Coexposure to Solvents and Noise as a Risk Factor for Hearing Loss in Agricultural Workers

OBJECTIVE

This study addressed the relationship of hearing loss and coexposure to solvents and noise among farmers and ranchers in central United States.

METHODS

The surveillance study included surveys to stratified random samples of operations in 2018 and 2020 (n = 34,146), requesting information on injuries, illnesses, exposures, and preventive measures. Responses (n = 7495) were analyzed using hierarchical multinomial logistic regression, adjusting for personal and work characteristics.

RESULTS

Nearly 60% of respondents exposed to both solvents and noise reported hearing loss. The exposures increased the adjusted odds of moderate/severe hearing loss as follows: solvents alone, (odds ratio [OR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-2.38), noise alone (OR, 4.42; 95% CI, 3.39-5.76), and coexposure to both noise and solvents (OR, 6.03; 95% CI, 4.67-7.78).

CONCLUSIONS

Solvent exposure, along with noise, should be considered in hearing conservation programs among farmers and ranchers.

Evaluation and comparison of three exposure assessment techniques

This study was conducted to verify the performance of a recently developed subjective rating (SR) exposure assessment technique and to compare estimates made using this and two other techniques (trade mean, or TM, and task-based, or TB, approaches) to measured exposures. Subjects (n = 68) each completed three full-shift noise measurements over 4 months. Individual measured mean exposures were created by averaging each subject's repeated measurements, and TM, TB, and SR estimates were created using noise levels from worksites external to the current study. The bias, precision, accuracy, and absolute agreement of estimates created using the three techniques were evaluated by comparing estimated exposures with measured exposures. Trade mean estimates showed little bias, while neither the TM nor the SR techniques produced unbiased estimates, and the SR estimates showed the greatest bias of the three techniques. Accuracy was essentially equivalent among the three techniques. All three techniques showed poor agreement with measured exposures and were not highly correlated with each other. Estimates from the SR technique generally performed similarly to the TM and TB techniques. Methods to incorporate information from each technique into exposure estimates should be explored.

A task-specific assessment of Swine worker exposure to airborne dust

A task-based analysis of personal airborne dust exposures was performed in two swine confinement facilities used to house sows and their litters. Airborne particulate levels were assessed during summer, winter, and spring. Personal aerosol measurements of workers were made with a photometer every 15 sec and corrected to compare with an integrated concentration measurement made with a co-located IOM inhalable dust sampler. Task type and time period were recorded by the workers over an 8-hr work shift. There was a significant difference in dust concentrations between seasons (p < 0.001), with winter months providing the highest levels (geometric mean = 3.76 mg/m(3)). The application of a general linear model of log-transformed task concentrations relative to site, season, and task demonstrated significant differences (P < 0.001) among all three covariates. Tasks performed near moving animals, especially the weaning process, resulted in the greatest concentrations. These results indicate the need to evaluate the concentration levels for separate tasks during multi-task work shifts, such as swine rearing, to optimize efforts to minimize exposures by focusing on high-concentration tasks.