Search

We evaluated GaAs nanoparticle-concentrations in the air and on skin and surfaces in a research facility that produces thin films, and to monitored As in the urine of exposed worker. The survey was over a working week using a multi-level approach. Airborne personal monitoring was implemented using a miniature diffusion size classifier (DiSCMini) and IOM sampler. Environmental monitoring was conducted using the SKC Sioutas Cascade Impactor to evaluate dimensions and nature of particles collected. Surfaces contamination were assessed analyzing As and Ga in ghost wipes. Skin contamination was monitored using tape strips. As and Ga were analyzed in urines collected every day at the beginning and end of the shift. The greatest airborne exposure occurred during the cutting operations of the GaAs Sample (88883 np/cm3). The highest levels of contamination were found inside the hood (As max = 1418 ng/cm2) and on the laboratory floor (As max = 251 ng/cm2). The average concentration on the worker's skin at the end of the work shift (3.36 ng/cm2) was more than 14 times higher than before the start of the shift. In weekly urinary biomonitoring an average As concentration of 19.5 µg/L, which was above the Società Italiana Valori di Riferimento (SIVR) reference limit for the non-occupational population (2.0 – 15 µg/L), but below the ACGIH limit (30 µg/L). Overall, airborne monitoring, surface sampling, skin sampling, and biomonitoring of worker confirmed the exposure to As of workers. Systematic cleaning operations, hood implementation and correct PPE management are needed to improve worker protection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome patients complain of sensory alterations, mainly positive symptoms such as paresthesia or neuropathic pain but also decreased tactile sensation. Using the Semmes-Weinstein monofilament test (SWMT), our study aims to confront recently infected SARS-CoV2 subjects with a control group. Methods: This is a cross-sectional, single-centric study. We performed the SWMT (North Coast Medical Inc.) on 30 patients with previous SARS-CoV2 infection (COVID group) and 46 controls (control group). These patients did not present comorbidities or sensory impairment and did not take any medications. The control group tested negative for SARS-CoV2 infection since the COVID-19 pandemic; the COVID group was examined for this study after the resolution of the infection. We tested the threshold of tactile sensation of the tips of the thumb, index, and little finger of each hand, one hand at a time; the dorsum and the hypothenar regions were also tested. Results: Both groups presented the perception of tactile sensation within the reference value. Despite this result, subclinical changes suggestive of the involvement in peripheral sensory nerve function have been identified in the tested sites in the COVID group compared to the control group. The overall mean target force (grams) was higher in the COVID group than in the control group: 27 (7) vs. 19 (10) mg, p < 0.001. Conclusion: Controls and the COVID group infection had normal tactile sensation thresholds. However, the COVID group presented a higher threshold than the control group, suggesting a possible subclinical perception of tactile sensation involvement of A-beta nerve fibers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The study describes the 466 cases of malignant mesotheliomas (MM) collected by the National Mesothelioma Register (ReNaM) in Italy from 1993-2018 relating to subjects with exclusive asbestos exposure in merchant or military navy. Methods: The cases among maritime workers represent 1.8% of the total patients with defined exposure registered in the ReNaM, of which (45.4%) were among merchant maritime workers and 254 cases (54.5%) among the navy. The distribution by site of mesothelioma showed 453 (97.2%) MM cases of the pleura, 11 (2.3%) of the peritoneum, and 2 (0.4%) of the tunica vaginalis of the testis. With regard to occupational exposure, it was classified as certain in 318 (68.2%) cases, probable in 69 (14.8%) cases, and possible in 79 (16.9%) cases. Results: Among the 23 classified jobs, the highest percentages of certain exposures are among naval engineers, motor mechanics, machine captains, and sailors. Machine crew accounted for 49.3% of the cases, and deck crew for 27.6%. All cases began exposure on board between 1926 and 1988. Seamen were exposed to asbestos while at sea by living onboard ships and from the continual release of asbestos fibers due to the motion of a vessel. Conclusions: Epidemiological surveillance through the ReNaM has allowed us to verify among cases in the maritime, navy, and merchant marine sectors that, in the past, subjects were exposed regardless of the ship’s department where they have provided service; therefore, all these cases must be considered occupational diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An increased risk of mesothelioma has been reported in various countries for construction workers. The Italian National Mesothelioma Registry, from 1993 to 2018, reported exposure exclusively in the construction sector in 2310 cases. We describe the characteristics of these cases according