4.5 Article

A cross-sectional study of exposures, lung function and respiratory symptoms among aluminium cast-house workers

期刊

OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE
卷 68, 期 12, 页码 876-882

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/oem.2010.062349

关键词

-

资金

  1. Dutch Royal Academy of Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To investigate exposures, respiratory symptoms, lung function and exposure-response relationships among aluminium cast-house workers. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted among 182 workers. Exposure data were used to model exposure to irritants. Lung function and questionnaire data on respiratory symptoms were compared to a general population sample and an internal reference group. Blood samples were taken from 156 workers to examine total IgE, eosinophils and sensitisation to common allergens. Results Average daily mean exposure to inhalable dust, metals, hydrogen fluoride, fluoride salts and sulphur dioxide was relatively low compared to reference values. Airflow patterns in the hall were disturbed regularly and resulted in pot emissions with high concentrations of fluorides. Peak exposures to chlorine gas occurred intermittently due to production process disturbances. Workers reported significantly more respiratory symptoms (continuous trouble with breathing (prevalence ratio (PR) 2.5; 95% CI 1.2 to 5.3), repeated trouble with breathing (PR 1.8; 95% CI 1.1 to 3.0), wheezing (PR 1.4; 95% CI 1.1 to 1.8), asthma attack (ever) (PR 2.8; 95% CI 1.7 to 4.6) and doctor diagnosed asthma (PR 2.6; 95% CI 1.5 to 4.4). Regression analysis showed significantly lower FEV1 values (-195 ml) and FVC values (-142 ml) compared to a general population sample. Lung function did not differ between groups. Conclusion This epidemiological study suggests cast-house workers in the aluminium industry are exposed to respiratory hazards. Exposure-response relationships could not be demonstrated but this study supports preventive measures in the work environment with a focus on (peak) exposures to irritants.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据