Suchergebnisse

Abstract

Objectives
Certain pesticides have been associated with adverse health outcomes including cancer and reproductive harms. However, little is known about the prevalence of occupational pesticide exposure among agricultural workers in Canada. The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence and likelihood of occupational exposure to pesticides in Canada's agricultural industry, using three commonly used, potentially carcinogenic pesticides [chlorothalonil, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), and glyphosate] as an example.


Methods
Estimates were calculated using the Canadian Census of Population and the Census of Agriculture. The number of workers and the proportion of farms applying 'herbicides' or 'fungicides' by farm type was estimated using survey data from the Census of Agriculture. These values were multiplied to yield the potential number of workers at risk of exposure. Likelihood of exposure (i.e. exposed, probably exposed, and possibly exposed) was then qualitatively assigned using information on crop type, primary expected tasks, crop production practices, and residue transfer data. Additional agricultural workers who are at risk of exposure but not captured by the Census of Agriculture were identified using the 2016 Census of Population.


Results
An estimated range of 37 700–55 800 workers (11–13% of agricultural workers) were exposed to glyphosate in Canada while 30 800–43 600 workers (9–11%) and 9000–14 100 (2.9–3.2%) were exposed to 2,4-D and chlorothalonil, respectively. Approximately 70–75% of workers at risk of exposure were considered probably or possibly exposed to any of the pesticides. Glyphosate exposure was most common among workers in oilseed (29% of oilseed farm workers exposed) and dry pea/bean farms (28%), along with those providing support activities for farms (31%). 2,4-D exposure was most common in corn (28%), other grain (28%), and soybean farms (27%), while chlorothalonil exposure was more likely among greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers (42%), workers on farms (28%, for occupations not captured by the Census of Agriculture, specifically), and those providing support activities for farms (20%). Regional variations broadly reflected differences in farm types by province.


Conclusions
This study estimated the prevalence of occupational exposure to three pesticides in Canada. Seasonal and temporary agricultural workers, which were captured by the Census of Agriculture, contributed to many additionally exposed workers. A large percent of the workers who were considered at risk of exposure were considered probably or possibly exposed, indicating a need for enhanced data collection and availability on pesticide use data in Canada. The study's methods can be applied to estimate workers' exposures to other pesticides within the agricultural industry.

Abstract

Objectives
Night shiftwork has been linked to various health outcomes. Knowing where and to what extent workers are exposed to this type of shiftwork can help prioritize areas for intervention and further study. This study describes recent estimates of exposure to night shiftwork in Canada for 2011, and temporal trends from 1997 to 2010.


Methods
Estimates by occupation, industry, province, and sex were calculated using data from the Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics (SLID) from 1996 to 2011. Workers who reported rotating or regular night shifts were classified as exposed to shiftwork involving nights, while those reporting other types of shiftwork, outside of regular daytime and evening shifts, were classified as possibly exposed. Results, with 97.5% confidence intervals (CIs), were summarized for three exposure categories: exposed workers, possibly exposed workers, and evening shift workers. Trends in 3-year rolling averages were described.


Results
In 2011, approximately 1.8 million Canadians (97.5% CI, 1.7–1.8 million), or 12% of the working population (97.5% CI, 11–12%), were exposed to night shiftwork; 45% were female. An additional 2.6 million were possibly exposed (97.5% CI, 2.5–2.7 million workers), and 745 000 worked evening shifts (97.5% CI, 701 000–792 000). This amounts to 17% (97.5% CI, 17–18%) and 4.9% (97.5% CI, 4.6–5.2%) of the labour force, respectively. Industries with the highest prevalence were accommodation and food services (20%; 97.5% CI, 18–22%), forestry, fishing, mining, oil, and gas (19%; 97.5% CI, 16–23%), and healthcare and social assistance (18%; 97.5% CI, 17–19%). By occupation, the highest prevalence of exposure was in occupations in protective services (37%; 97.5% CI, 32–42%), professional occupations in health (35%; 97.5% CI, 32–39%), and machine operators and assemblers in manufacturing (24%; 97.5% CI, 22–28%). The overall number of exposure workers increased by 29% from 1997 to 2010, but the overall proportion remained relatively the same (11% and 12%, respectively). The proportion of female workers exposed increased by 2%.


Conclusions
These estimates characterize exposure to night shiftwork in Canada. Continued collection of shiftwork data, with greater detail on scheduling, workplace and personal factors, is needed for high-quality surveillance and investigations of shiftwork and health.

Abstract

Objective
Asbestos use has decreased over time but occupational exposure still exists today due to the presence of asbestos in older buildings. The objective of this study was to update CAREX Canada's prevalence of exposure estimate from 2006 to 2016, and to assess the level of occupational exposure by industry, occupation, province/territory, and sex.


