Contaminants in Buildings and Occupied Spaces as Risk Factors forOccupant Symptoms in U.S. Office Buildings: Findings from the U.S. EPABASE Study

Nonspecific building-related symptoms among occupants of modern office buildings worldwide are common and may be associated with important reductions in work performance, but their etiology remains uncertain. Most reported research into environmental risk factors for these symptoms has focused on ventilation system-related factors, dampness, and particle removal through filtration and cleaning, with relatively few studies of other potential sources of indoor contaminants. We analyzed data collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from a representative sample of 100 large U.S. office buildings--the Building Assessment and Survey Evaluation (BASE) study--using multivariate-adjusted logistic regression models with generalized estimating equations. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between seven building-related symptom outcomes and a diverse set of potential indoor and outdoor sources for indoor pollutants. Although most of the investigated risk factors showed no apparent association with building-related symptoms, some interesting associations resulted. Increased prevalence of symptoms was associated with carpets older than one year (lower respiratory symptoms), non-carpeted floors (upper and lower respiratory symptoms), older furniture (eye and skin symptoms), infrequent vacuuming (upper respiratory, eye, and skin symptoms and headache), and masonry exterior walls (cough, eye symptoms, and fatigue/concentration difficulty). For the many potential risk factors assessed, almost none had been investigated previously, and many associations found here may have been by chance. Additional confirmatory research focused on risk factors initially identified here is needed, using more objective measures of health outcomes and risk factors or exposures

Risk Factors in Heating, Ventilating, and Air-Conditioning Systemsfor Occupant Symptoms in U.S. Office Buildings: the EPA BASE Study

Nonspecific building-related symptoms among occupants of modern office buildings worldwide are common and may be associated with important reductions in work performance, but their etiology remains uncertain. Characteristics of heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems in office buildings that increase risk of indoor contaminants or reduce effectiveness of ventilation may cause adverse exposures and subsequent increase in these symptoms among occupants. We analyzed data collected by the U.S. EPA from a representative sample of 100 large U.S. office buildings--the Building Assessment and Survey Evaluation (BASE) study--using multivariate logistic regression models with generalized estimating equations adjusted for potential personal and building confounders. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between seven building-related symptom outcomes and selected HVAC system characteristics. Among factors of HVAC design or configuration: Outdoor air intakes less than 60 m above the ground were associated with approximately doubled odds of most symptoms assessed. Sealed (non-operable) windows were associated with increases in skin and eye symptoms (ORs= 1.9, 1.3, respectively). Outdoor air intake without an intake fan was associated with an increase in eye symptoms (OR=1.7). Local cooling coils were associated with increased headache (OR=1.5). Among factors of HVAC condition, maintenance, or operation: the presence of humidification systems in good condition was associated with an increase in headache (OR=1.4), whereas the presence of humidification systems in poor condition was associated with increases in fatigue/difficulty concentrating, as well as upper respiratory symptoms (ORs=1.8, 1.5). No regularly scheduled inspections for HVAC components was associated with increased eye symptoms, cough and upper respiratory symptoms (ORs=2.2, 1.6, 1.5). Less frequent cleaning of cooling coils or drip pans was associated with increased headache (OR=1.6). Fair or poor condition of duct liner was associated with increased upper respiratory symptoms (OR=1.4). Most of the many potential risk factors assessed here had not been investigated previously, and associations found with single symptoms may have been by chance, including several associations that were the reverse of expected. Risk factors newly identified in these analyses that deserve attention include outdoor air intakes less than 60 m above the ground, lack of operable windows, poorly maintained humidification systems, and lack of scheduled inspection for HVAC systems. Infrequent cleaning of cooling coils and drain pans were associated with increases in several symptoms in these as well as prior analyses of BASE data. Replication of these findings is needed, using more objective measurements of both exposure and health response. Confirmation of the specific HVAC factors responsible for increased symptoms in buildings, and development of prevention strategies could have major public health and economic benefits worldwide

Exposure to avian coronavirus vaccines is associated with increased levels of SARS-CoV-2-cross-reactive antibodies.

