Four previously conducted epidemiological studies in more than 1200 grain workers were used to compare exposure-response relations between exposure to grain dust and respiratory health.
The studies included Dutch workers from an animal feed mill and a transfer grain elevator and Canadian workers from a terminal grain elevator and the docks. Relations between forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and exposure were analysed with multiple regression analysis corrected for smoking, age, and height. Exposure variables examined included cumulative and current dust exposure and the numbers of years a subject was employed in the industry. Sampling efficiencies of the Dutch and Canadian measurement techniques were compared in a pilot study. Results of this study were used to correct slopes of exposure-response relations for differences in dust fractions sampled by Dutch and Canadian personal dust samplers.
Negative exposure-response relations were shown for regressions of FEV1 on cumulative and current exposure and years employed. Slopes of the exposure-response relations differed by a factor of three to five between industries, apart from results for cumulative exposure. Here the variation in slopes differed by a factor of 100, from -1 to -0.009 ml/mg.y/m3. The variation in slopes between industries reduced to between twofold to fivefold when the Dutch transfer elevator workers were not considered. There was evidence that the small exposure-response slope found for this group is caused by misclassification of exposure and a strong healthy worker effect. Alternative, but less likely explanations for the variation in slopes were differences in exposure concentrations, composition of grain dust, exposure characteristics, and measurement techniques.
In conclusion, this study showed moderately similar negative exposure-response relations for four different populations from different countries, despite differences in methods of exposure assessment and exposure estimation.
Notes
Cites: Chest. 1979 Apr;75(4):461-7446134
Cites: Occup Environ Med. 1995 Apr;52(4):273-87795744
Cites: Am Rev Respir Dis. 1981 Jun;123(6):659-647271065
Cites: Am Rev Respir Dis. 1982 Oct;126(4):660-57125357
Cites: Br J Ind Med. 1982 Nov;39(4):330-77138793
Cites: J Occup Med. 1983 Feb;25(2):131-416834161
Cites: Am Rev Respir Dis. 1984 Nov;130(5):759-656497158
Cites: J Occup Med. 1985 Dec;27(12):873-804087052
Cites: Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1986 Dec;47(12):825-313593471
Cites: Am Rev Respir Dis. 1987 Jan;135(1):194-2003800146
Cites: Am J Ind Med. 1989;16(2):179-872788998
Cites: Br J Ind Med. 1990 Jul;47(7):466-722383516
Cites: Am Rev Respir Dis. 1992 Feb;145(2 Pt 1):476-871736761
Cites: Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1992 Jun;53(6):362-81605108
Cites: Am Rev Respir Dis. 1992 Dec;146(6):1474-91456563
Cites: Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1994 Jul;150(1):59-658025773
Cites: Am Rev Respir Dis. 1980 Jan;121(1):11-67352694