell Larsson; Lena Palmberg Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 5.024
Authors: J A Dosman; A Senthilselvan; S P Kirychuk; S Lemay; E M Barber; P Willson; Y Cormier; T S Hurst Journal: Chest Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Paul K Henneberger; Xiaoming Liang; Stephanie J London; David M Umbach; Dale P Sandler; Jane A Hoppin Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2013-05-14 Impact factor: 3.015