BACKGROUND Although avian coronavirus infectious bronchitis virus (IBV) and SARS-CoV-2 belong to different genera of the Coronaviridae family, exposure to IBV may result in the development of cross-reactive antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 due to homologous epitopes. We aimed to investigate whether antibody responses to IBV cross-react with SARS-CoV-2 in poultry farm personnel who are occupationally exposed to aerosolized IBV vaccines. METHODS We analyzed sera from poultry farm personnel, COVID-19 patients, and pre-pandemic controls. IgG levels against the SARS-CoV-2 antigens S1, RBD, S2, and N and peptides corresponding to the SARS-CoV-2 ORF3a, N, and S proteins as well as whole virus antigens of the four major S1-genotypes 4/91, IS/1494/06, M41, and D274 of IBV were investigated by in-house ELISAs. Moreover, live-virus neutralization test (VNT) was performed. RESULTS A subgroup of poultry farm personnel showed elevated levels of specific IgG for all tested SARS-CoV-2 antigens compared with pre-pandemic controls. Moreover, poultry farm personnel, COVID-19 patients, and pre-pandemic controls showed specific IgG antibodies against IBV strains. These antibody titers were higher in long-term vaccine implementers. We observed a strong correlation between IBV-specific IgG and SARS-CoV-2 S1-, RBD-, S2-, and N-specific IgG in poultry farm personnel compared with pre-pandemic controls and COVID-19 patients. However, no neutralization was observed for these cross-reactive antibodies from poultry farm personnel using the VNT. CONCLUSION We report here for the first time the detection of cross-reactive IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 antigens in humans exposed to IBV vaccines. These findings may be useful for further studies on the adaptive immunity against COVID-19

Exposure to avian coronavirus vaccines is associated with increased levels of SARS-CoV-2-cross-reactive antibodies

Background: Although avian coronavirus infectious bronchitis virus (IBV) and SARS-CoV-2 belong to different genera of the Coronaviridae family, exposure to IBV may result in the development of cross-reactive antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 due to homologous epitopes. We aimed to investigate whether antibody responses to IBV cross-react with SARS-CoV-2 in poultry farm personnel who are occupationally exposed to aerosolized IBV vaccines. Methods: We analyzed sera from poultry farm personnel, COVID-19 patients, and pre-pandemic controls. IgG levels against the SARS-CoV-2 antigens S1, RBD, S2, and N and peptides corresponding to the SARS-CoV-2 ORF3a, N, and S proteins as well as whole virus antigens of the four major S1-genotypes 4/91, IS/1494/06, M41, and D274 of IBV were investigated by in-house ELISAs. Moreover, live-virus neutralization test (VNT) was performed. Results: A subgroup of poultry farm personnel showed elevated levels of specific IgG for all tested SARS-CoV-2 antigens compared with pre-pandemic controls. Moreover, poultry farm personnel, COVID-19 patients, and pre-pandemic controls showed specific IgG antibodies against IBV strains. These antibody titers were higher in long-term vaccine implementers. We observed a strong correlation between IBV-specific IgG and SARS-CoV-2 S1-, RBD-, S2-, and N-specific IgG in poultry farm personnel compared with pre-pandemic controls and COVID-19 patients. However, no neutralization was observed for these cross-reactive antibodies from poultry farm personnel using the VNT. Conclusion: We report here for the first time the detection of cross-reactive IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 antigens in humans exposed to IBV vaccines. These findings may be useful for further studies on the adaptive immunity against COVID-19. Keywords: COVID-19; IBV; SARS-CoV-2; cross-reactivity; neutralizatio

Demographic transition and the real exchange rate in Australia: An empirical investigation

This article utilizes the empirical findings that age structure of the population affects saving, investment and capital flow and hypothesizes that age structure influences the real exchange rate. Based on this link, an empirical model is specified for Australia and estimated with annual data for the period 1970–2011. An autoregressive distributed lag model of cointegration indicates that Australia's real exchange rate is cointegrated with its productivity differential and the relative share of young dependents (0–14 years) in the population. Long-run estimates show that young cohort has an appreciating influence on the real exchange rate. Also, the short-run adjustment is substantial, with more than 65% of the disequilibrium corrected in a year

