Suchergebnisse

Abstract
This commentary describes developments in occupational exposure science over the last 30 yr, highlighting theoretical descriptions of inhalation, dermal, inadvertent ingestion, and ocular exposure in the workplace and how they are intertwined. In particular, the way that we define "exposure" in the theory determines what is and is not measured in workplace investigations, and what contextual information about the work and the environment is recorded alongside the exposure measurements. Central to all the theoretical models described is the unifying concept of uptake, or the mass of hazardous substance entering the body by different routes over a workday. Measurement of uptake is currently practicable for inhalation exposure, although further methodological developments are needed to allow uptake measurement for the other relevant exposure routes. Little attempt has been made to date to try to integrate worker behaviour into exposure assessment, despite this clearly being an important determinant of exposure. It is argued that adopting a new exposure paradigm, centred on uptake, would bring many advantages and provide new insights into workplace exposures.

Abstract
Shift work that involves circadian disruption has been classified as probably carcinogenic to humans by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, although more recent epidemiological evidence is not consistent. Several mechanisms have been postulated to explain an association between night work and female breast cancer, but the most likely is suppression of the hormone melatonin by light exposure at night. Three articles recently published in this journal describe aspects of exposure to light during night work. These articles and other evidence suggest that nighttime light levels may not always be sufficient to affect melatonin production, which could in part explain the inconsistencies in the epidemiological data. There is need to improve the specificity and reliability of exposure assessments in future epidemiological studies of night shift workers.

Abstract
Welding is a common industrial process with many millions of workers exposed worldwide. In October 2017, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that exposure to welding fumes causes lung cancer in humans, based primarily on the available epidemiological literature. These research studies did not show that the cancer risk differed between mild steel and stainless steel welding but were related to the total welding aerosol. Lung cancer risks were observable at very low exposure levels; below 1 mg m−3 and perhaps as low as 0.1 mg m−3, averaged over a working lifetime. As a result of this IARC evaluation, in Britain, the Health and Safety Executive has acted to strengthen its enforcement expectations for fume control at welding activities. In the light of these developments, it would seem appropriate to review current health-based exposure limits for metal dust and fumes from welding to ensure they are protective.

Abstract
This article describes responses to a questionnaire on current work practices and understanding of the management of dermal exposure issues in the workplace from members of the British Occupational Hygiene Society (BOHS) and the Australian Institute of Occupational Hygienists (AIOH). The survey comprised questions in four key areas: employment demographics, experience managing dermal exposure, knowledge of dermal exposure management, and opinions on professional knowledge gaps and preferred training methods. The survey was disseminated in 2016 in the UK and 2018 in Australia, with 116 and 114 responses from each jurisdiction, respectively. The majority of respondents had personally evaluated the risks of dermal exposure to chemicals (BOHS 92%; AIOH 86%), albeit infrequently (less than a few times per year). Occupational Hygienists reportedly adopted a range of strategies to control dermal exposure problems, including chemical elimination/substitution (BOHS 68%; AIOH 68%), changing work practices (BOHS 79%; AIOH 75%), and education (BOHS 77%; AIOH 83%). The use of gloves or other personal protective equipment remained the most commonly cited exposure control measure (BOHS 99%; AIOH 97%). While there appeared to be a good understanding of common dermal exposure workplace scenarios (e.g. isocyanate exposure in motor vehicle repair, solvent exposure during spray painting), the overwhelming majority of respondents wished to find out more about assessing the risks from dermal exposure to chemicals (BOHS 89%; AIOH 88%). The outcomes suggest ways to increase the competence of professionals in dealing with dermal exposure matters in the workplace, through mechanisms such as web-based guidance, interactive educational materials and webinars, as well as workshops and seminars.

Abstract
Estimates of occupational disease burden provide important information on which effective policy and regulations can be developed. However, there is no direct way that these data can be obtained, and most burden estimates are derived by merging different data from diverse sources to synthesize estimates of the number of people made ill or who have died from workplace exposures. In recent years, several research groups have published estimates of occupational health burden at national or global scales; these are not always consistent. The World Health Organisation and the International Labour Organisation have taken on the task of producing occupational disease burden estimates for several workplace agents, which we assume are to be seen as the definitive global, regional, and national data. In this commentary, we critique the WHO/ILO approach for their estimates of the non-melanoma skin cancer burden from solar ultraviolet radiation and some of their results for hazardous particulates. We provide recommendations for researchers undertaking occupational burden estimates that they should report along with their data.

