Epidemiologic investigation of immune-mediated polyradiculoneuropathy among abattoir workers exposed to porcine brain

Background In October 2007, a cluster of patients experiencing a novel polyradiculoneuropathy was identified at a pork abattoir (Plant A). Patients worked in the primary carcass processing area (warm room); the majority processed severed heads (head-table). An investigation was initiated to determine risk factors for illness. Methods and Results Symptoms of the reported patients were unlike previously described occupational associated illnesses. A case-control study was conducted at Plant A. A case was defined as evidence of symptoms of peripheral neuropathy and compatible electrodiagnostic testing in a pork abattoir worker. Two control groups were used - randomly selected non-ill warm-room workers (n = 49), and all non-ill head-table workers (n = 56). Consenting cases and controls were interviewed and blood and throat swabs were collected. The 26 largest U.S. pork abattoirs were surveyed to identify additional cases. Fifteen cases were identified at Plant A; illness onsets occurred during May 2004–November 2007. Median age was 32 years (range, 21–55 years). Cases were more likely than warm-room controls to have ever worked at the head-table (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 6.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6–26.7), removed brains or removed muscle from the backs of heads (AOR, 10.3; 95% CI, 1.5–68.5), and worked within 0–10 feet of the brain removal operation (AOR, 9.9; 95% CI, 1.2–80.0). Associations remained when comparing head-table cases and head-table controls. Workers removed brains by using compressed air that liquefied brain and generated aerosolized droplets, exposing themselves and nearby workers. Eight additional cases were identified in the only two other abattoirs using this technique. The three abattoirs that used this technique have stopped brain removal, and no new cases have been reported after 24 months of follow up. Cases compared to controls had higher median interferon-gamma (IFNγ) levels (21.7 pg/ml; vs 14.8 pg/ml, P<0.001). Discussion This novel polyradiculoneuropathy was associated with removing porcine brains with compressed air. An autoimmune mechanism is supported by higher levels of IFNγ in cases than in controls consistent with other immune mediated illnesses occurring in association with neural tissue exposure. Abattoirs should not use compressed air to remove brains and should avoid procedures that aerosolize CNS tissue. This outbreak highlights the potential for respiratory or mucosal exposure to cause an immune-mediated illness in an occupational setting

Epidemiologic investigation of immune-mediated polyradiculoneuropathy among abattoir workers exposed to porcine brain

Background In October 2007, a cluster of patients experiencing a novel polyradiculoneuropathy was identified at a pork abattoir (Plant A). Patients worked in the primary carcass processing area (warm room); the majority processed severed heads (head-table). An investigation was initiated to determine risk factors for illness. Methods and Results Symptoms of the reported patients were unlike previously described occupational associated illnesses. A case-control study was conducted at Plant A. A case was defined as evidence of symptoms of peripheral neuropathy and compatible electrodiagnostic testing in a pork abattoir worker. Two control groups were used - randomly selected non-ill warm-room workers (n = 49), and all non-ill head-table workers (n = 56). Consenting cases and controls were interviewed and blood and throat swabs were collected. The 26 largest U.S. pork abattoirs were surveyed to identify additional cases. Fifteen cases were identified at Plant A; illness onsets occurred during May 2004–November 2007. Median age was 32 years (range, 21–55 years). Cases were more likely than warm-room controls to have ever worked at the head-table (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 6.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6–26.7), removed brains or removed muscle from the backs of heads (AOR, 10.3; 95% CI, 1.5–68.5), and worked within 0–10 feet of the brain removal operation (AOR, 9.9; 95% CI, 1.2–80.0). Associations remained when comparing head-table cases and head-table controls. Workers removed brains by using compressed air that liquefied brain and generated aerosolized droplets, exposing themselves and nearby workers. Eight additional cases were identified in the only two other abattoirs using this technique. The three abattoirs that used this technique have stopped brain removal, and no new cases have been reported after 24 months of follow up. Cases compared to controls had higher median interferon-gamma (IFNγ) levels (21.7 pg/ml; vs 14.8 pg/ml, P<0.001). Discussion This novel polyradiculoneuropathy was associated with removing porcine brains with compressed air. An autoimmune mechanism is supported by higher levels of IFNγ in cases than in controls consistent with other immune mediated illnesses occurring in association with neural tissue exposure. Abattoirs should not use compressed air to remove brains and should avoid procedures that aerosolize CNS tissue. This outbreak highlights the potential for respiratory or mucosal exposure to cause an immune-mediated illness in an occupational setting