to the job title. Methods: We converted into 18 groups the original jobs (N=338) as reported by ISTAT codes ('ATECO 91'). The exposure level was attributed to certain, probable, and possible in accordance with the qualitative classification of exposure as reported in the Registry guidelines. Descriptive analysis by jobs highlights the total number of subjects for every single job and certain exposure, in descending order, insulator, plumbing, carpenter, mechanic, bricklayer, electrician, machine operator, plasterer, building contractor, painter, and laborer. Results: The cases grow for plumbing in 1993-2018, while, as expected, it decreased for the insulator. Within each period considered, the most numerous cases are always among bricklayers and laborers; these data confirm the prevalence of non-specialized "interchangeable" jobs in the Italian construction sector in the past. Conclusions: Despite the 1992 ban, the construction sector still presents an occupational health prevention challenge, and circumstances of asbestos exposure may still occur due to incomplete compliance with prevention and protection measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health care workers (HCWs) were on the frontline of the current pandemic. We aimed at identifying determinants of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the effectiveness of personal protection equipment (PPE) worn by HCWs before vaccination. Methods: We abstracted data on SARS-CoV-2 infection based on positive PCR results and sociodemographic characteristics of 38,793 HCWs from public hospitals and public health authorities from 10 European centers. We fitted cohort-specific multivariate logistic regression models to identify determinants of infection and combined the results using random-effects meta-analyses. Results: The overall prevalence of infection before vaccination among HCWs was 9.58%. Infection was associated with the presence of selected symptoms; no association was found between sociodemographic factors and increased risk of infection. The use of PPE and particularly FFP2/FFP3 masks had a different protective effect during the first and second waves of the COVID pandemic. Conclusions: The study provides evidence that mask use was the most effective PPE in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of this work was to evaluate the impact of the restrictions put in place to control the COVID‐19 pandemic on new diagnoses of malignant mesothelioma (MM) in Italy. Methods: Twelve of the 21 Italian malignant mesothelioma CORs (regional operating centres) participated. The study included all cases of MM with microscopic confirmation; cases without microscopic confirmation and death certificate only (DCO) were excluded. For each case, information on sex, date of birth, tumor site, morphology, and date of diagnosis was retrieved. We compared the number of incident cases in 2020 with 2019, looking at the overall picture and for four periods: pre‐pandemic (January–February), first wave (March–May), low incidence (June–September), and second wave (October–December). Results: A total of 604 cases were registered: 307 in 2019 and 297 in 2020. In the 2020 pre‐pandemic period, the incidence was higher than in the same months in 2019 (+45%); there was no significant change during the first wave (+1%) or in the low‐incidence period (−3%), while a decrease was observed during the second wave (−32%). However, the data were not homogeneous across the country: the increase in the pre‐pandemic period concerned mostly the regions of northern (+61.5%) and central Italy (+43.5%); during the first wave, MM diagnoses increased in the northern (+38.5%) and central (+11.4%) regions but decreased in the southern regions (−52.9%). All these differences are compatible with random fluctuations. Conclusion: The COVID‐19 pandemic had little or no impact on new MM diagnoses, and variations were not homogeneous throughout the country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: the sensitivity and specificity of a rapid antibody test were investigated for the screening of healthcare workers. Methods: the serum of 389 health care workers exposed to COVID-19 patients or with symptoms, were analysed. All workers underwent monthly the screening for SARS-CoV-2 with detection of viral RNA in nasopharyngeal swabs by RT-PCR. IgG antibody detection in serum was performed by Chemiluminescence Immunoassay (CLIA) and by the Rapid test (KHB diagnostic kit for SARS CoV-2 IgM/IgG antibody after a median of 7.6 weeks (25°-75° percentiles 6.6-11.5). Results: the rapid test resulted positive in 31/132 (23.5%), 16/135 (11.8%) and 0/122 cases in COVID-19 positive individuals, in those with only SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies and in those negative for both tests, respectively. Sensitivity was 17.6% (CI95% 13.2-22.7) and 23.5% (CI95% 16.5-31.6), and specificity was 100% (CI95% 97-100) and 100% (CI95% 97-100) considering Rapid test vs CLIA IgG or Rapid test vs SARS-CoV-2 positive RNA detection, respectively. Conclusion: the KHB Rapid test is not suitable for the screening of workers with previous COVID-19 infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]