Self-reported work activities, mucus membrane symptoms, and respiratory health outcomes among an industrial hog operation worker cohort, North Carolina, USA

Introduction

Industrial hog operations (IHOs) pose a respiratory health risk to workers (Casey et al. 2015; Cole et al. 2000; Heederik et al. 2007; Kirkhorn et al. 2002; Nordgren et al. 2016; Poole et al. 2008). Particulates become airborne from the movement of workers and animals to, from, and within animal housing facilities (Basinas et al. 2013; Gustafsson 1999), contributing to human exposures to bacteria, endotoxin, fungi (Douglas et al. 2018) viruses, dander, gases, and feed constituents (Duchaine et al. 2000). These airborne contaminants lead to a number of negative respiratory health outcomes including lung inflammation, airway hyper-responsiveness, and irritation of mucosal membranes (Charavaryamath et al. 2005; Cole et al. 2000; Senthilselvan et al. 2007). Even though researchers have been cataloging these harmful exposures for decades (e.g., Brouwer et al. 1986; Donham et al. 1977), they have not fully identified the riskiest contemporary work activities and the effectiveness of personal protective equipment (PPE) in this industry.

These knowledge gaps seriously limit the ability to propose suitable guidance for health protections among the estimated 31,000 IHO workers in the U.S. (BLS 2020). For example, in 2010, an expert panel concluded that researchers do not entirely understand which IHO workers could benefit most from the use of PPE (Von Essen et al. 2010). While we know that respirators can reduce the health effects from IHO contaminants (Dosman et al. 2000; Sundblad et al. 2006; Zejda et al. 1993), the panel was unable to determine whether PPE use for specific tasks is sufficient or whether PPE should be donned as soon as a worker enters an IHO; a potentially onerous and expensive recommendation that may not be feasible given harsh IHO work conditions.

A majority of data regarding health risks to U.S. agricultural workers comes from the Agricultural Health Study, a prospective cohort of over 50,000 North Carolinian and Iowan licensed pesticide applicators. While well-designed to study incident cancer outcomes related to pesticide exposures (Alavanja et al. 1996), and a follow-up interview was conducted to capture respiratory symptoms (Rinsky et al. 2019), it was not designed to focus specifically on IHO workers and therefore does not capture all farming activities. Further, this cohort consists largely of male managers (Alavanja et al. 1996), rather than those who work day-to-day inside concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) barns. Inclusion of both male and female workers in these studies is essential as there are known sex differences in respiratory outcomes among operation workers (Dosman et al. 2009, Senthilselvan et al. 2007).

One factor which restricts data collection on operations and limits to our understanding of IHO work conditions, exposures, and worker health outcomes is the blocking of access for researchers to CAFOs due to owner’s legal concerns. In addition, workers, who are often from marginalized communities including minorities, those with low-incomes, and lacking health insurance, may face job termination for participating in research efforts. This makes on-site air monitoring and the collection of health data exceedingly rare. Further, operations are often heterogenous in their age, design, animal density, animal life stages, and waste management systems. Therefore, comparing workers to one another from different operations without air sampling presents statistical problems and may lead to residual confounding due to differences in exposures (Radon et al. 2000), feed type (KimbellLDunn et al. 2001), barn construction (Kim et al. 2007), and activities between operations.

Fixed-effects regression analyses, which compare workers to themselves over time, can be used to examine exposure-outcome relationships and mitigate some of the threats to inference from heterogeneity in IHO sites. This technique has been successfully employed by Schinasi et al. who found strong associations between increasing CAFO odors and decrements in community health (Schinasi et al. 2011). To the best of our knowledge, no prior U.S. study has related self-reported work activities and PPE use to self-reported health outcomes among IHO workers who perform the day-to-day operations on industrial facilities. Further, no study of IHO worker activities and health outcomes has been analyzed using fixed-effects regression techniques. The purpose of this investigation was to identify factors that are associated with the respiratory and mucous membrane (eye, nose, and throat) health of the IHO workers we surveyed and to provide insight into factors for future research and interventions using an underemployed biostatistical method.

METHODS

RESULTS

In this study of IHO workers, elevated odds of self-reported symptoms by those who ever performed activities and those who performed increasingly hazardous transient activities on the IHO were found. Due to small case numbers, confidence intervals are often wide, but effect estimates are large and demonstrate a consistency in magnitude and direction across main and sensitivity analyses.

At baseline, 103 current workers entered the cohort through rolling admissions. As reported in previous studies, these workers (with 1-27 years of IHO experience) were primarily non-black Hispanic (88%), male (55%), and aged 16-62 years (Nadimpalli et al. 2016). Most did not live on the same property as an IHO (92%) (Table 1). An average of 8 years working on any IHO was reported, as was an average of 6.4 days worked per week and a majority of work time spent in direct contact with pigs (82%) (Table 2). The most prevalent work activities employees reported ever performing included handling dead pigs (79%), giving pigs shots or injections (69%), having direct contact with pig manure (67%), administering antibiotics (62%), applying pesticides in or around barns (49%), and drawing blood from pigs (9%). Participants were also asked to classify typical mask usage at work, and 38% responded that they always wore a mask (Table 2).