Methods
Estimates by occupation, industry, province/territory, and sex were calculated using labor force data from the 2016 Census of Population and proportions of workers exposed by occupation and industry, which were previously developed for the 2006 estimates and updated here to reflect new knowledge and changes in exposures. Statistics Canada concordance tables were used to account for changes between the 2006 and 2016 job and industry coding systems. Expert assessment was used to qualitatively assign levels of exposure (low, moderate, or high) for each occupation and industry, with consideration of workers' proximity and access to asbestos-containing material, and the condition and content of asbestos.


Results
Approximately 235 000 workers are exposed to asbestos on the job in Canada. The majority of Canadian workers exposed to asbestos are male (89%). Only 5% of all exposed workers are in the high-exposure category, while most workers are in the low (49%) or moderate (46%) exposure categories. The construction sector and associated jobs (e.g. carpenters, trades helpers and laborers, electricians) accounted for the majority of exposed workers.


Conclusions
Occupational exposure to asbestos continues to occur in Canada. Updating the prevalence of exposure estimate and adding exposure levels highlights the shift from high to lower-lever exposures associated with asbestos-containing materials remaining in the built environment.

AbstractIntroductionSolar ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure places outdoor workers at risk of skin cancer and exposure is difficult to control. In response, the Sun Safety at Work Canada (SSAWC) project was undertaken (2014–2016). The purpose of this substudy was to characterize the UVR exposure levels of outdoor workers in the SSAWC project.MethodsThirteen workplaces in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, and Nova Scotia participated in an exposure monitoring campaign (late summer/early fall 2016). Study participants were workers from power utilities and municipalities. Participants wore a UVR measurement badge (light-sensitive polysulfone plastic) on their wrist, shoulder, or hardhat. Badge calibration and absorbance measurements were performed in the AusSun Research Lab. Personal UVR doses are presented as standard erythemal doses (SED) and compared with the internationally recommended exposure limit (1.3 SED), as well as to the total available UVR by date. Generalized linear models were used to examine determinants of solar UVR for personal UVR dose (for both SED and percent of ambient UVR). Models considered badge placement, date, province, industry, main job task, and the hours spent outdoors.ResultsMean personal UVR dose of participating workers was 6.1 SED (nearly 5× the recommended limit). Just 14% of workers experienced 'acceptable' levels of solar radiation; 10% were exposed at >10 times the limit. In univariate analyses, workers in Ontario had the highest levels (mean 7.3 SED), but even in the lowest exposed province (British Columbia), the mean personal UVR dose was 4.5 SED. Utility workers had double the exposure of municipal workers (10.4 and 5.5 SED, respectively). In the determinants of exposure models, the differences by province were muted, but utility line workers and those in general maintenance had higher predicted exposures. Those who wore their badge on their hardhat also had higher values of SED in the fully adjusted determinants models.ConclusionsSolar ultraviolet overexposure among outdoor workers is a concern, even in a country like Canada with relatively low ambient UVR. Implementation of sun safety programs should be supported in an effort to reduce exposure in this vulnerable group of workers.

AbstractObjectives:Occupational exposure to antineoplastic agents occurs in various environments and is associated with increased cancer risk and adverse reproductive outcomes. National-level information describing the location and extent of occupational exposure to antineoplastic agents is unavailable in Canada and most other countries. CAREX Canada aimed to estimate the prevalence and relative levels of occupational exposures to antineoplastic agents across work setting, occupation, and sex.Methods:'Exposure' was defined as any potential for worker contact with antineoplastic agents. Baseline numbers of licensed workers were obtained from their respective professional bodies. For unlicensed workers, Census data or data extrapolated from human resources reports (e.g., staffing ratios) were used. Prevalence was estimated by combining population estimates with exposure proportions from peer-reviewed and grey literature. Exposure levels (classified as low, moderate, and high) by occupation and work setting were estimated qualitatively by combining estimates of contact frequency and exposure control practices.Results:Approximately 75000 Canadians (0.42% of the total workforce) are estimated as occupationally exposed to antineoplastic agents; over 75% are female. The largest occupational group exposed to antineoplastic agents is community pharmacy workers, with 30200 exposed. By work setting, 39000 workers (52% of all exposed) are located in non-hospital settings; the remaining 48% are exposed in hospitals. The majority (75%) of workers are in the moderate exposure category.Conclusions:These estimates of the prevalence and location of occupational exposures to antineoplastic agents could be used to identify high-risk groups, estimate disease burden, and target new research and prevention activities. The limited secondary data available for developing these estimates highlights the need for increased quantitative measurement and documentation of antineoplastic agent contamination and exposure, particularly in work environments where use is emerging.

