Self-Assessed Threshold Temperature for Cold among Poultry Industry Workers in Thailand

The self-assessed threshold temperature for cold in the workplace is not well known. We asked 392 chicken industry workers in Thailand what they regard as the cold threshold (CT) and compared subgroups of workers using linear and quantile regressions by CT sextiles (percentiles P17, P33, P50, P67, and P83, from warmest to coldest). The variables of interest were sex, office work, and sedentary work, with age, clothing thermal insulation, and alcohol consumption as adjustment factors. The mean CT was 14.6 ◦C. Office workers had a 6.8 ◦C higher mean CT than other workers, but the difference ranged from 3.8 ◦C to 10.0 ◦C from P17 to P83. Sedentary workers had a 2.0 ◦C higher mean CT than others, but the difference increased from 0.5 ◦C to 3.0 ◦C through P17–P83. The mean CT did not differ between sexes, but men had a 1.6–5.0 ◦C higher CT at P17–P50 (>20 ◦C) and a 5.0 ◦C lower CT at P83 ( 0.35 m/s) worksites. We conclude that office, sedentary, and female workers and those working at warm, dry, and draughty sites are sensitive to the coldest temperatures, whereas male workers are sensitive even to moderate temperatures

Respiratory and skin health among glass microfiber production workers: a cross-sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Only a few studies have investigated non-malignant respiratory effects of glass microfibers and these have provided inconsistent results. Our objective was to assess the effects of exposure to glass microfibers on respiratory and skin symptoms, asthma and lung function.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A cross-sectional study of 102 workers from a microfiber factory (response rate 100%) and 76 office workers (73%) from four factories in Thailand was conducted. They answered a questionnaire on respiratory health, occupational exposures, and lifestyle factors, and performed spirometry. Measurements of respirable dust were available from 2004 and 2005.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Workers exposed to glass microfibers experienced increased risk of cough (adjusted OR 2.04), wheezing (adjOR 2.20), breathlessness (adjOR 4.46), nasal (adjOR 2.13) and skin symptoms (adjOR 3.89) and ever asthma (adjOR 3.51), the risks of breathlessness (95%CI 1.68–11.86) and skin symptoms (1.70–8.90) remaining statistically significant after adjustment for confounders. There was an exposure-response relation between the risk of breathlessness and skin symptoms and increasing level of microfiber exposure. Workers exposed to sensitizing chemicals, including phenol-formaldehyde resin, experienced increased risk of cough (3.43, 1.20–9.87) and nasal symptoms (3.07, 1.05–9.00).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study provides evidence that exposure to glass microfibers increases the risk of respiratory and skin symptoms, and has an exposure-response relation with breathlessness and skin symptoms. Exposure to sensitizing chemicals increased the risk of cough and nasal symptoms. The results suggest that occupational exposure to glass microfibers is related to non-malignant adverse health effects, and that implementing exposure control measures in these industries could protect the health of employees.</p

Is personal discomfort a main factor in driving employees’ wearing of hearing protectors in a mine setting?

Introduction: Continuous exposure to noise can have both physiological and psychological effects on workers. Where a worker is exposed to excessive noise, hearing protectors should be worn. Company policy and personal comfort were the main factors identified in the adherence to wearing hearing protectors. The objective was to answer if there is an association between personal comfort and wearing of hearing protectors if the company has already set up a health and safety policy. Material and Methods: The study employed a cross section research survey questionnaire. The target population involved was 107 workers in a heavy manufacturing and mine facility. Binary regression and descriptive analysis were conducted on the data collected. Results: The majority of the study population agree personal discomfort is a factor using hearing protectors in the workplace, 36.2% agree ears hurt when wearing, 49.1% feel uncomfortable when wearing especially in warm weather, and 27.6% feel itching when wearing. The adherence to wearing hearing protectors was not affected by years of employment or duration worn throughout the day. There is no significant association between reporting ears hurt while using hearing protectors and age or roles of workers. Workers are aware of sections of the company policy. Conclusions: Although the company has a strong safety policy, personal discomfort is a factor in wearing hearing protectors within the company. To influence the wearing of hearing protectors a company should give employees the option to select the type of hearing protector and provide more choices

