Search

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine the effect of an ergonomic hazard control (HC) initiative, undertaken as part of a company ergonomics standard, on worker injury risk. METHODS: Using the company’s ergonomic hazards database to identify jobs with and without ergonomic HC implementation and linking to individual job and injury histories, injury risk among person-jobs with HC implementation (the HC group) was compared to those without HC (NoHC group) using random coefficient models. Further analysis of the HC group was conducted to determine the effect of additional ergonomic hazards controlled on injury risk. RESULTS: Among 123 jobs at 17 plant locations, 347 ergonomic hazards were quantitatively identified during the study period. HC were implemented for 204 quantified ergonomic hazards in 84 jobs, impacting 10 385 persons (12 967 person-jobs). No HC were implemented for quantified ergonomic hazards in the remaining 39 jobs affecting 4155 persons (5046 person-jobs). Adjusting for age, sex, plant origin, and year to control for any temporal trend in injury risk, the relative risk (RR) for musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) was 0.85 and the RR for any injury or MSD was 0.92 in the HC compared to NoHC group. Among the HC group, each ergonomic hazard controlled was associated with risk reduction for MSD and acute injury outcomes (RR 0.93). CONCLUSION: Systematic ergonomic HC through participatory ergonomics, as part of a mandatory company ergonomics standard, is associated with MSD and injury risk reduction among workers in jobs with HC implemented.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a broad class of synthetic chemicals; some are present in most humans in developed countries. Some studies suggest that certain PFAS may have immunotoxic effects in humans, which could put individuals with high levels of exposure at increased risk for infectious diseases such as COVID-19. We conducted a case-control study to examine the association between COVID-19 diagnosis and PFAS serum concentrations among employees and retirees from two 3 M facilities, one of which historically generated perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), and perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS). Participants completed enrollment and follow-up study visits in the Spring of 2021. Participants were categorized as cases if they reported a COVID-19 diagnosis or became sick with at least one symptom of COVID-19 when someone else in their household was diagnosed, otherwise they were categorized as a control. COVID-19 diagnosis was modeled in relation to concentration of serum PFAS measured at enrollment after adjusting for covariates. The analytic sample comprised 573 individuals, 111 cases (19.4%) and 462 controls (80.6%). In adjusted models, the odds ratio of COVID-19 was 0.94 per interquartile range (14.3 ng/mL) increase in PFOS (95% confidence interval 0.85, 1.04). Results for PFOA, PFHxS, and perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) were similar. Other PFAS present at lower concentrations were examined as categorical variables (above the limit of quantification [LOQ], yes vs. no [referent category]), and also showed no positive associations. In our study, which used individual-level data and included people with high occupational exposure, the serum concentrations of all PFAS examined were not associated with an increased odds ratio for COVID-19. At this point, the epidemiologic data supporting no association of COVID-19 occurrence with PFAS exposure are stronger than those suggesting a positive association.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a broad class of synthetic chemicals; some are present in most humans in developed countries. Several studies have shown associations between certain PFAS, such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), and reduced antibody concentration after vaccination against diseases such as Tetanus. Recent studies have reported associations between COVID-19 occurrence and exposure to certain types of PFAS. However, studies of antibody concentration after COVID-19 vaccination in relation to PFAS serum concentrations have not been reported. We examined COVID-19 antibody responses to vaccines and PFAS serum concentrations among employees and retirees from two 3M facilities, one of which historically manufactured PFOS, PFOA, and perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS).Participants completed enrollment and follow-up study visits in the Spring of 2021, when vaccines were widely available. In total 415 participants with 757 observations were included in repeated measures analyses. Log-transformed concentrations of anti-spike IgG and neutralizing antibodies were modeled in relation to concentration of PFAS at enrollment after adjusting for antigenic stimulus group (9 groups determined by COVID-19 history and number and type of vaccination) and other variables. The fully adjusted IgG concentration was 3.45 percent lower (95% CI −7.03, 0.26) per 14.5 ng/mL (interquartile range) increase in PFOS; results for neutralizing antibody and PFOS were similar. For PFOA, PFHxS, and perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), the results were comparable to those for PFOS, though of smaller magnitude. In our study data, the fully adjusted coefficients relating concentration of vaccine-induced antibodies to COVID-19 and interquartile range difference in serum concentration of PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, and PFNA were inverse but small with confidence intervals that included zero. Our analysis showed that the coefficient for the four PFAS examined in detail was considerably affected by adjustment for antigenic stimulus group.

The objective of the study was to determine if female workers in a heavy manufacturing environment have a higher risk of injury compared with males when performing the same job and to evaluate sex differences in type or severity of injury. By use of human resources and incident surveillance data for the hourly population at 6 US aluminum smelters, injuries that occurred from January 1, 1996, through December 21, 2005, were analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression, adjusted for job, tenure, and age category, was used to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for female versus male injury risk for all injuries, recordable injuries, and lost work time injuries. The analysis was repeated for acute injuries and musculoskeletal disorder-related injuries separately. Female workers in this industry have a greater risk for sustaining all forms of injury after adjustment for age, tenure, and standardized job category (odds ratio = 1.365, 95% confidence interval: 1.290, 1.445). This excess risk for female workers persisted when injuries were dichotomized into acute injuries (odds ratio = 1.2) and musculoskeletal disorder-related injuries (odds ratio = 1.1). This study provides evidence of a sex disparity in occupational injury with female workers at higher risk compared with their male counterparts in a heavy manufacturing environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]