4.6 Article

Spirometric Profile among Detergents Factory Workers in the North West Bank of Palestine: A Cross-Sectional Study

期刊

PROCESSES
卷 11, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pr11030955

关键词

spirometry; lung functions; detergent factories; workers; occupational health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to assess the lung function of detergent factory workers and compare it with non-chemical workers. The results showed that detergent factory workers had significantly lower lung function compared to non-workers. Further studies are needed to determine the cause of this difference.
Background: The exposure to chemicals in detergent factories, as some studies have shown, has a negative impact the health of workers' respiratory systems. The aim of the study was to assess the lung function parameters of detergent factory workers and compare it with those of a group of non-chemical workers using spirometry. Methods: A comparative cross-sectional study was performed involving male detergent factory workers and a comparison group of non-chemical workers. An interviewer-administered questionnaire was used to record workers' characteristics, and the data were entered to the spirometry device. The spirometry test was performed to assess workers' lung functions; we recorded the forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), FEV1/FVC ratio, peak expiratory flow (PEF), forced expiratory flow between 25 and 75% of FVC (FEF25-75%), and lung age. Results: A total of 94 participants (28 detergent factory workers and 66 non-chemical workers) were included in the study. Detergent factory workers showed significant decreasing in the values of FEV1, FEV1/FVC ratio, PEF, FEF25-75%, and increased lung age compared to non-workers group (p < 0.05 to p < 0.001). Conclusions: This study showed that detergent factory workers have significantly lower pulmonary functions compared to workers in other non-chemical occupations. Further studies are needed to find the cause of this difference.

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

4.6
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