Asbestos Exposure among Mitering Workers

The objectives are to compare the airborne asbestos concentrations resulted from mitering of abestos cement roof sheets by a high-speed motor and a hand saw, and to monitor whether other workers near the test sites are vulnerable to the fibers exceeding the occupational exposure limit. Four test cases were carried out and altogether 7 personal and 4 area air samples were collected. The NIOSH method 7400 was employed for the air samplings and analysis. Using the phase contrast microscopy, fiber counting was conducted under Rule A. The study showed that the fiber concentration medians for personal air samples gathered from the two tools were 4.11 fibers/cc (ranged: 1.33-12.41 fibers/cc) and 0.13 fibers/cc (ranged: 0.01-5.00 fibers/cc) respectively. The median for the area samples was 0.59 fibers/cc (ranged: 0.14-3.32 fibers/cc). Comparing each study case, the concentration level caused by the high-speed motor saw was more than twice that of the hand saw. According to the area samples, the workers nearby the test site are at risk from high exposure to asbestos

COVID-19 and its impact on Irish workplaces – OSH professionals experience and observations of preparation and adaptation

Introduction: An investigation of Irish workplace adaptation to COVID-19 was conducted to assess impact to workers, their organisations and to develop new OSH adaptation mechanisms for future health emergencies. Materials and Methods: As part of the study, OSH professionals (n=60), each representing their workplace, took part in a series of semi-structured online focus groups. Each focus group incorporated twenty quantitative questions (covering four themes: organisational preparedness; organisational impacts; worker impacts; and the future of OSH) that were answered anonymously via a poll function. Results: 59 participants completed the questions. 58% of workplaces began pandemic preparations prior to COVID-19 emerging in Ireland. 66% of workplaces remained open while 27% were partially closed. 34% of workplaces had more than half their workforce working from home (5% pre-pandemic). 37% of workplaces had a working from home policy with 54% of workplaces having risk assessments for infectious diseases in place prior to the pandemic. 41% of workplaces had identified a viral pandemic scenario as part of its emergency planning prior to COVID-19. OSH professionals indicated that the majority (63%) of their colleagues understood the control measures instigated as a response to COVID-19 with a greater majority (90%) more willing to accept future workplace changes if they know it is to keep them safe and healthy. Conclusion: Irish workplaces adapted well to the changing OSH landscape that emerged in response to COVID-19. Irish workplaces are now more likely to be able to adapt and respond well to future public health emergencies.Science Foundation Irelan

Worker adaptation behaviours and mental health impacts in Irish workplaces arising from COVID-19 – observations of OSH professionals

Introduction: Workers quickly adapted during the COVID-19 pandemic to comply with updated work arrangements, control measures and policies. Understanding adaptation difficulties/fatigue and mental health issues among workers is crucial for OSH professionals to plan for future emergencies. Materials and Methods: As part of a larger COVID-19 workplace study, 16 two-hour focus groups (4-6 participants each) were conducted with OSH professionals (n=60) in Ireland, covering four predetermined themes (organisational preparedness; organisational impacts; worker adaptation behaviour; and the future of OSH post-pandemic). Thematic analysis was conducted using Nvivo. Results: OSH professionals observed many workers rapidly adapted and became involved in organisational COVID-19 outbreak prevention and long-term adaptation, in contrast to some workers that exhibited mental health problems as they struggled to adapt. Adaptation fatigue was observed when staff were sent home to work due to a range of factors: 1) isolation at home 2) no boundary between work and life; and 3) inability to disconnect from negative media coverage. The situation can be alleviated by 1) increasing informal communication to cope with isolation; 2) Employee Assistance Programmes; and 3) additional consultation regarding their COVID-19 concerns. Conclusion: Most Irish workplaces focused more on employees’ physical safety rather than their mental wellbeing. The experiences shared by OSH professionals in this study illustrate their agility and ability to apply their risk management and control skills to any unanticipated public/occupational health crisis that arises.Science Foundation Irelan