Participants were asked whether they ever experienced a variety of symptoms, outside of having a cold or the flu. Respondents most frequently reported having eye irritation (18%), nose irritation (16%), throat irritation (15%), any allergies (13%), and doctor-diagnosed asthma (9%; Table 3).

Those who reported ever drawing pig blood had an increased likelihood of reporting eye, nose, and throat symptoms (PR: 3.7; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.9, 7.0) and any allergies (PR: 4.4; 95% CI: 1.7, 12) (Table 4). Increased prevalence of eye, nose, or throat symptoms were also reported in those who ever applied pesticides in or around pig barns (PR: 2.2; 95% CI: 1.0, 4.8) and those who washed work clothes with household laundry (PR: 2.3; 95% CI: 1.0, 5.3). Across tertiles of years worked on any IHO, increasing eye, nose, and throat symptoms were reported (p-for trend: 0.01), and in the uppermost tertile of exposure (PR: 4.3; 95% CI: 1.5, 12). This trend was also seen in the association between eye, nose, and throat symptoms and tertiles of percent of life worked on any IHO (p-for trend: 0.04; highest tertile PR: 3.4; 95% CI: 0.99, 11) (Table 4).

In the unhypothesized direction, reports of always wearing all three PPE (full body suit/coveralls, mask, and eye protection) on the job were associated with higher prevalence of reports of any allergies (PR: 3.8; 95% CI: 1.4, 9.9), while working all seven days per week compared to those working less often was associated with lower prevalence of allergies (PR: 0.1; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.6) (Table 4). In models that converged, these associations were consistent in direction and magnitude after adjustment for age and sex (Table S1).

Of the 101 persons eligible for longitudinal data analyses, 95% of their study visits were completed and 90 of the 101 participants completed all eight follow-up visits (Figure 1). Multiple imputation was not conducted as, overall, very few data points were missing (∼5-10% per analysis) and the missingness was determined to not be at random.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. Sampling scheme and loss-to-follow-up between the baseline and bi-weekly study visits within a cohort of industrial hog operation (IHO) workers, North Carolina, 2013-2014.

During the previous week, persons reported working an average of 6 ± 1 days per week, 42 ± 12 hours per week, with 38 ± 14 hours in direct contact with pigs. High-frequency work activities included administering shots (49%) and using cleaning chemical(s) (56%) (Table 5).

Outcomes of high prevalence and variability reported in the same bi-weekly surveys included any respiratory health symptom (6%), consisting of excessive coughing (3%), runny nose (3%), difficulty breathing (2%), sore throat (1%), shortness of breath (1%), wheezing or whistling in chest (1%), and/or chest tightness (0%, 2 cases). Symptoms interfering with sleep were reported in 3% of surveys and sneezing and headache in 2% of surveys. Mucous membrane symptoms, consisting of burning, tearing, or irritated eyes (1%) and/or burning or irritated nose (1%), were also reported in 2% of bi-weekly surveys (Table 6).

Due to concerns about false reporting of symptoms or work conditions, researchers included ten “dummy” symptoms (i.e., without any known prior association with exposure to hog production facilities, such as difficulty urinating) on the questionnaires. None of the dummy symptoms were reported more than six times within the 752 person-records.

Time-varying acute health outcomes and work activities were assessed using fixed-effects regression to control for time-invariant confounders. Consistency was seen between an increased risk of reported symptoms during weeks when workers engaged in activities that produced or retained dust within barns, conducted cleaning activities, and engaged in activities that involved close contact with pigs (13 of 14). Administering pigs medicine or shots was the riskiest activity category for all symptoms examined. Higher odds of headache, respiratory symptoms, and symptoms interfering with sleep were observed during weeks when workers conducted two or more categories of activities compared to zero or one. Also, as hypothesized, a protective effect was estimated for any PPE use (compared to when none was used) in all five outcomes. Handwashing was also protective in 4 of 5 outcomes during weeks when done at least eight times per shift (the median) versus fewer times (Tables 7 and 8).

In a sensitivity analysis, exposures were modeled via scores in an effort to assess a dose-response (Tables S2 and S3). Higher odds of reporting health impacts were observed with increasing exposures and worsening work conditions. The most profound effects were seen in the upper ends of exposure categories, with a p-for-trend <0.05 for 11 of 25 associations. The use of PPE showed a protective effect in 14 of 15 outcome groups with a no-threshold effect (Table S2). Sensitivity analyses that included the addition of a calendar month dummy variable were also performed. In those models which converged, estimates of similar magnitude and direction were observed (data not shown).

