Cage versus noncage laying-hen housings: worker respiratory health

Details

• Personal Author:
  Armitage T ; Arteaga V ; Kenyon N ; Mitchell D ; Mitloehner F ; Schenker M ; Tancredi D
• Description:
  The objective of this study was to compare respiratory health of poultry workers in conventional cage, enriched cage and aviary layer housing on a single commercial facility, motivated by changing requirements for humane housing of hens. Three workers were randomly assigned daily, one to each of conventional cage, enriched cage, and aviary housing in a crossover repeated-measures design for three observation periods (for a total of 123 worker-days, eight different workers). Workers' exposure to particles were assessed (Arteaga et al. J Agromedicine. 2015;20:this issue) and spirometry, exhaled nitric oxide, respiratory symptoms, and questionnaires were conducted pre- and post-shift. Personal exposures to particles and endotoxin were significantly higher in the aviary than the other housings (Arteaga et al., 2015). The use of respiratory protection was high; the median usage was 70% of the shift. Mixed-effects multivariate regression models of respiratory cross-shift changes were marginally significant, but the aviary system consistently posted the highest decrements for forced expiratory volume in 1 and 6 seconds (FEV1 and FEV6) compared with the enriched or conventional housing. The adjusted mean difference in FEV1 aviary - enriched cage housing was -47 mL/s, 95% confidence interval (CI): (-99 to 4.9), P = .07. Similarly, for FEV6, aviary - conventional housing adjusted mean difference was -52.9 mL/6 s, 95% CI: (-108 to 2.4), P = .06. Workers adopting greater than median use of respiratory protection were less likely to exhibit negative cross-shift pulmonary function changes. Although aviary housing exposed workers to significantly higher respiratory exposures, cross-shift pulmonary function changes did not differ significantly between houses. Higher levels of mask use were protective; poultry workers should wear respiratory protection as appropriate to avoid health decrements. [Description provided by NIOSH]
• Subjects:
  Agriculture Air Pollutants, Occupational Endotoxins Environmental Health Food Industry Lung Occupational Exposure Occupational Health Particulate Matter Personal Protective Equipment Respiratory Function Tests Respiratory Protective Devices Respiratory System Respiratory Tract Diseases Safety Surveys And Questionnaires Workplace

  More +
• Keywords:
  Agricultural-industry Agricultural-workers Airborne-particles Author Keywords: Laying-hen Housing Employee-exposure Environmental-factors Health-surveys Occupational Health Oxides Personal-protective-equipment Poultry Poultry-industry Poultry-workers Poultry Workers Pulmonary-function Pulmonary Function Questionnaires Respiratory-protective-equipment Respiratory-system-disorders Respiratory Exposure Spirometry Work-environment Work-operations

  More +
• ISSN:
  1059-924X
• Document Type:
  Text
• Funding:
  Cooperative Agreement
• Genre:
  Journal Article
• Place as Subject:
  California ; OSHA Region 9
• CIO:
  National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
• Topic:
  Workplace Safety & Health
• Location:
  North America
• Pages in Document:
  256-264
• Volume:
  20
• Issue:
  3
• NIOSHTIC Number:
  nn:20046552
• Citation:
  J Agromedicine 2015 Jul; 20(3):256-264
• Contact Point Address:
  Diane Mitchell, Department of Public Health Sciences and Center for Health and the Environment, University of California, Davis, One Shield Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA
• Email:
  dcmitchell@ucdavis.edu
• CAS Registry Number:
  Nitric oxide (CAS RN 10102-43-9)
• Federal Fiscal Year:
  2015
• NORA Priority Area:
  Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing
• Performing Organization:
  University of California - Davis
• Peer Reviewed:
  True
• Start Date:
  20010930
• Source Full Name:
  Journal of Agromedicine
• End Date:
  20270929
• Collection(s):
  National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
• Main Document Checksum:
  urn:sha-512:599891901aa02b204552fca4a134a33dc7f3e75fbc4ec8cc7be7f5c1e25fac71bf9be1c75c4fa335f31999058c7d0df4385e75268cdf0c56626ef433e4c14b97
• Download URL:
  https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/201567/cdc_201567_DS1.pdf
• File Type:
  [PDF - 167.62 KB ]