Annals Of Work Exposures and Health最新文献

Objective: Both exposure to occupational chemicals and to unusual working hours have well documented effects on health. Determination of occupational exposure limits is, however, usually based on chemical-only exposure and assumes an 8-h workday, 5 days/week and a 40-h work week. A significant proportion of the workforce is exposed to chemicals while working in other work schedules. This review thus aimed to synthesize and evaluate the scientific support for a combined effect of unusual working hours and chemical exposure and, if possible, give recommendations for OEL adjustments to account for unusual working hours.

Methods: The search for articles was made as part of the preparation of a report for the Nordic Expert Group for Criteria Documentation of Health Risks from Chemicals. In this report, unusual working hours were categorized as shift work or extended (>8 h) working hours. Inclusion criteria were observational studies in the English language published up to November 2021 in peer-reviewed journals, with explicit metrics of exposure (chemicals and unusual working hours) and of health outcome, and which explicitly tested the association between exposure and outcome. Search engines of seven databases were used.

Results: Of the initially 15 400 identified papers, 9 studies published between 1985 and 2021 met the inclusion criteria, 7 of which showed significant associations. Results from a few of the studies, i.e. regarding effects of dust and endotoxin on lung function, effects of acetone on sleep quality and tiredness, effects of carbon disulphide on coronary artery disease and effects of chemicals on spontaneous abortion, suggested more pronounced effects during night shifts compared to during day shifts.

Discussion: The reviewed data is considered insufficient to conclude on recommendations for OEL adjustment for shift work. Suggested areas of future studies are mentioned.

Conclusion: Further studies about the effects of the combined exposure to unusual working hours and chemical exposure are essential for risk assessment, and for recommendation of potential OEL adjustments. What is important about this paper? Effects of chemical agents at the workplace may depend not only on exposure level and duration but also on the time of exposure in relation to the circadian rhythm. This study reviewed the scientific support for a combined effect of unusual working hours and chemical exposure and revealed an obvious need for additional studies regarding the complex interplay of the two different exposures with respect to adverse health effects.

This study looks into the effectiveness of the authorisation procedure as a regulatory instrument within the framework of the European REACH regulation. It highlights its impact on enhancing occupational safety and health for both applicants and companies utilising the substances. This procedure encompasses manufacturers, importers, and downstream users of substances, as well as representatives of foreign manufacturers who are also eligible to seek authorisation. When applying for authorisation, the ECHA Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) assesses the risks associated with the intended uses of the substance, including the appropriateness and effectiveness of the Occupational Conditions (OCs) and Risk Management Measures (RMMs) described in the application and the risks posed by potential alternatives. If the RAC determines that the OCs/RMMs are inadequate for managing or controlling the risk, or if the measures to protect workers are deemed insufficient, it may recommend additional measures to enhance occupational safety and health or environmental protection. The 398 processed Applications for Authorisation (AfA) that have been submitted to date were examined to determine these recommended measures, categorised as Conditions for use, Monitoring arrangements, and Recommendations for Review Reports. Overall, a significant improvement concerning occupational safety and health seems necessary, as indicated by the large number of measures recommended by the ECHA Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) and ECHA Committee for Socio-economic Analysis (SEAC) or supplemented by the European Commission. In addition to the proposed measures, a short assessment provided by the committees as to whether the operational conditions and risk management measures are adequate in controlling the risks is also included in the study.

Objectives: Outdoor workers are at increased risk for skin cancer and melanoma. This qualitative study aimed to explore outdoor workers' perspectives and experiences of primary (i.e. sun protection) and secondary prevention, i.e. skin self-examination (SSE) of skin cancer.

Methods: Purposive, snowball, and theoretical sampling was used to recruit outdoor workers in Kentucky and Indiana. Semi-structured interviews via telephone or videoconference of approximately 45 min were conducted with interviewer probes and questions about perceptions of cancer risk, prevention, and screening techniques conducted, perceived barriers and facilitators, and preferences for health dissemination venues. The recordings were transcribed verbatim and de-identified. Analysis involved constructivist grounded theory coding strategies. Using peer debriefing and consensus building around themes, the researcher established a codebook for all interviews to utilize within Dedoose software for systematizing and organizing data.

Results: Eighteen interviews were conducted. Interviewees (N = 18) ranged in age from 35 to 78 yr, with 3 females. Outdoor industries included agriculture, maintenance, and grounds maintenance. Themes derived from the data showed the underlying factors and perceptions that influence outdoor workers to conduct primary and secondary cancer prevention activities. The level of alarm attributed to disease and the level of trust in information contribute to intentions to conduct activities. The intentions and trust toward healthcare institutions and providers drive the primary or secondary prevention behaviors. Cultural and contextual factors included masculinity and self-sufficiency, familial and occupational priorities, and community ties.

Conclusions: These data provide a basis for developing future communications and interventions to decrease skin cancer incidence in outdoor workers. They indicate that secondary prevention and building self-efficacy in conducting SSE should be emphasized in tandem or over primary skin cancer prevention methods in this population. Trusted local healthcare providers should primarily provide prevention information, and materials should utilize testimonials from the local community to best influence this population. Communications and training interventions are needed in this population to induce a proactive level of alarm about cancer and result in the performance of SSE.

Context: Workplace noise regulations and guidance follow the hierarchy of control model that prioritizes eliminating or reducing noise at its source.

Objectives: To determine the main sources of workplace noise exposure in the Australian working population and estimate the reduction of workers exposed over the noise limit (LAeq,8h > 85 dB) if noise levels of specific tools or equipment were reduced by 10 dB.

Methods: Information on the tools used and tasks performed during each participant's last working shift was collected from 4,977 workers via telephone survey. Using a predetermined database of task-based noise levels, partial noise exposures (Pa2h) were determined for each noisy activity performed by the workers and their daily noise exposure level (LAeq,8h) was estimated. Partial exposures were categorized into 15 tool/task groups and the tally, average, and sum (Pa2h) for each group were calculated. The impacts of 5 different scenarios that simulated a reduction of 10 dB in noise emissions for specific tool groups were modelled.

Results: Powered tools and equipment were responsible for 59.3% of all noise exposure (Pa2h); vehicles for 10.6%; mining, refineries, and plant equipment for 5.1%; and manufacturing and food processing for 4.2%. Modelling demonstrated that a 10 dBA noise-level reduction of all powered tools and equipment would lead to a 26.4% (95% confidence interval: 22.7% to 30.3%) reduction of workers with an LAeq,8h > 85 dB. This could represent over 350,000 Australian workers no longer exposed above the workplace limit daily.

Conclusions: A universal reduction of 10 dB to power tools and equipment would substantially reduce the future burden of hearing loss, tinnitus, workplace injuries, and other health effects. Initiatives to reduce the noise emissions of specific powered tool groups are warranted.