Abstract

Background
Use of pesticides has been linked to neurobehavioral deficits among exposed workers. In Malaysia, organophosphate and pyrethroid pesticides are commonly used to control mosquito-borne diseases.


Objectives
This study aims to assess workers' lifetime occupational pesticide exposure and examine the relationship with neurobehavioral health.


Methods
A cross-sectional study was conducted on 158 pesticide-exposed and 176 non-exposed workers. To collect historical exposure and job tasks, a questionnaire and an occupational history interview were used. Pesticide exposure was measured in a subgroup of workers via inhalation and skin contact. The total pesticide intake of each worker was assessed using inhalation and dermal exposure models. CANTAB® computerised neurobehavioral performance assessments were used.


Results
The participants' mean age was 31 (8) years. Pirimiphos-methyl (median = 0.569 mg/m3, Interquartile range [IQR] = 0.151, 0.574) and permethrin (median = 0.136 mg/m3, IQR = 0.116, 0.157) had the highest measured personal inhalation concentrations during thermal spraying. The estimated total lifetime pesticide intake for exposed workers ranged from 0.006 g to 12800 g (median = 379 g and IQR = 131, 794 g). Dermal exposure was the predominant route of pesticide intake for all workers. Compared to controls, workers with high lifetime pesticide intake had lower Match to Sample Visual (adjusted B = −1.4, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = −2.6, 0.1), Spatial Recognition Memory (adjusted B = −3.3, 95% CI = −5.8, 0.8), Spatial Span (SSP) (adjusted B = −0.6, 95% CI = −0.9, 0.3) scores. Workers with low pesticide intake performed worse than controls (adjusted B = −0.5, 95% CI = −0.8, −0.2) in the SSP test, but scored higher in the Motor Screening test (adjusted B = 0.9, 95% CI = 0.1, 1.6). Higher Paired Associates Learning test scores were observed among higher (adjusted B = 7.4, 95% CI = 2.3, 12.4) and lower (adjusted B = 8.1, 95% CI = 3, 13.2) pesticide intake groups. There was no significant difference between the Reaction Time and Pattern Recognition Memory tests with lifetime pesticide intake after adjusting for confounders.


Conclusion
Pesticide exposure has been linked to poorer neurobehavioral performance. As dermal exposure accounts for a major fraction of total intake, pesticide prevention should focus on limiting dermal exposure.

The Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM) was founded in 1969 by the then UK National Coal Board to complete its nation-wide epidemiological study of lung disease in coal miners, the Pneumoconiosis Field Research. The results quantified risks in the industry and were influential across the world in setting preventive standards. The research, based on epidemiology, was multidisciplinary from the start, and the IOM's broad scientific expertise was applied across many other industries with an increasing focus on environmental measurement and ergonomics. In 1990, as the coal industry declined, IOM became a self-funding research charity with a strong commercial arm. It has expanded its research, often with European collaborators and funding from governments, and has achieved wide recognition. This has most recently been applied during the pandemic in areas of hospital ventilation, personal protection, and viral exposure research, illustrating IOM's ability to respond to new environmental or occupational challenges.

Abstract
The British Occupational Hygiene Society (BOHS) COVID-19 Working Group developed a control banding matrix to provide guidance for employers and others to help assess the risks of COVID-19 infection during the pandemic. The matrix was based on occupational hygiene principles and the judgement of the occupational health practitioners involved; since objective data on workers' exposure were unavailable. Users of the matrix identify one of five exposure categories based on generic job descriptions and example occupations, and these categories are linked to generic guidance on interventions at source, on the exposure pathway and for individual workers. The risk matrix was published on the BOHS website and the guidance has been downloaded more than 2000 times. The matrix has had limited evaluation for reliability, but the data suggest that the highest exposure ranked jobs were associated with higher age-standardized mortality in Britain during the pandemic. However, there was considerable variability in exposure assignments between assessors, which underlines the need for the control guidance to be precautionary. The BOHS calls on academic researchers to undertake further work to validate the reliability of the tool.

