Self-reported work activities, eye, nose, and throat symptoms, and respiratory health outcomes among an industrial hog operation worker cohort, North Carolina, USA.
Adult
Air Pollutants, Occupational
/ adverse effects
Animal Husbandry
Animals
Eye Diseases
/ epidemiology
Female
Hand Disinfection
Humans
Livestock
Male
North Carolina
/ epidemiology
Nose Diseases
/ epidemiology
Occupational Diseases
/ epidemiology
Occupational Exposure
/ adverse effects
Odds Ratio
Outcome Assessment, Health Care
Personal Protective Equipment
/ statistics & numerical data
Pharyngitis
/ epidemiology
Respiratory Tract Diseases
/ epidemiology
Self Report
Swine
PPE
animal workers
indoor air
occupational health practice
respiratory
Journal
American journal of industrial medicine
ISSN: 1097-0274
Titre abrégé: Am J Ind Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8101110
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2021
05 2021
Historique:
revised:
30
12
2020
received:
17
10
2020
accepted:
20
01
2021
pubmed:
23
2
2021
medline:
16
10
2021
entrez:
22
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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). 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33616247
doi: 10.1002/ajim.23236
pmc: PMC8046736
mid: NIHMS1674236
doi:
Substances chimiques
Air Pollutants, Occupational
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
403-413Subventions
Organisme : NIOSH CDC HHS
ID : K01 OH010193
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIEHS NIH HHS
ID : R01 ES026973
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : K01 OD019918
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIEHS NIH HHS
ID : T32 ES007141
Pays : United States
Organisme : ACL HHS
ID : T42OH008428
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2014 May;87(4):423-32
pubmed: 23670403
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2006 Apr;32(2):145-53
pubmed: 16680385
Environ Health Perspect. 2000 Aug;108(8):685-99
pubmed: 10964788
AIHAJ. 2000 Jan-Feb;61(1):56-63
pubmed: 10772615
J Agric Saf Health. 2002 May;8(2):199-214
pubmed: 12046806
Ann Occup Hyg. 2013 Oct;57(8):1005-19
pubmed: 23792973
Curr Environ Health Rep. 2015 Sep;2(3):259-71
pubmed: 26231503
J Agromedicine. 2010 Jul;15(3):216-25
pubmed: 20665307
Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2016 Mar;22(2):144-9
pubmed: 26761627
Chest. 2000 Sep;118(3):852-60
pubmed: 10988215
Epidemiology. 2011 Mar;22(2):208-15
pubmed: 21228696
Am J Ind Med. 1990;18(3):241-61
pubmed: 2220828
Environ Health Perspect. 1996 Apr;104(4):362-9
pubmed: 8732939
J Occup Med. 1977 Jun;19(6):383-7
pubmed: 559729
Respir Res. 2005 Jun 02;6:50
pubmed: 15932644
Environ Int. 2019 Jun;127:764-772
pubmed: 31029031
J Occup Environ Med. 2000 Aug;42(8):814-20
pubmed: 10953819
Am J Ind Med. 2008 Oct;51(10):782-94
pubmed: 18702096
J Occup Environ Med. 2012 Sep;54(9):1126-32
pubmed: 22918380
Am J Ind Med. 2001 Mar;39(3):292-300
pubmed: 11241562
Chest. 2007 Apr;131(4):1197-204
pubmed: 17426228
Environ Health Perspect. 2007 Feb;115(2):298-302
pubmed: 17384782
J Occup Environ Hyg. 2010 Jan;7(1):7-13
pubmed: 19904655
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2018 Mar;221(2):134-173
pubmed: 29133137
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008 Aug;122(2):375-82, 382.e1-4
pubmed: 18585769
PLoS One. 2016 Nov 16;11(11):e0165713
pubmed: 27851746
MMWR Suppl. 2011 Jan 14;60(1):84-6
pubmed: 21430629
J Agromedicine. 2009;14(2):270-6
pubmed: 19437288
Environ Monit Assess. 2007 Oct;133(1-3):255-66
pubmed: 17268924
Am J Ind Med. 1993 May;23(5):743-50
pubmed: 8506852
Am J Ind Med. 1986;10(3):283-5
pubmed: 3766555
Am J Ind Med. 1999 Jan;35(1):51-7
pubmed: 9884745