Search

Copyright of Médecine et Santé Tropicales is the property of John Libbey Eurotext Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Médecine et Santé Tropicales is the property of John Libbey Eurotext Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background Exposure to solar ultraviolet ( UV) radiation is the main causative factor for skin cancer. Outdoor workers are at particular risk because they spend long working hours outside, may have little shade available and are bound to take their lunch at their workplace. Despite epidemiological evidence of a doubling in risk of squamous cell carcinoma ( SCC) in outdoor workers, the recognition of skin cancer as an occupational disease remains scarce. Objectives To assess occupational solar UV doses and their contribution to skin cancer risk. Methods A numerical model (Sim UVEx) was used to assess occupational and lunch break UV exposure, and to characterize exposure patterns and anatomical distribution. Risk of SCC was estimated from an existing epidemiological model. Results Horizontal body locations received 2·0-2·5 times more UV than vertical locations. The dose associated with having lunch outdoors every day was similar to that from doing outdoor work 1 day per week, but only half that of a seasonal worker. Outdoor work is associated with an increased risk of SCC and also with frequent acute episodes. Conclusions Occupational solar exposure contributes greatly to overall lifetime UV dose, resulting in an excess risk of SCC. The magnitude of the estimated excess in risk supports the recognition of SCC as an occupational disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Returning to work after transplantation is a much-discussed topic today, especially as a measure to avoid permanent work disability. Many transplant patients regain their ability to work 2–6 months after transplantation. However, returning to work should not endanger their health. This means that occupational risks such as occupational exposure to Aspergillus spores must be evaluated. We evaluated the community-acquired aspergillosis risk and in particularly the occupational aspergillosis risk, using the example of a 39-year-old construction worker immunosuppressed after renal transplantation. On one hand the risk is linked to the exposure to microorganisms that the individual is likely to be subjected to, and on the other hand to the factors that modify his state of susceptibility or resistance to these infectious agents. The necessity of immunosuppressive therapy after transplantation elevates the aspergillosis risk, especially 1–6 months after transplantation. There are many professions in which exposure to Aspergillus spores can occur. The risk of acquiring aspergillosis at work exists, but is not quantifiable today. Nevertheless, the risk should be minimized during the period of vulnerability by preventive measures such as restriction of certain activities, changing work methods and reorganizing the work day to adapt to the risk, and wearing personal protective equipment, as well as attention to information about aspergillosis risk and about the likelihood of exposure in the patient's professional and leisure activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents information on a study which described the relation between spirometric findings and farming characteristics and variables of exposure to organic dust measured during work in animal buildings. Methods; Results; Discussion.

Background Occupational diisocyanate-induced extrinsic allergic alveolitis (EAA) is a rare and probably underestimated diagnosis. Two acute occupational EAA cases have been described in this context, but neither of them concerned hexamethylene diisocyanate (HDI) exposure.Aims To investigate the cause of a life-threatening EAA arising at work in a healthy 30-year-old female paint quality controller.Methods Occupational medical assessment, workplace evaluation, airborne and biological monitoring and immunodermatological tests.Results Diagnosis of EAA relied on congruent clinical and radiological information, confirmed occupational HDI exposure and positive IgG antibodies and patch tests. The patient worked in a small laboratory for 7 years, only occasionally using HDI-containing hardeners. While working with HDI for 6 h, she developed breathlessness, rapidly progressing to severe respiratory failure. Workplace HDI airborne exposure values ranged from undetectable levels to 4.25 p.p.b. Biological monitoring of urinary hexamethylene diamine in co-workers ranged from <1.0 to 15.4 μg/g creatinine. Patch tests 8 months later showed delayed skin reaction to HDI at 48 h. Subsequent skin biopsy showed spongiotic dermatitis with infiltration of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells.Conclusions We believe this is the first reported case of acute life-threatening EAA following exposure to HDI. Low concentrations of airborne HDI and relatively high urinary hexamethylene diamine suggest significant skin absorption of HDI could have significantly contributed to the development of this acute occupational EAA. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]