Objective: To examine trends in population exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) and consider two exposure metrics as appropriate targets for tobacco control policy-makers. Design: Comparison of adult non-smokers' salivary cotinine data available from 11 Scottish Health Surveys between 1998 and 2016. Methods: The proportions of non-smoking adults who had measurable levels of cotinine in their saliva were calculated for the 11 time points. The geometric mean (GM) concentrations of cotinine levels were calculated using Tobit regression. Changes in both parameters were assessed for the whole period and also for the years since implementation of smoke-free legislation in Scotland in 2006. Results: Salivary cotinine expressed as a GM fell from 0.464 ng/mL (95% CI 0.444 to 0.486 ng/mL) in 1998 to 0.013 ng/mL (95% CI 0.009 to 0.020 ng/mL) in 2016: a reduction of 97.2%. The percentage of non-smoking adults who had no measurable cotinine in their saliva increased by nearly sixfold between 1998 (12.5%, 95% CI 11.5% to 13.6%) and 2016 (81.6%, 95% CI 78.6% to 84.6%). Reductions in population exposure to SHS have continued even after smoke-free legislation in 2006. Conclusions: Scotland has witnessed a dramatic reduction in SHS exposure in the past two decades, but there are still nearly one in five non-smoking adults who have measurable exposure to SHS on any given day. Tobacco control strategies globally should consider the use of both the proportion of non-smoking adults with undetectable salivary cotinine and the GM as targets to encourage policies that achieve a smoke-free future.

Objective To examine trends in population exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke (SHS) and consider two exposure metrics as appropriate targets for tobacco control policymakers. Design Comparison of adult non-smokers' salivary cotinine data available from eleven Scottish Health Surveys between 1998 and 2016. Methods The proportions of non-smoking adults who had measurable levels of cotinine in their saliva were calculated for the eleven time points. The Geometric Mean (GM) concentrations of cotinine levels were calculated using Tobit regression. Changes in both parameters were assessed for the whole period and also for the years since implementation of smoke-free legislation in Scotland in 2006. Results Salivary cotinine expressed as a GM fell from 0.464 ng/ml (95% CI 0.444-0.486 ng/ml) in 1998 to 0.013 ng/ml (95% CI 0.009-0.020 ng/ml) in 2016: a reduction of 97.2%. The percentage of non-smoking adults who had no measurable cotinine in their saliva increased by nearly six-fold between 1998 (12.5% [95% CI 11.5%-13.6%]) and 2016 (81.6% [95% CI 78.6%-84.6%]). Reductions in population exposure to SHS have continued even after smoke-free legislation in 2006. Conclusions Scotland has witnessed a dramatic reduction in SHS exposure in the past two decades but there are still nearly one in five non-smoking adults who have measurable exposure to SHS on any given day. Tobacco control strategies globally should consider the use of both the proportion of non-smoking adults with undetectable salivary cotinine and the GM as targets to encourage policies that achieve a smoke-free future.

Objectives: Policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 led to behaviour changes in the UK's population, including a sudden shift towards working from home. These changes may have affected overall exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5), an air pollutant and source of health harm. We report the results of a simulation model of a representative sample of the UK's population, including workers and non-workers, to estimate PM2.5 exposure before and during the pandemic. Methods: PM2.5 exposure was simulated in April and August 2017–2020 for 10,000 individuals across the UK drawn from the 2011 nationwide census. These data were combined with data from the UK's ambient PM2.5 monitoring network, time use data and data on relevant personal behaviour before and during the first stage of the pandemic (such as changes in smoking and cooking). Results: The simulated exposures were significantly different between each year. Changes in ambient PM2.5 resulted in regional and temporal variation. People living in homes where someone smoked experienced higher exposure than those in smoke-free homes, with an increase of 4 µg/m3 in PM2.5 exposure in 2020. Conclusions: Changes in PM2.5 exposure were minimal for most individuals despite the simulated increases in cooking activity. Those living in smoking homes (estimated to be around 11% of the UK population) experienced increased exposure to PM2.5 during COVID lockdown measures and this is likely to have increased mortality and morbidity among this group. Government policy should address the risk of increased exposure to second-hand smoke in the event of future COVID-19-related restrictions.