Background Farmers are often exposed to dust, molds, pollen, animal products, insects, and chemicals. Accordingly, they have a high prevalence of respiratory and allergic diseases. Some studies have shown that farmers have a high prevalence of respiratory diseases and symptoms depending on where farmers work. The objective of the present study was to investigate whether certain types of agricultural workplaces are associated with the prevalence of allergic reactions in skin prick tests (SPTs) in South Korea. Method A total of 149 farmers, grouped according to their workplaces in greenhouses, poultry houses, or outdoors, answered a self-reported questionnaire about the prevalence of respiratory diseases and symptoms. They were skin-tested using 12 allergens. The questionnaire and the prevalence of positive skin tests were determined for each of the participant groups, and the results were analyzed by multivariate logistic regression. Results There were significant differences in the prevalence of allergic reactions to the SPT, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPDs) and asthma symptoms (wheezing) among the subgroups. The allergic reaction to SPT was the highest in greenhouse workers (30.9%), followed by poultry house workers (15.9%), and outdoor workers (8.1%). The prevalence of COPD was 6.8% in poultry house workers alone and not in other groups. The prevalence of wheezing was the highest at 9.1% in poultry house workers. According to the results of the logistic analysis, the prevalence of allergic reactions to SPT had positive correlations with the types of workplaces. Greenhouse workers had higher risk of SPT sensitization compared to outdoor workers (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 5.55, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.32–32.24). The prevalence of SPT positivity also had an association with the symptoms of sneezing, rhinorrhea, or nasal congestion (adjusted OR: 6.64, 95% CI: 2.06–23.63). Conclusions These data demonstrate that the types of workplaces were associated with the prevalence of allergic sensitization. This could be explained by the difference in the type or level of airborne exposures in each workplace. It is also likely that this was caused by differences between groups of individual factors such as age and BMI that influence SPT sensitization.
Background Occupational pesticide exposure is a potential risk for respiratory health effects. Most clinical studies on pesticide exposure were related to acute exposure, and only a few studies on chronic exposure have been conducted. This study investigated the chronic respiratory health status and the chronic effects of occupational pesticide exposures of farmers in Gyeonggi-do. Methods Surveys and pulmonary function tests were conducted on 1,697 farmers in 16 regions of Gyeonggi-do. The structured questionnaire included demographic characteristics, medical history, recent respiratory symptoms and diseases, and work-related conditions, and was conducted through one-on-one interviews. The prevalence of respiratory diseases was compared by the odds ratios (ORs) at 95% confidence intervals (CIs) estimated by logistic regression analysis. Additional multivariate logistic regression analysis was also conducted. Results Pesticide work groups showed significant association with an obstructive pattern in the lung function test (unadjusted OR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.17–5.52). Selected work-related variables of pesticide exposure were ‘start age,’ ‘cumulative duration,’ ‘mixing pesticides,’ and ‘protection(goggle).’ The obstructive pattern of lung function test showed significant associations with mixing pesticides (OR, 2.30; 95% CI,1.07–5.46), and protection (goggle) use (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.12–0.79). Conclusions Mixing two or more pesticides showed a significant association. Wearing goggles can be seen as an indicator of awareness of the protective equipment and proper wearing of protective equipment, and loss of pulmonary function can be prevented when appropriate protection is worn.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.