IARC Monographs: 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans

Background: Recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also for the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that failures of IARC Working Groups to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans. Objectives: The authors of this Commentary are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We examined criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. Here, we present the results of that examination, review the history of IARC evaluations, and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed. Discussion: We concluded that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various disciplines and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed. Conclusions: The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public’s health. Citation: Pearce N, Blair A, Vineis P, Ahrens W, Andersen A, Anto JM, Armstrong BK, Baccarelli AA, Beland FA, Berrington A, Bertazzi PA, Birnbaum LS, Brownson RC, Bucher JR, Cantor KP, Cardis E, Cherrie JW, Christiani DC, Cocco P, Coggon D, Comba P, Demers PA, Dement JM, Douwes J, Eisen EA, Engel LS, Fenske RA, Fleming LE, Fletcher T, Fontham E, Forastiere F, Frentzel-Beyme R, Fritschi L, Gerin M, Goldberg M, Grandjean P, Grimsrud TK, Gustavsson P, Haines A, Hartge P, Hansen J, Hauptmann M, Heederik D, Hemminki K, Hemon D, Hertz-Picciotto I, Hoppin JA, Huff J, Jarvholm B, Kang D, Karagas MR, Kjaerheim K, Kjuus H, Kogevinas M, Kriebel D, Kristensen P, Kromhout H, Laden F, Lebailly P, LeMasters G, Lubin JH, Lynch CF, Lynge E, ‘t Mannetje A, McMichael AJ, McLaughlin JR, Marrett L, Martuzzi M, Merchant JA, Merler E, Merletti F, Miller A, Mirer FE, Monson R, Nordby KC, Olshan AF, Parent ME, Perera FP, Perry MJ, Pesatori AC, Pirastu R, Porta M, Pukkala E, Rice C, Richardson DB, Ritter L, Ritz B, Ronckers CM, Rushton L, Rusiecki JA, Rusyn I, Samet JM, Sandler DP, de Sanjose S, Schernhammer E, Seniori Costantini A, Seixas N, Shy C, Siemiatycki J, Silverman DT, Simonato L, Smith AH, Smith MT, Spinelli JJ, Spitz MR, Stallones L, Stayner LT, Steenland K, Stenzel M, Stewart BW, Stewart PA, Symanski E, Terracini B, Tolbert PE, Vainio H, Vena J, Vermeulen R, Victora CG, Ward EM, Weinberg CR, Weisenburger D, Wesseling C, Weiderpass E, Zahm SH. 2015. IARC Monographs: 40 years of evaluating carcinogenic hazards to humans. Environ Health Perspect 123:507–514; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.140914

Differences in the carcinogenic evaluation of glyphosate between the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs Programme identifies chemicals, drugs, mixtures, occupational exposures, lifestyles and personal habits, and physical and biological agents that cause cancer in humans and has evaluated about 1000 agents since 1971. Monographs are written by ad hoc Working Groups (WGs) of international scientific experts over a period of about 12 months ending in an eight-day meeting. The WG evaluates all of the publicly available scientific information on each substance and, through a transparent and rigorous process,1 decides on the degree to which the scientific evidence supports that substance's potential to cause or not cause cancer in humans. For Monograph 112,2 17 expert scientists evaluated the carcinogenic hazard for four insecticides and the herbicide glyphosate.3 The WG concluded that the data for glyphosate meet the criteria for classification as a probable human carcinogen. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is the primary agency of the European Union for risk assessments regarding food safety. In October 2015, EFSA reported4 on their evaluation of the Renewal Assessment Report5 (RAR) for glyphosate that was prepared by the Rapporteur Member State, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR). EFSA concluded that ?glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans and the evidence does not support classification with regard to its carcinogenic potential?. Addendum 1 (the BfR Addendum) of the RAR5 discusses the scientific rationale for differing from the IARC WG conclusion. Serious flaws in the scientific evaluation in the RAR incorrectly characterise the potential for a carcinogenic hazard from exposure to glyphosate. Since the RAR is the basis for the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) conclusion,4 it is critical that these shortcomings are corrected