Self‐reported work activities, eye, nose, and throat symptoms, and respiratory health outcomes among an industrial hog operation worker cohort, North Carolina, USA

Abstract

Introduction Respiratory disease among industrial hog operation (IHO) workers is well documented; however, it remains unclear whether specific work activities are more harmful and if personal protective equipment (PPE), as used by workers, can reduce adverse health outcomes. Methods IHO workers (n = 103) completed baseline and up to eight bi‐weekly study visits. Workers reported typical (baseline) and transient (bi‐weekly) work activities, PPE use, and physical health symptoms. Baseline and longitudinal associations were assessed using generalized logistic and fixed‐effects logistic regression models, respectively. Results At baseline, reports of ever versus never drawing pig blood, applying pesticides, and increasing years worked at any IHO were positively associated with reports of eye, nose, and/or throat irritation. Over time, transient exposures, associated with dustiness in barns, cleaning of barns, and pig contact were associated with increased odds of sneezing, headache, and eye or nose irritation, particularly in the highest categories of exposure. When PPE was used, workers had lower odds of symptoms interfering with sleep (odds ratio [OR]: 0.1; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.01–0.8), and eye or nose irritation (OR: 0.1; 95% CI: 0.02–0.9). Similarly, when they washed their hands eight times or more per shift (median frequency) versus less frequently, the odds of any respiratory symptom were reduced (OR: 0.3; 95% CI: 0.1–0.8). Conclusions In this healthy volunteer worker population, increasingly unfavorable IHO activities were associated with self‐reported eye, nose, throat, and respiratory health symptoms. Strong protective associations were seen between PPE use and handwashing and the odds of symptoms, warranting further investigation.

Personal protective equipment use during industrial hog operation work activities and acute lung function changes in a prospective worker cohort, North Carolina 2014–2015

“…At each of nine study visits, a work practices questionnaire (either baseline or biweekly 19 ) adapted from the Agricultural Health Study (https://www.aghealth.nih.gov/collaboration/questionnaires.html) and the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 30 was administered by REACH investigators. As previously described 29 and published in full in earlier work, 19 the enrollment survey instrument was designed to gather data regarding typical work activities and underlying health characteristics. At each follow‐up visit, information about the frequency, magnitude, and duration of participants' contact with pigs, job activities, personal behaviors (e.g., cigarette use), and PPE use was collected.…”

“…At each of nine study visits, a work practices questionnaire (either baseline or biweekly 19 ) adapted from the Agricultural Health Study (https://www.aghealth.nih.gov/collaboration/questionnaires. html) and the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 30 was administered by REACH investigators.…”

“…Both the and Piko-1 and Koko were used in accordance with recognized guidelines 31,32 Drawing on past work in longitudinal analyses, 19 3 | RESULTS…”

“…17 Pre-and postshift changes in spirometry measurements were also examined by the same research group, finding that total dust concentrations ≥2.8 mg/m 3 were predictive of a ≥10% decline in FEV 1 and that NH 3 concentrations of ≥7.5 ppm were predictive of a ≥3% decline in FEV 1 . 7 Newer studies focus strongly on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 18 and have not employed a prospective design, limiting our ability to identify workplace factors that account for the high prevalence of respiratory symptoms 19 in IHO worker populations even as industrialized pig farming practices evolve. Documenting the deleterious effects of IHOs on the respiratory health of workers in the United States has historically been a challenge.…”

“…Newer studies focus strongly on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 18 and have not employed a prospective design, limiting our ability to identify workplace factors that account for the high prevalence of respiratory symptoms 19 in IHO worker populations even as industrialized pig farming practices evolve. Documenting the deleterious effects of IHOs on the respiratory health of workers in the United States has historically been a challenge.…”