DISCUSSION

In this study of self-reported IHO work activities and health outcomes, we found that during the weeks when workers performed the most unfavorable job tasks they also experienced increased odds of respiratory and mucous membrane irritation symptoms. In addition, they reported reduced odds of symptoms when they wore PPE or washed their hands more frequently. To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to apply fixed-effects regression as a tool to measure associations between self-reported workplace exposures and health outcomes in an IHO worker cohort. In addition, our study is more generalizable to day-to-day workers than prior work, where most cohort participants have been white male farm supervisors not in direct contact with swine (Alavanja et al. 1996). For example, in Iowa, the nation’s largest producer of swine, Donham et al. enrolled 2,059 hog operation owners with five years of follow-up and three annual visits (Donham et al. 1990). From this cohort, 40 operations were determined to be CAFOs with 207 IHO workers enrolled. Of the 207 IHO workers, 100% were white, 88% were male, and 20% were smokers, limiting generalizability to a workforce who, in practice, is often made of non-white immigrants and, in our study, 46% female.

As in our study, Donham et al. did find that participants who worked in IHOs (compared to those working at non-confinement operations) had more chronic and acute respiratory health symptoms (Donham et al. 1990). Unlike our study, in which we did not attempt to gain access on-IHO, Donham et al. benefitted from on-operation collection of ambient air samples while workers worked and samples from inside their masks; however, they failed to collect data regarding specific work activities.

In congruence with the Agricultural Health Study (Alavanja et al. 1996), our cohort consisted primarily of non-smokers; however, our participants had a higher prevalence of self-reported asthma (8.7%) than those in the Agricultural Health Study (5.1%) (Henneberger et al. 2014). The prevalence of asthma in our predominantly non-black Hispanic adult population was also higher than national average for non-black Hispanic adults (6.4%) (Moorman et al. 2011). While capturing the incident development of asthma in our study was not possible, we did observe an association in increased reported cases of doctor-diagnosed asthma with increasing tertiles of years worked on any IHO (PR: 2.6; 95% CI: 1.03, 6.3), which is consistent with prior reports of increasing trends in development of asthma among farmers (Holness et al. 1995).

As hypothesized, reports of ever drawing pig blood, applying pesticides, and increasing years worked at any IHO were consistently associated with increased reports of eye, nose, or throat symptoms. Acute exposures, including those associated with dustiness and cleaning of barns and close contact with pigs were associated with increased odds of a variety of symptoms, particularly in the highest categories of exposure. Completing more of these tasks showed an increase in symptom reporting as well, evidence for a need to rotate job tasks among employees and to create work environments that are inherently less dusty.

Unexpectedly, working an average of seven days per week was associated with decreased reports of symptoms. This association is a potential indication of healthy worker effect bias where only the healthiest and most tolerant of symptoms report for work every day. It may also be due to the fact that when workers are away from work exposures their respiratory system rebounds, leading to inflammatory reactions (Bønløkke et al. 2012). Another unexpected finding was that at baseline, workers who reported “always” wearing all three types of PPE at work reported increased odds of allergies. This is potentially a case of reverse causation or reporting errors, as this finding was not corroborated in our longitudinal analyses.

In weeks when wearing PPE and washing hands at or above the median frequency, workers had decreased odds of symptoms compared to weeks when they did not wear PPE or when they washed their hands less frequently. It has been shown that exposure to pesticides and other respiratory irritants can be modified by the use of PPE (Salvatore et al. 2008). In particular, N95 masks have been shown to block harmful pathogens found on IHOs (Ferguson et al. 2014).

While IHO workers in our study were not queried directly on which masks were used, subsequent assessment of a small number of different workers in a follow-up study (n=18) suggested that most adult IHO workers wear an employer-provided N95 respirator (15/17) and, less commonly, a surgical mask (2/17) (Coffman 2018). Of the 17 whose employer provided them a mask, 16 did so in the past two weeks, and all 17 reported using the mask provided (Coffman 2018). Employer training in face mask usage was also high (15/19) (Coffman 2018), which may partly explain the rate of use in this pilot study. Ferguson et al. have also documented that IHO workers are willing to become educated in personal protection and documented that they found value in learning about methods to protect themselves from exposures (Ferguson et al. 1989). Intervention studies that examine employer-provided handwashing stations and increased access to PPE are areas of future interest.

Conclusions

In this analysis of self-reported work activities and health among 103 IHO employees, we observed positive associations between exposures and proxies for exposures to possible respiratory irritants and reported respiratory health and mucous membrane outcomes, using each participant as their own control. Fixed-effect regression analysis of repeated measures differs from prior research using traditional between-person estimates. Our study also differed as we recruited of day-to-day workers and women leading to a more representative sample of the in-barn workforce. Our data show that when exposed to unfavorable tasks the risk of mucous membrane and respiratory symptoms increased, while when handwashing increased or PPE was employed, the risk of reporting negative health outcomes was reduced. Further research should focus on what types of PPE are most appropriate and functional in this workplace environment and employers may wish to focus on activities that increase job rotation, decrease dust exposure, and provide adequate access to handwashing stations and PPE.