A conceptual model for take-home workplace exposures

Assessment of house dust trace elements and human exposure in Ankara, Turkey

One of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic is leading people remain at homes longer than ever. Considering the elongation of the time people spend indoors, the potential health risks caused by contaminants including heavy metals in indoor environments have become even more critical. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the levels and sources of heavy metals in indoor dust, to assess the exposure to heavy metals via indoor dust, and to estimate the associated health risk. The highest median value was measured for Zn (263 μg g^-1), while the lowest median concentration value was observed for Cd (0.348 μg g^-1). The levels of elements measured in the current study were found to be within the ranges reported in the other parts of the world, mostly close to the lower end of the range. House characteristics such as proximity to the main street, presence of pets, number of occupants, and age of the building were the house characteristics influencing the observed higher concentrations of certain heavy metals in houses. Enrichment factor values range between 1.79 (Cr) and 20.4 (Zn) with an average EF value of 8.80 ± 6.80 representing that the targeted elements are enriched (EF>2) in indoor dust in Ankara. Positive matrix factorization results showed that the heavy metals in the house dust in the study area are mainly contributed from sources namely outdoor dust, carpets/furniture, solders, wall paint/coal combustion, and cigarette smoke. Carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk values from heavy metals did not exceed the safe limits recommended by EPA. The highest carcinogenic risk level was caused by Cr. The risk through ingestion was higher than inhalation, and the risk levels were higher for children than for adults.

Metals dust in workers' homes and potential for take home in the Greater Boston area: Pilot study

Toxic metals such as lead, cadmium, arsenic, are present at construction worksites. From work, metals can easily, unintentionally be transported to homes of workers, contaminating living spaces and affecting others including children, known as "take-home exposure." Focus has been given to minimizing lead take-home exposure but less is known about other metals. This pilot study aims to better understand the sources and predictors of metals in the home primarily of construction workers (n = 21), but also explore other workers potentially exposed [janitorial (n = 4) and auto repair (n = 2) jobs]. Greater Boston workers were recruited in 2018-2019 through collaboration with community-based organizations and worker unions serving low-income/immigrant workers. During a home visit, a dust vacuum sample was collected, a worker questionnaire was administered, and home observations were performed to determine factors that could affect home metals concentration. Thirty elements were analyzed in the dust via inductively coupled plasma coupled to atomic emission and mass spectrometry. We performed univariable and multivariable models, potential predictive factors, and multivariable mixed-effect regression analyses combining metals. Arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, and tin, commonly found in construction, were higher in construction workers' home dust compared to other workers, although not statistically significant. Sociodemographic/work/home-related variables affected home metals dust concentrations. Various work-related factors were associated with higher metal dust levels, for example: no work locker vs. locker (nickel ratio of means or ROM = 4.2, p < 0.05); mixing vs. no mixing work/personal items (nickel ROM = 1.6, p < 0.05); dusty vs. no dusty at work (copper ROM = 3.1, p < 0.05); not washing vs. washing hands after work (manganese ROM = 1.4, p < 0.05); not changing vs. changing clothes after work (cadmium ROM = 6.9, p < 0.05; copper ROM = 3.6, p < 0.05). Mixed effect regression confirmed statistical significance, which suggests a likelihood of metal mixtures carrying a "take-home" potential. Lead home interventions should evaluate other metals exposure reduction.

Factors affecting lead dust in construction workers' homes in the Greater Boston Area

Lead is a known reproductive, developmental, and neurological toxicant. Workers with a high likelihood of being exposed to lead at work may inadvertently transport lead home from work, known as "take-home exposure." This is concerning for many workers for whom a workplace intervention is not feasible because their worksites and employers often change, rendering centralized strategies insufficient. This study aimed to better understand the connection between lead in the home of workers living with children and work in construction (n = 23), while other occupations were used as a comparison group (janitorial n = 5, autobody n = 2). Thirty workers living in disadvantaged communities in the Greater Boston area were recruited in 2018-2019 through collaboration with non-profits and worker unions with expertise working with low-income or immigrant workers. Construction workers that performed renovations, bridge constructions, welding, metal work, and demolitions were prioritized during recruitment. During a visit to their residences, a worker questionnaire was administered, and observations and a dust vacuumed sample of the home were collected. Factors predicting lead in home dust were explored by a bivariate analysis and a multivariable regression model. We found lead in homes' dust in the range of 20-8,310 ppm. Homes of construction workers generally had higher and more variable lead dust concentrations (mean 775, max 8,300 ppm) than autobody and janitor worker homes combined (mean 296, max 579 ppm). Five of the construction workers' home lead dust concentrations exceeded US guidelines for yard soil in children's play areas of 400 ppm, and were similar to other studies of homes near lead smelters, superfund sites, or in the Boston area in the early 1990s, pointing to disparities relating to work. Results from the multivariable regression model suggest that lead dust in homes of workers was associated with sociodemographic-, home-, and work-related factors, and pointed to overlapping vulnerabilities; however, a larger sample size is needed to verify findings. Results provide evidence that work-related factors are important to consider when assessing home exposures, and that take-home exposures for workers in lead high-risk jobs such as construction may be an important source of exposure in the home prime for public health intervention at work, home, and community levels.

Eliminating Take-Home Exposures: Recognizing the Role of Occupational Health and Safety in Broader Community Health

Toxic contaminants inadvertently brought from the workplace to the home, known as take-home or paraoccupational exposures, have often been framed as a problem that arises due to unsanitary worker behavior. This review article conceptualizes take-home exposures as a public health hazard by (i) investigating the history of take-home contaminants and how they have been studied, (ii) arguing that an ecosocial view of the problem is essential for effective prevention, (iii) summarizing key structural vulnerabilities that lead populations to be at risk, and (iv) discussing future research and prevention effort needs. This article reframes take-home exposures as one of many chronic pathways that contributes to persistent health disparities among workers, their families, and communities. Including the role of work in community health will increase the comprehensiveness of prevention efforts for contaminants such as lead and pesticides that contribute to environmental disparities.

One-Hour Pilot Training to Prevent Workers From Taking Home Workplace Contaminants

Workers can accidentally transport chemical hazards from the workplace to the home, known as “take-home exposures.” Recent take-home lead-poisoning cases highlight the need for effective prevention training. A one-hour take-home prevention training was developed in partnership with a nonprofit. The training was administered and evaluated during two training sessions with twenty-one trainees. The training was composed of a lecture and interactive activities. An illustrated poster was used with different prevention actions within a story line to reduce take-home exposures under three categories: facilities with formal health and safety programs, small businesses, and outdoor work. The effectiveness and acceptability of the training was measured by a survey and pre- and posttraining exams. The second training exam responses showed a 14 percent (84 percent to 98 percent) increase in take-home prevention knowledge. Community-based prevention training could reduce the burden of chemical exposures on vulnerable workers and their families.