Feedback on Measured Dust Concentrations Reduces Exposure Levels Among Farmers.

Annals of Occupational Hygiene Pub Date : 2016-08-01 Epub Date: 2016-05-31 DOI:10.1093/annhyg/mew032
Ioannis Basinas, Torben Sigsgaard, Jakob Hjort Bønløkke, Nils Testrup Andersen, Øyvind Omland, Hans Kromhout, Vivi Schlünssen
{"title":"Feedback on Measured Dust Concentrations Reduces Exposure Levels Among Farmers.","authors":"Ioannis Basinas,&nbsp;Torben Sigsgaard,&nbsp;Jakob Hjort Bønløkke,&nbsp;Nils Testrup Andersen,&nbsp;Øyvind Omland,&nbsp;Hans Kromhout,&nbsp;Vivi Schlünssen","doi":"10.1093/annhyg/mew032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The high burden of exposure to organic dust among livestock farmers warrants the establishment of effective preventive and exposure control strategies for these workers. The number of intervention studies exploring the effectiveness of exposure reduction strategies through the use of objective measurements has been limited.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine whether dust exposure can be reduced by providing feedback to the farmers concerning measurements of the exposure to dust in their farm.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The personal dust levels of farmers in 54 pig and 26 dairy cattle farms were evaluated in two measurement series performed approximately 6 months apart. Detailed information on work tasks and farm characteristics during the measurements were registered. Participating farms were randomized a priori to a control (n = 40) and an intervention group (n = 40). Shortly after the first visit, owners of intervention farms only received a letter with information on the measured dust concentrations in the farm together with some general advises on exposure reduction strategies (e.g. use of respirators during certain tasks). Relationships between measured dust concentrations and intervention status were quantified by means of linear mixed effect analysis with farm and worker id as random effects. Season, type of farming, and work tasks were treated as fixed effects. Changes in exposure over time were explored primarily at a farm level in models combined, as well as separate for pig and cattle farmers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After adjustment for fixed effects, an overall reduction of 23% in personal dust exposures was estimated as a result of the intervention (P = 0.02). Exposure reductions attributable to the intervention were similar across pig and cattle farmers, but statistically significant only for pig farmers. Intervention effects among pig farmers did not depend on the individuals' information status; but among cattle farmers a significant 48% reduction in exposure was found only among individuals that reported to have been informed. No systematic differences in changes over time considering the use of respiratory protection between the intervention and control groups were observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results of the present study suggest reductions between 20 and 30% in personal exposure to inhalable dust to be feasible through simple information provided to the farm owners regarding actual levels of exposure together with instructions on basic measures of prevention. The exact reasons for these effects are unclear, but likely they involve changes in behavior and working practices among intervention farmers.</p>","PeriodicalId":8458,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Occupational Hygiene","volume":"60 7","pages":"812-24"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/annhyg/mew032","citationCount":"17","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Occupational Hygiene","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mew032","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/5/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

Abstract

Background: The high burden of exposure to organic dust among livestock farmers warrants the establishment of effective preventive and exposure control strategies for these workers. The number of intervention studies exploring the effectiveness of exposure reduction strategies through the use of objective measurements has been limited.

Objective: To examine whether dust exposure can be reduced by providing feedback to the farmers concerning measurements of the exposure to dust in their farm.

Methods: The personal dust levels of farmers in 54 pig and 26 dairy cattle farms were evaluated in two measurement series performed approximately 6 months apart. Detailed information on work tasks and farm characteristics during the measurements were registered. Participating farms were randomized a priori to a control (n = 40) and an intervention group (n = 40). Shortly after the first visit, owners of intervention farms only received a letter with information on the measured dust concentrations in the farm together with some general advises on exposure reduction strategies (e.g. use of respirators during certain tasks). Relationships between measured dust concentrations and intervention status were quantified by means of linear mixed effect analysis with farm and worker id as random effects. Season, type of farming, and work tasks were treated as fixed effects. Changes in exposure over time were explored primarily at a farm level in models combined, as well as separate for pig and cattle farmers.

Results: After adjustment for fixed effects, an overall reduction of 23% in personal dust exposures was estimated as a result of the intervention (P = 0.02). Exposure reductions attributable to the intervention were similar across pig and cattle farmers, but statistically significant only for pig farmers. Intervention effects among pig farmers did not depend on the individuals' information status; but among cattle farmers a significant 48% reduction in exposure was found only among individuals that reported to have been informed. No systematic differences in changes over time considering the use of respiratory protection between the intervention and control groups were observed.

Conclusion: The results of the present study suggest reductions between 20 and 30% in personal exposure to inhalable dust to be feasible through simple information provided to the farm owners regarding actual levels of exposure together with instructions on basic measures of prevention. The exact reasons for these effects are unclear, but likely they involve changes in behavior and working practices among intervention farmers.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对测量粉尘浓度的反馈降低了农民的暴露水平。
背景:畜牧业工人暴露于有机粉尘的高负担需要建立有效的预防和暴露控制策略。通过使用客观测量来探索减少暴露策略有效性的干预研究数量有限。目的:通过向农民提供有关其农场粉尘暴露测量的反馈,研究是否可以减少粉尘暴露。方法:对54个养猪场和26个奶牛场的农民个人粉尘水平进行两次测量,每次测量间隔约6个月。记录了测量期间的工作任务和农场特征的详细信息。参与的农场被随机分为对照组(n = 40)和干预组(n = 40)。在第一次访问后不久,干预农场的业主只收到一封信,信中提供了农场中测量到的粉尘浓度的信息,以及一些关于减少接触策略的一般性建议(例如,在某些任务中使用呼吸器)。采用线性混合效应分析,以农场和工人为随机效应,量化测量的粉尘浓度与干预状况之间的关系。季节、耕作类型和工作任务被视为固定的影响。随着时间的推移,暴露量的变化主要在农场水平上进行了研究,这些模型结合在一起,对养猪户和养牛户进行了单独研究。结果:调整固定效应后,估计干预的结果是个人粉尘暴露总体减少23% (P = 0.02)。干预导致的暴露减少在养猪户和养牛户之间相似,但仅在养猪户中具有统计学意义。养猪户的干预效果不依赖于个体的信息状况;但在养牛户中,仅在报告已被告知的个体中发现暴露量显著减少48%。考虑到呼吸保护措施的使用,干预组和对照组之间没有观察到随时间变化的系统性差异。结论:本研究的结果表明,通过向农场主提供有关实际暴露水平的简单信息以及关于基本预防措施的说明,个人可吸入粉尘暴露减少20%至30%是可行的。造成这些影响的确切原因尚不清楚,但可能与干预农民的行为和工作实践的变化有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
2 months
期刊最新文献
Delaware's 1999-2017 Leading Causes of Death Information Illustrates Its Obesity and Obesity-Related Life-Limiting Disease Burdens. Factors Associated With Non-compliance of Asbestos Occupational Standards in Brake Repair Workers. Whole Body Vibration Exposures and Health Status among Professional Truck Drivers: A Cross-sectional Analysis. Physicochemical Characterization of Aerosol Generated in the Gas Tungsten Arc Welding of Stainless Steel. Effect of Occupational Exposure on A(H1N1)pdm09 Infection and Hospitalization.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1