21 research outputs found

    Preconception Brief: Occupational/Environmental Exposures

    Get PDF
    In the last decade, more than half of U.S. children were born to working mothers and 65% of working men and women were of reproductive age. In 2004 more than 28 million women age 18–44 were employed full time. This implies the need for clinicians to possess an awareness about the impact of work on the health of their patients and their future offspring. Most chemicals in the workplace have not been evaluated for reproductive toxicity, and where exposure limits do exist, they were generally not designed to mitigate reproductive risk. Therefore, many toxicants with unambiguous reproductive and developmental effects are still in regular commercial or therapeutic use and thus present exposure potential to workers. Examples of these include heavy metals, (lead, cadmium), organic solvents (glycol ethers, percholoroethylene), pesticides and herbicides (ethylene dibromide) and sterilants, anesthetic gases and anti-cancer drugs used in healthcare. Surprisingly, many of these reproductive toxicants are well represented in traditional employment sectors of women, such as healthcare and cosmetology. Environmental exposures also figure prominently in evaluating a woman’s health risk and that to a pregnancy. Food and water quality and pesticide and solvent usage are increasingly topics raised by women and men contemplating pregnancy. The microenvironment of a woman, such as her choices of hobbies and leisure time activities also come into play. Caregivers must be aware of their patients’ potential environmental and workplace exposures and weigh any risk of exposure in the context of the time-dependent window of reproductive susceptibility. This will allow informed decision-making about the need for changes in behavior, diet, hobbies or the need for added protections on the job or alternative duty assignment. Examples of such environmental and occupational history elements will be presented together with counseling strategies for the clinician

    Carcinogenicity of cobalt, antimony compounds, and weapons-grade tungsten alloy

    Get PDF
    The complete evaluation of the carcinogenicity of cobalt, antimony compounds, and weapons-grade tungsten alloy will be published in Volume 131 of the IARC Monographs.[Excerpt] In March, 2022, a Working Group of 31 scientists from 13 countries met remotely at the invitation of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to finalise their evaluation of the carcinogenicity of nine agents: cobalt metal (without tungsten carbide or other metal alloys), soluble cobalt(II) salts, cobalt(II) oxide, cobalt(II,III) oxide, cobalt(II) sulfide, other cobalt(II) compounds, trivalent antimony, pentavalent antimony, and weapons-grade tungsten (with nickel and cobalt) alloy. For cobalt metal and the cobalt compounds, particles of all sizes were included in the evaluation. These assessments will be published in Volume 131 of the IARC Monographs.1 Cobalt metal and soluble cobalt(II) salts were classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A) based on “sufficient” evidence for cancer in experimental animals and “strong” mechanistic evidence in human primary cells. Cobalt(II) oxide and weapons-grade tungsten alloy were classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) based on “sufficient” evidence in experimental animals. Trivalent antimony was classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A), based on “limited” evidence for cancer in humans, “sufficient” evidence for cancer in experimental animals, and “strong” mechanistic evidence in human primary cells and in experimental systems. Cobalt(II,III) oxide, cobalt(II) sulfide, other cobalt(II) compounds, and pentavalent antimony were each evaluated as “not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans” (Group 3).[...

    Comprehensive Program for Handling Hazardous Drugs

    No full text

    OSHA’s perspective on occupational exposure to hazardous drugs

    No full text

    Respiratory Protection Perceptions among Malian Health Workers: Insights from the Health Belief Model

    No full text
    Reusable respiratory protective devices called elastomeric respirators have demonstrated their effectiveness and acceptability in well-resourced healthcare settings. Using standard qualitative research methods, we explored the feasibility of elastomeric respirator use in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). We conducted interviews and focus groups with a convenience sample of health workers at one clinical center in Mali. Participants were users of elastomeric and/or traditional N95 respirators, their supervisors, and program leaders. Interview transcripts of participants were analyzed using a priori constructs from the Health Belief Model (HBM) and a previous study about healthcare respirator use. In addition to HBM constructs, the team identified two additional constructs impacting uptake of respirator use (system-level factors and cultural factors). Together, these framed the perceptions of Malian health workers and highlighted both facilitators of and barriers to respirator use uptake. As needs for respiratory protection from airborne infectious hazards become more commonly recognized, elastomeric respirators may be a sustainable and economic solution for health worker protection in LMIC
    corecore