AbstractObjectivesThe CANJEM general population job-exposure matrix summarizes expert evaluations of 31 673 jobs from four population-based case–control studies of cancer conducted in Montreal, Canada. Intensity in each CANJEM cell is represented as relative distributions of the ordinal (low, medium, high) ratings of jobs assigned by the experts. We aimed to apply quantitative concentrations to CANJEM cells using Canadian historical measurements from the Canadian Workplace Exposure Database (CWED), taking exposure to wood dust as an example.MethodsWe selected 5170 personal and area wood dust measurements from 31 occupations (2011 Canadian National Occupational Classification) with a non-zero exposure probability in CANJEM between 1930 and 2005. The measurements were taken between 1981 and 2003 (median 1989). A Bayesian hierarchical model was applied to the wood dust concentrations with occupations as random effects, and sampling duration, year, sample type (area or personal), province, and the relative proportion of jobs exposed at medium and high intensity in CANJEM cells as fixed effects.ResultsThe estimated geometric mean (GM) concentrations for a CANJEM cell with all jobs exposed at medium or high intensity were respectively 1.3 and 2.4 times higher relative to a cell with all jobs at low intensity. An overall trend of −3%/year in exposure was observed. Applying the model estimates to all 198 cells in CANJEM with some exposure assigned by the experts, the predicted 8-hour, personal wood dust GM concentrations by occupation for 1989 ranged from 0.48 to 1.96 mg m−3.ConclusionsThe model provided estimates of wood dust concentrations for any CANJEM cell with exposure, applicable for quantitative risk assessment at the population level. This framework can be implemented for other agents represented in both CANJEM and CWED.

Abstract
Due to the way occupational exposure limits (OELs) are set in Canada, workers across the country are not equally and adequately protected from harmful workplace exposures. This disparity is illustrated in the case of exposure to diesel engine exhaust (DEE). Based on the findings of a recent pan-Canadian and international scan of OELs for DEE, we recommend that Canada overcome these current disparities by moving towards harmonized, evidence-based OELs. To achieve this, Canada should adopt a centralized framework for setting OELs that considers the most recent scientific evidence as well as feasibility of implementation in the Canadian context. We assert that harmonizing OELs across Canada would allow for expertise and resources to be consolidated and is a crucial step to ensuring that all workers are consistently protected from harmful workplace exposures.

Abstract

Objectives
Diesel engine exhaust (DEE) is a known lung carcinogen and a common occupational exposure in Canada. The use of diesel-powered equipment in the construction industry is particularly widespread, but little is known about DEE exposures in this work setting. The objective of this study was to determine exposure levels and identify and characterize key determinants of DEE exposure at construction sites in Ontario.


Methods
Elemental carbon (EC, a surrogate of DEE exposure) measurements were collected at seven civil infrastructure construction worksites and one trades training facility in Ontario using NIOSH method 5040. Full-shift personal air samples were collected using a constant-flow pump and SKC aluminium cyclone with quartz fibre filters in a 37-mm cassette. Exposures were compared with published health-based limits, including the Dutch Expert Committee on Occupational Safety (DECOS) limit (1.03 µg m−3 respirable EC) and the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (FIOH) recommendation (5 µg m−3 respirable EC). Mixed-effects linear regression was used to identify determinants of EC exposure.


Results
In total, 149 EC samples were collected, ranging from <0.25 to 52.58 µg m−3 with a geometric mean (GM) of 3.71 µg m−3 [geometric standard deviation (GSD) = 3.32]. Overall, 41.6% of samples exceeded the FIOH limit, mostly within underground worksites (93.5%), and 90.6% exceeded the DECOS limit. Underground workers (GM = 13.20 µg m−3, GSD = 1.83) had exposures approximately four times higher than below grade workers (GM = 3.56 µg m−3, GSD = 1.94) and nine times higher than above ground workers (GM = 1.49 µg m−3, GSD = 1.75). Training facility exposures were similar to above ground workers (GM = 1.86 µg m−3, GSD = 4.12); however, exposures were highly variable. Work setting and enclosed cabins were identified as the key determinants of exposure in the final model (adjusted R2 = 0.72, P < 0.001). The highest DEE exposures were observed in underground workplaces and when using unenclosed cabins.


Conclusions
This study provides data on current DEE exposure in Canadian construction workers. Most exposures were above recommended health-based limits, albeit in other jurisdictions, signifying a need to further reduce DEE levels in construction. These results can inform a hazard reduction strategy including targeted intervention/control measures to reduce DEE exposure and the burden of occupational lung cancer.