J. Harris-Roberts

Standards of care for occupational asthma

Occupational asthma remains a common disease in the UK with up to 3000 new cases diagnosed each year. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) estimates the cost to our society to be over £1.1 billion for each 10-year period.1 In October 2001 the Health and Safety Commission agreed a package of measures aimed at reducing the incidence of asthma caused by exposure to substances in the workplace by 30% by 2010. Key to this aim are primary prevention by proper risk assessment and exposure control, together with secondary prevention to ensure reduction in the delay between the development of allergic symptoms at work (normally nasal or respiratory) and appropriate advice to the affected worker and workplace. Conservative estimates suggest that one in 10 cases of adult onset asthma relate directly to sensitisation in the workplace,2 with a smaller subset of workers with acute irritant induced asthma. The latter—formerly termed reactive airway dysfunction syndrome (RADS)—relates to asthma caused by exposure to high levels of airborne irritants. The prognosis of individuals with occupational asthma is better if they are removed from exposure quickly, particularly within a year of first symptoms.3–5 However, removing individuals often leads to unemployment. If the diagnosis of occupational asthma is incorrect, advising individuals whose asthma is not caused by work to be removed from exposure may have unnecessary financial and social consequences. The intent of this article is not to document the entire current evidence base related to occupational asthma, as the British Occupational Health Research Foundation (BOHRF) recently completed such an evidence review.7 The key points of this article are summarised in box …

Clinical investigation of an outbreak of alveolitis and asthma in a car engine manufacturing plant

Background: Exposure to metal working fluid (MWF) has been associated with outbreaks of extrinsic allergic alveolitis (EAA) in the USA, with bacterial contamination of MWF being a possible cause, but is uncommon in the UK. Twelve workers developed EAA in a car engine manufacturing plant in the UK, presenting clinically between December 2003 and May 2004. This paper reports the subsequent epidemiological investigation of the whole workforce. The study had three aims: (1) to measure the extent of the outbreak by identifying other workers who may have developed EAA or other work-related respiratory diseases; (2) to provide case detection so that those affected could be treated; and (3) to provide epidemiological data to identify the cause of the outbreak. Methods: The outbreak was investigated in a three-phase cross-sectional survey of the workforce. In phase I a respiratory screening questionnaire was completed by 808/836 workers (96.7%) in May 2004. In phase II 481 employees with at least one respiratory symptom on screening and 50 asymptomatic controls were invited for investigation at the factory in June 2004. This included a questionnaire, spirometry and clinical opinion. 454/481 (94.4%) responded and 48/50 (96%) controls. Workers were identified who needed further investigation and serial measurements of peak expiratory flow (PEF). In phase III 162 employees were seen at the Birmingham Occupational Lung Disease clinic. 198 employees returned PEF records, including 141 of the 162 who attended for clinical investigation. Case definitions for diagnoses were agreed. Results: 87 workers (10.4% of the workforce) met case definitions for occupational lung disease, comprising EAA (n = 19), occupational asthma (n = 74) and humidifier fever (n = 7). 12 workers had more than one diagnosis. The peak onset of work-related breathlessness was Spring 2003. The proportion of workers affected was higher for those using MWF from a large sump (27.3%) than for those working all over the manufacturing area (7.9%) (OR = 4.39, p<0.001). Two workers had positive specific provocation tests to the used but not the unused MWF solution. Conclusions: Extensive investigation of the outbreak of EAA detected a large number of affected workers, not only with EAA but also occupational asthma. This is the largest reported outbreak in Europe. Mist from used MWF is the likely cause. In workplaces using MWF there is a need to carry out risk assessments, to monitor and maintain fluid quality, to control mist and to carry out respiratory health surveillance.

Self-reported work-related symptoms in hairdressers

BACKGROUND Detailed studies of current symptoms reported by hairdressers and of the training received to reduce the health risks associated with this work are uncommon. AIMS To document current levels of self-reported health problems in hairdressers, compared to non-hairdressing controls. METHODS An interviewer-led questionnaire recording demographic information, work history, health training levels and the presence of self-reported respiratory, skin, musculoskeletal and non-specific symptoms was administered. RESULTS In total, 147 hairdressers, 86% of whom were female (median age 27 years) and 67 non-hairdressing controls, all female (median age 38 years) were recruited. Following adjustment for age, smoking and years worked, hairdressers reported significantly higher levels of musculoskeletal problems, including work-related shoulder pain (OR 11.6, 95% CI 2.4-55.4), work-related wrist and hand pain (2.8, 1.1-7.6), work-related upper back pain (3.8, 1.0-14.9), work-related lower back pain (4.9, 1.5-15.9) and work-related leg/foot pain (31.0, 3.8-267.4). The frequency of self-reported asthma was similar in both groups (hairdressers 16%, controls 17%) as was chest tightness and wheeze. Work-related cough was significantly more frequently reported in hairdressers than in controls (13.2, 1.3-131.5). While hairdresser training was commonplace, such training did not always appear to have resulted in awareness of potential workplace health risks. CONCLUSIONS This study identified frequently reported musculoskeletal, skin and respiratory symptoms in hairdressers. This points to a need to develop training that not only deals with risk assessment but also informs hairdressers about the health risks of their work.

