Annals Of Work Exposures and Health最新文献

Background: Several measures of occupational exposure to pesticides have been used to study associations between exposure to pesticides and neurobehavioral outcomes. This study assessed the impact of different exposure measures for glyphosate and mancozeb on the association with neurobehavioral outcomes based on original and recalled self-reported data with 246 smallholder farmers in Uganda.

Methods: The association between the 6 exposure measures and 6 selected neurobehavioral test scores was investigated using linear multivariable regression models. Exposure measures included original exposure measures for the previous year in 2017: (i) application status (yes/no), (ii) number of application days, (iii) average exposure-intensity scores (EIS) of an application and (iv) number of EIS-weighted application days. Two additional measures were collected in 2019: (v) recalled application status and (vi) recalled EIS for the respective periods in 2017.

Results: Recalled applicator status and EIS were between 1.2 and 1.4 times more frequent and higher for both pesticides than the original application status and EIS. Adverse associations between the different original measures of exposure to glyphosate and 4 neurobehavioral tests were observed. Glyphosate exposure based on recalled information and all mancozeb exposure measures were not associated with the neurobehavioral outcomes.

Conclusions: The relation between the different original self-reported glyphosate exposure measures and neurobehavioral test scores appeared to be robust. When based on recalled exposure measures, associations observed with the original exposure measures were no longer present. Therefore, future epidemiological studies on self-reported exposure should critically evaluate the potential bias towards the null in observed exposure-response associations.

In 2006, the revised chemicals management legislation mandated that manufacturers of hazardous chemical substances conduct risk assessments for the entire substance life cycle. Additionally, they must communicate use-specific safe handling advice (exposure scenarios) to their customer, as annex to the Safety Data Sheet (SDS). Despite significant efforts to develop workable solutions for chemical mixtures, this goal has not yet been fully achieved. Therefore, a Cefic research project (LRI B23) was commissioned on how to ensure meaningful health risk communication for workers across supply chains. The research project determined that risk-based safe use advice generated by manufacturers, often does not reach the intended end-user and was seen as not tailored to specific user needs. Recipients of the advice are also not prepared to act based on information developed by suppliers. From an industry perspective, the complexity of supply chains and substance life cycles are considered major barriers for effective safe use communication. Exposure scenarios for substance use in industrial work environments are often perceived as adding little value compared to existing safe use arrangements required by other health, safety, and environmental legislation applicable to employers and duty-holders. To attain meaningful use-specific safe handling advice for workers, including those at non-industrial premises who may benefit most from such advice, knowledge transfer and close collaboration between manufacturers and formulators remain key elements, supported by enhanced regulatory appreciation.

Objectives: Leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) can reduce the risk of incident diabetes, whereas the role of occupational physical activity (OPA) in developing diabetes is still unclear due to conflicting evidence. Moreover, the joint associations of OPA and LTPA with incident diabetes among US workers have not yet been systematically examined. The objective of this study was to assess the independent and joint associations of OPA and LTPA with incident diabetes.

Methods: This prospective cohort study included 1406 workers free from diabetes at baseline (2004-2006) from the national, population-based Mid-life in the United States (MIDUS) study. Associations of OPA and LTPA at baseline with incident diabetes during 9 years of follow-up were examined using Poisson regression models. High OPA was defined based on engagement in physical demands at work, and high LTPA was defined as participation in moderate or vigorous LTPA at least once per week.

Results: High OPA was associated with an increased risk of diabetes compared to low OPA (adjusted risk ratios and 95% confidence interval = 1.52 [1.04, 2.22]), while high LTPA was associated with a decreased risk of diabetes compared to low LTPA (0.66 [0.44, 0.97]). Diabetes risk was the highest among workers with high OPA and low LTPA (2.30 [1.30, 4.07]).

Conclusions: In a national, population-based prospective cohort study of US workers, high OPA was associated with an elevated risk of diabetes, while high LTPA was associated with a decreased diabetes risk. The combination of high OPA and low LTPA exhibited the greatest risk of diabetes.

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.