Comparison of a Wipe Method With and Without a Rinse to Recover Wall Losses in Closed Face 37-mm Cassettes used for Sampling Lead Dust Particulates

<p>Closed-face 37-mm polystyrene cassettes are often used for exposure monitoring of metal particulates. Several methods have been proposed to account for the wall loss in air sampling cassettes, including rinsing, wiping, within-cassette dissolution, and an internal capsule fused to the filter that could be digested with the filter. Until internal capsules replace filters, other methods for assessing wall losses may be considered. To determine if rinsing and wiping or wiping alone is adequate to determine wall losses on cassettes, we collected 54 full-shift area air samples at a battery recycling facility. We collected six replicate samples at three locations within the facility for three consecutive days. The wall losses of three replicate cassettes from each day-location were analyzed following a rinse and two consecutive wipes. The wall losses of the other three replicates from each day-location were analyzed following two consecutive wipes only. Mixed-cellulose ester membrane filter, rinse, and wipes were analyzed separately following NIOSH Method 7303. We found an average of 29% (range: 8–54%) recovered lead from the cassette walls for all samples. We also found that rinsing prior to wiping the interior cassette walls did not substantially improve recovery of wall losses compared to wiping alone. A rinse plus one wipe recovered on average 23% (range: 13–33%) of the lead, while one wipe alone recovered on average 21% (range: 16–22%). Similarly, we determined that a second wipe did not provide substantial additional recovery of lead (average: 4%, range: 0.4–19%) compared to the first wipe disregarding the rinse (average: 18%, range: 4–39%). We concluded that when an internal capsule is not used, wall losses of lead dust in air sampling cassettes can be adequately recovered by wiping the internal wall surfaces of the cassette with a single wipe.</p

Healthcare personnel exposure in an emergency department during influenza season.

INTRODUCTION:Healthcare personnel are at high risk for exposure to influenza by direct and indirect contact, droplets and aerosols, and by aerosol generating procedures. Information on air and surface influenza contamination is needed to assist in developing guidance for proper prevention and control strategies. To understand the vulnerabilities of healthcare personnel, we measured influenza in the breathing zone of healthcare personnel, in air and on surfaces within a healthcare setting, and on filtering facepiece respirators worn by healthcare personnel when conducting patient care. METHODS:Thirty participants were recruited from an adult emergency department during the 2015 influenza season. Participants wore personal bioaerosol samplers for six hours of their work shift, submitted used filtering facepiece respirators and medical masks and completed questionnaires to assess frequency and types of interactions with potentially infected patients. Room air samples were collected using bioaerosol samplers, and surface swabs were collected from high-contact surfaces within the adult emergency department. Personal and room bioaerosol samples, surface swabs, and filtering facepiece respirators were analyzed for influenza A by polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS:Influenza was identified in 42% (53/125) of personal bioaerosol samples, 43% (28/ 96) of room bioaerosol samples, 76% (23/30) of pooled surface samples, and 25% (3/12) of the filtering facepiece respirators analyzed. Influenza copy numbers were greater in personal bioaerosol samples (17 to 631 copies) compared to room bioaerosol samples (16 to 323 copies). Regression analysis suggested that the amount of influenza in personal samples was approximately 2.3 times the amount in room samples (Wald χ2 = 16.21, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Healthcare personnel may encounter increased concentrations of influenza virus when in close proximity to patients. Occupations that require contact with patients are at an increased risk for influenza exposure, which may occur throughout the influenza season. Filtering facepiece respirators may become contaminated with influenza when used during patient care