Work-related symptoms in nail salon technicians

BACKGROUND Nail salons are a rapidly expanding small business sector. Environmental health practitioners have raised concerns about potential health and safety issues. AIMS To establish the extent of work-related health issues reported by nail salon technicians, their knowledge of health and safety regulations and of the products used. METHODS Nail technicians completed a researcher-administered questionnaire, and responses were compared to those of non-exposed office-based control subjects. RESULTS In all, 39 of 588 nail salons approached agreed to participate (7%), with all 71 (100%) of the available nail technicians within these salons completing study questionnaires. The majority of the nail technicians (99%) had received training that had included aspects of health and safety and most reported being aware of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health regulations (59/70, 84%) and risk assessments (65/70, 93%). Compared to the control group, the nail technicians reported statistically significant increased levels of work-related neck (OR 5.0, 95% CI 1.6-15.6), shoulder (15.0, 3.1-71.8), wrist/hand (3.6, 1.2-10.7) and lower back problems (3.5, 1.0-12.5). Work-related nasal symptoms were also significantly more common in nail technicians (6.2, 1.3-30.7). CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrated a higher prevalence of a range of musculoskeletal problems and respiratory symptoms reported by nail technicians compared to office-based controls. An ergonomic and exposure assessment of work practices in this industry is warranted to identify the working practices associated with these symptoms, in order to inform best practice, supplement industry and regulatory guidance and develop appropriate practical work-based training.

Sensitization to wheat flour and enzymes and associated respiratory symptoms in British bakers

RATIONALE Current literature suggests that flour exposed workers continue to be at risk of allergic sensitization to flour dust and respiratory ill health. OBJECTIVES A cross-sectional study of 225 workers currently potentially exposed to flour dust in British bakeries was performed to identify predictors of sensitization to wheat flour and enzymes. RESULTS Work-related nasal irritation was the most commonly reported symptom (28.9%) followed by eye irritation (13.3%) and work-related cough or chest tightness (both 10.2%). Work-related chest tightness was significantly associated (OR 7.9, 1.3-46.0) with co-sensitization to wheat flour and any added enzyme. Working at a bakery with inadequate control measures was not a risk factor for reporting work-related respiratory symptoms (OR 1.3, 0.4-3.7). Fifty-one workers were atopic and 23 (14%) were sensitized to workplace allergens. Atopy was the strongest predictive factor (OR 18.4, 5.3-64.3) determining sensitization. Current versus never smoking (OR 4.7, 1.1-20.8) was a significant risk factor for sensitization to wheat flour or enzymes in atopic workers only, corrected for current level and duration of exposure. This effect was not seen in non-atopic workers (OR 1.9, 0.2-17.9). Evidence of sensitization to less commonly encountered allergens was also seen to Aspergillus niger derived cellulase, hemicellulase and xylanase mix, in addition to glucose oxidase and amyloglucosidase mix. CONCLUSIONS The combination of health surveillance and exposure control in this population has been insufficient to prevent clinically significant workplace sensitization. Smoking may pose an additional risk factor for sensitization in atopic workers. Am. J. Ind. Med. 52:133-140, 2009.

Respiratory symptoms in insect breeders

BACKGROUND A number of specialist food suppliers in the UK breed and distribute insects and insect larvae as food for exotic pets, such as reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates. AIMS To investigate the extent of work-related (WR) symptoms and workplace-specific serum IgE in workers potentially exposed to a variety of biological contaminants, including insect and insect larvae allergens, endotoxin and cereal allergens at a UK specialist insect breeding facility. METHODS We undertook a study of respiratory symptoms and exposures at the facility, with subsequent detailed clinical assessment of one worker. All 32 workers were assessed clinically using a respiratory questionnaire and lung function. Eighteen workers consented to provide serum for determination of specific IgE to workplace allergens. RESULTS Thirty-four per cent (11/32) of insect workers reported WR respiratory symptoms. Sensitization, as judged by specific IgE, was found in 29% (4/14) of currently exposed workers. Total inhalable dust levels ranged from 1.2 to 17.9 mg/m(3) [mean 4.3 mg/m(3) (SD 4.4 mg/m(3)), median 2.0 mg/m(3)] and endotoxin levels of up to 29435 EU/m(3) were recorded. CONCLUSIONS Exposure to organic dusts below the levels for which there are UK workplace exposure limits can result in respiratory symptoms and sensitization. The results should alert those responsible for the health of similarly exposed workers to the potential for respiratory ill-health and the need to provide a suitable health surveillance programme.