4.0 Article

HEALTH EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TO ISOCYANATES IN A CAR FACTORY

期刊

出版社

NATL INST PUBLIC HEALTH
DOI: 10.21101/cejph.a6805

关键词

isocyanates; methylene diphenyl diisocyanate; fractional exhaled nitric oxide; biological exposure test; occupational asthma

资金

  1. project COOPERATIO Pharmacology, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague [207041-3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study assessed the health effects of exposure to isocyanates and found that fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) and biological exposure test (BET) are important parameters for early detection of isocyanate-related allergic diseases.
Objectives: Isocyanates are known to induce occupational diseases. The aim of this work was to assess the health effects of exposure to isocyanates and to test the sensitivity of selected parameters for early detection of isocyanate-related allergic diseases. Methods: In total, 35 employees from one factory were tested: 26 workers exposed to isocyanates (exposed group) and nine office workers (control group). All subjects filled in a questionnaire regarding possible health problems. Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) and spirometry were measured for each subject at the same time during two consecutive working days. A urine sample was taken for a biological exposure test (BET). Results: No significant difference was found between the exposed and control groups for spirometry parameters and FeNO. However, in the exposed group, FeNO was highly elevated (> 50 ppb) in five subjects (all reporting health problems at the workplace, all with normal spirometry and non-smokers). The BET revealed a significant difference (p < 0.001) between the exposed and control groups for 4,4 acute accent -methylenediphenyl diamine (MDA) in the urine. Conclusions: Our examination showed the usefulness of the BET in monitoring of workplace exposure to isocyanates and the importance of FeNO in monitoring of allergic inflammation of airways in non-smoking employees with normal spirometry.

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

4.0
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