ABSTRACT
Introduction As occupational activities related to acute industrial hog operation (IHO) worker lung function are not well defined, we aimed to identify IHO work activities associated with diminished respiratory function and the effectiveness, if any, of personal protective equipment (PPE) on IHOs.
Methods From 2014-2015, 103 IHO workers were enrolled and followed for 16 weeks. At each bi-weekly visit, lung function measurements were collected via spirometry and work activities and PPE use were self-reported via questionnaire. Generalized linear and linear fixed-effects models were fitted to cross-sectional and longitudinal data.
Results At baseline, increasing years worked on an IHO were associated with diminished lung function, but other activities were less consistent in direction and magnitude. In longitudinal models, only reports of working in feeding/finisher barns, showed a consistent association. However, a −0.3 L (95% confidence interval: −0.6, −0.04) difference in FEV1 was estimated when workers wore PPE consistently versus those weeks they did not. In post-hoc analyses, we found that coveralls and facemasks were worn less consistently when workers experienced worse barn conditions and had more contact with pigs, but coveralls were worn more consistently as cleaning activities increased.
Conclusions Similar to past studies, baseline estimates were likely obscured by healthy worker bias. Also making it challenging to disentangle the effect of work activities on lung function was the discovery that IHO workers used PPE differently according to work task. These data suggest that interventions may be targeted toward improving barn conditions so that workers can consistently utilize IHO-provided PPE.
What is already known about this subject?Working on industrial hog operations may be deleterious to long- and short-term respiratory health due to airborne bacteria, endotoxin, hazardous gases, dust, and dander in barns. In efficacy studies PPE has been shown to be protective, but studies have shown that PPE utilization among hog workers has historically been sub-optimal.
What are the new findings?As barn conditions worsened and contact with pigs increased, workers in this cohort reported wearing coveralls and face masks less often; however, they reported increased PPE use as they conducted more cleaning activities at work. During weeks when workers wore PPE their lung function declined, a possible cause being the improper use of the equipment leading to a false sense of protection or re-exposure to hazardous contaminants.
How might this impact on policy or clinical practice in the foreseeable future?Given COVID-19, the H1N1 “swine flu” pandemic, our knowledge of antimicrobial resistant pathogens, and increasing awareness about how food systems are linked to the spread of emerging infectious diseases, occupational health intervention research and workplace policies may focus on creating barn environments that are more conducive to PPE use which could help protect workers and consequently the community.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Funding for this study was provided by National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) grant K01OH010193; Johns Hopkins NIOSH Education and Research Center grant T42OH008428; a directed research award from the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future; the Johns Hopkins NIOSH Education and Research Center Pilot Award; award 018HEA2013 from the Sherrilyn and Ken Fisher Center for Environmental Infectious Diseases Discovery Program at the Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases; and National Science Foundation (NSF) grant 1316318 as part of the joint NSF National Institutes of Health (NIH) U.S. Department of Agriculture Ecology and Evolution of Infectious Diseases program. V.R.C was supported by the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future-Lerner Fellowship and the Johns Hopkins NIOSH Education and Research Center grant T42OH008428. N.P. was supported by NIH/National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) grant T32ES007141. M.F.D was supported by NIH/Office of the Director (K01OD019918) and a pilot award from the Northeast Center for Occupational Safety and Health. C.D.H. was supported by NIOSH grant K01OH010193, E.W. Al Thrasher Award 10287, NIEHS grant R01ES026973, and NSF grant 1316318. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study protocol was approved by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Institutional Review Board.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
COMPETING FINANCIAL INTERESTS The authors declare they have no actual or potential competing financial interests.
FUNDING Funding for this study was provided by National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) grant K01OH010193; Johns Hopkins NIOSH Education and Research Center grant T42OH008428; a directed research award from the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future; the Johns Hopkins NIOSH Education and Research Center Pilot Award; award 018HEA2013 from the Sherrilyn and Ken Fisher Center for Environmental Infectious Diseases Discovery Program at the Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases; and National Science Foundation (NSF) grant 1316318 as part of the joint NSF–National Institutes of Health (NIH)-U.S. Department of Agriculture Ecology and Evolution of Infectious Diseases program. V.R.C was supported by the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future-Lerner Fellowship and the Johns Hopkins NIOSH Education and Research Center grant T42OH008428. N.P. was supported by NIH/National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) grant T32ES007141-30. M.F.D was supported by NIH/Office of the Director (K01OD019918) and a pilot award from the Northeast Center for Occupational Safety and Health. C.D.H. was supported by NIOSH grant K01OH010193, E.W. “Al” Thrasher Award 10287, NIEHS grant R01ES026973, and NSF grant 1316318. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Data Availability
Due to the exceedingly sensitive nature of this data, it will not be made publicly available. For questions regarding access, please contact Dr. Christopher Heaney cheaney1{at}jhu.edu.
