Search

BACKGROUND: Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) may accelerate the cognitive and motor dysfunction found in normal aging, but few studies have examined these outcomes and PCB exposure among older adults. OBJECTIVE: We [...]

Although hearing loss as a result of aging is thought to be inevitable, in industrialized countries it has been accelerated by excessive exposure to nonoccupational and occupational noise (Phaneuf & [...], The New York State Farm Family Health and Hazard Surveillance was conducted to assess the health status and safety practices among year-round adult farmers and farm residents in New York State and included a telephone interview survey of 1,727 persons from 552 farms. To determine the extent to which self-reported hearing loss is in agreement with audiometry, a subset of 376 participants who completed a hearing loss interview and pure-tone audiometry was analyzed. Thirty-six percent of the participants had self-reported hearing loss, defined as at least some difficulty hearing in one or both ears. The prevalence of audiometric hearing impairment, defined as a threshold average greater than 25 dB hearing level, was 9% for the binaural low-frequency average (500, 1000, and 2000 Hz), 29% for the binaural mid-frequency average (1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hz), and 47% for the binaural high-frequency average (3000, 4000, 6000, and 8000 Hz). Agreement between self-report and audiometry was highest for the binaural mid-frequency average (kappa statistic 55%, sensitivity 77%, and specificity 82%). Self-reported hearing loss was found to be a moderately good measure of hearing impairment. We conclude that a simple questionnaire focusing on hearing difficulty is a useful and valid tool for conducting epidemiologic studies of farmers. Whenever possible, a substudy using audiometry should be conducted. KEY WORDS: hearing loss, audiometry, questionnaire, agreement

The authors investigated changes in respiratory health after September 11, 2001 (“9/11”) among residents of the area near the World Trade Center (WTC) site in New York City as compared with residents of a control area. In 2002, self-administered questionnaires requesting information on the presence and persistence of respiratory symptoms, unplanned medical visits, and medication use were sent to 9,200 households (22.3% responded) within 1.5 km of the WTC site (affected area) and approximately 1,000 residences (23.3% responded) in Upper Manhattan, more than 9 km from the site (control area). Residents of the affected area reported higher rates of new-onset upper respiratory symptoms after 9/11 (cumulative incidence ratio = 2.22, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.88, 2.63). Most of these symptoms persisted 1 year after 9/11 in the affected area. Previously healthy residents of the affected area had more respiratory-related unplanned medical visits (prevalence ratio = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.13, 2.64) and more new medication use (prevalence ratio = 2.89, 95% CI: 1.75, 4.76) after 9/11. Greater impacts on respiratory functional limitations were also found in the affected area. Although bias may have contributed to these increases, other analyses of WTC-related pollutants support their biologic plausibility. Further analyses are needed to examine whether these increases were related to environmental exposures and to monitor long-term health effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the correlation of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) ratio as surrogate biomarkers of cytochrome P4501A2 activity. Men and women from the Mohawk Nation at Akwesasne, a Native American community in New York City and Canada, constitute the study population. A nonfasting blood specimen and caffeine breath test were used. It notes that results revealed that PCB153 was detectable in the serum of 100 participants and detection frequencies were lower for PCB118 AND PCB105.

In the article, the authors address commentary against their study which evaluated respiratory symptoms among residents in Lower Manhattan in New York following the events of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. A brief background on the research methodology is presented. The authors offer explanation on the claims of bias in their research findings. They argue that they adopt some measures to minimize the impact of research bias.