Suchergebnisse

Abstract

Background
Cleaning product use has been associated with adverse respiratory health effects such as asthma in cleaning staff and healthcare workers. Research in health effects from cleaning products has largely depended upon collecting exposure information by questionnaires which has limitations such as recall bias and underestimation of exposure. The aim of this study was to develop a Cleaning and Hazardous Products Exposure Logging (CHaPEL) app with a barcode scanner and to test the feasibility of this app with university cleaners.


Methods
The CHaPEL app was developed to collect information on demographics, individual product information, and exposure information. It also included an ease-of-use survey. A pilot study with university cleaning workers was undertaken in which cleaning workers scanned each product after use and answered the survey. Respiratory hazards of cleaning substances in the scanned cleaning products were screened by safety data sheets, a Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship model and an asthmagen list established by an expert group in the US.


Results
Eighteen university cleaners participated in this study over a period of 5 weeks. In total, 77 survey responses and 6 cleaning products were collected and all reported that using the app was easy. The most frequently used product was a multi-surface cleaner followed by a disinfectant. Out of 14 substances in cleaning products, ethanolamine and Alkyl (C12-16) dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride were found as respiratory hazardous substances.


Conclusion
The CHaPEL app is a user-friendly immediate way to successfully collect exposure information using the barcodes of cleaning products. This tool could be useful for future epidemiological studies focused on exposure assessment with less interruption to the workers.

Abstract

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.

Abstract

Background
Occupational epidemiological studies on pesticide use commonly rely on self-reported questionnaire or interview data to assess exposure. Insight into recall accuracy is important, as misclassification of exposures due to imperfect recall can bias risk estimates.


Methods
We assessed the ability of workers in three UK cohorts (Prospective Investigation of Pesticide Applicators' Health [PIPAH], Pesticide Users' Health Study [PUHS], and Study of Health in Agricultural Work [SHAW]) to remember their working history related to pesticide exposure over time periods ranging from 3 to 14 years prior. During 2019–2020, cohort participants were re-surveyed using a similar questionnaire to that used previously. We compared recall of responses at follow-up to those reported at baseline related to crops/areas of work, use of personal protective equipment (PPE) items, hygiene habits, frequency of pesticide use, and application method. To assess the extent of recall, we used sensitivity, specificity, the percentage of overall agreement, and area under the curve (AUC) values. We also examined the presence of over or underestimation of recalled years, and days and hours per year, of working with pesticides using geometric mean ratios (GMR) and regression analysis to investigate any trends based on demographic characteristics.


Results
There were 643 individuals who completed both the baseline and follow-up surveys in the three cohorts with response rates ranging from 17 to 46%. There was a strong correlation (rho = 0.77) between the baseline and recalled years working with pesticides, though higher values were reported at follow-up (GMR = 1.18 [95% confidence interval: 1.07–1.30]) with no consistent differences by demographic characteristics. There was stronger agreement in the recalled days compared to hours per year in two of the cohorts. Recall for a number of exposure determinants across short and longer periods entailed overall agreement of >70%, though with some differences: for example, sensitivity for long-term recall of crops was poor (<43% in PUHS), whereas short-term recall of hygiene practices was good (AUC range = 0.65–1.00 in PIPAH).


Conclusion
Results indicate that recall ability may deteriorate over a longer period. Although low-response rates may require these findings to be interpreted with caution, recall for a number of exposure determinants appeared reliable, such as crops and hygiene practices within 3 years, as well as days per year working with pesticides.

Abstract Background The European Union's 7th Framework Programme (EU's FP7) project HEALS – Health and Environment-wide Associations based on Large Population Surveys – aims a refinement of the methodology to elucidate the human exposome. Human biomonitoring (HBM) provides a valuable tool for understanding the magnitude of human exposure from all pathways and sources. However, availability of specific biomarkers of exposure (BoE) is limited. Objectives The objective was to summarize the availability of BoEs for a broad range of environmental stressors and exposure determinants and corresponding reference and exposure limit values and biomonitoring equivalents useful for unraveling the exposome using the framework of environment-wide association studies (EWAS). Methods In a face-to-face group discussion, scope, content, and structure of the HEALS deliverable "Guidelines for appropriate BoE selection for EWAS studies" were determined. An expert-driven, distributed, narrative review process involving around 30 individuals of the HEALS consortium made it possible to include extensive information targeted towards the specific characteristics of various environmental stressors and exposure determinants. From the resulting 265 page report, targeted information about BoE, corresponding reference values (e.g., 95th percentile or measures of central tendency), exposure limit values (e.g., the German HBM I and II values) and biomonitoring equivalents (BEs) were summarized and updated. Results 64 individual biological, chemical, physical, psychological and social environmental stressors or exposure determinants were included to fulfil the requirements of EWAS. The list of available BoEs is extensive with a number of 135 ; however, 12 of the stressors and exposure determinants considered do not leave any measurable specific substance in accessible body specimens. Opportunities to estimate the internal exposure stressors not (yet) detectable in human specimens were discussed. Conclusions Data about internal exposures are ...

BACKGROUND: The European Union's 7th Framework Programme (EU's FP7) project HEALS - Health and Environment-wide Associations based on Large Population Surveys - aims a refinement of the methodology to elucidate the human exposome. Human biomonitoring (HBM) provides a valuable tool for understanding the magnitude of human exposure from all pathways and sources. However, availability of specific biomarkers of exposure (BoE) is limited. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to summarize the availability of BoEs for a broad range of environmental stressors and exposure determinants and corresponding reference and exposure limit values and biomonitoring equivalents useful for unraveling the exposome using the framework of environment-wide association studies (EWAS). METHODS: In a face-to-face group discussion, scope, content, and structure of the HEALS deliverable "Guidelines for appropriate BoE selection for EWAS studies" were determined. An expert-driven, distributed, narrative review process involving around 30 individuals of the HEALS consortium made it possible to include extensive information targeted towards the specific characteristics of various environmental stressors and exposure determinants. From the resulting 265 page report, targeted information about BoE, corresponding reference values (e.g., 95th percentile or measures of central tendency), exposure limit values (e.g., the German HBM I and II values) and biomonitoring equivalents (BEs) were summarized and updated. RESULTS: 64 individual biological, chemical, physical, psychological and social environmental stressors or exposure determinants were included to fulfil the requirements of EWAS. The list of available BoEs is extensive with a number of 135; however, 12 of the stressors and exposure determinants considered do not leave any measurable specific substance in accessible body specimens. Opportunities to estimate the internal exposure stressors not (yet) detectable in human specimens were discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Data about internal exposures are useful to ...