Background: Exposure to metal working fluid (MWF) has been associated with outbreaks of extrinsic allergic alveolitis (EAA) in the USA, with bacterial contamination of MWF being a possible cause, but is uncommon in the UK. Twelve workers developed EAA in a car engine manufacturing plant in the UK, presenting clinically between December 2003 and May 2004. This paper reports the subsequent epidemiological investigation of the whole workforce. The study had three aims: (1) to measure the extent of the outbreak by identifying other workers who may have developed EAA or other work-related respiratory diseases; (2) to provide case detection so that those affected could be treated; and (3) to provide epidemiological data to identify the cause of the outbreak. Methods: The outbreak was investigated in a three-phase cross-sectional survey of the workforce. In phase I a respiratory screening questionnaire was completed by 808/836 workers (96.7%) in May 2004. In phase II 481 employees with at least one respiratory symptom on screening and 50 asymptomatic controls were invited for investigation at the factory in June 2004. This included a questionnaire, spirometry and clinical opinion. 454/481 (94.4%) responded and 48/50 (96%) controls. Workers were identified who needed further investigation and serial measurements of peak expiratory flow (PEF). In phase III 162 employees were seen at the Birmingham Occupational Lung Disease clinic. 198 employees returned PEF records, including 141 of the 162 who attended for clinical investigation. Case definitions for diagnoses were agreed. Results: 87 workers (10.4% of the workforce) met case definitions for occupational lung disease, comprising EAA (n = 19), occupational asthma (n = 74) and humidifier fever (n = 7). 12 workers had more than one diagnosis. The peak onset of work-related breathlessness was Spring 2003. The proportion of workers affected was higher for those using MWF from a large sump (27.3%) than for those working all over the manufacturing area (7.9%) (OR = 4.39, p,0.001). Two workers had positive specific provocation tests to the used but not the unused MWF solution. Conclusions: Extensive investigation of the outbreak of EAA detected a large number of affected workers, not only with EAA but also occupational asthma. This is the largest reported outbreak in Europe. Mist from used MWF is the likely cause. In workplaces using MWF there is a need to carry out risk assessments, to monitor and maintain fluid quality, to control mist and to carry out respiratory health surveillance.

No abstract

If asthma is due to work exposures there must be a relation between these exposures and the asthma. Asthma causes airway hyperresponsiveness and obstruction; the obstruction can be measured with portable meters, which usually measure peak expiratory flow, or sometimes forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV 1 ). These can be measured serially (for instance 2 hourly) over several weeks at and away from work. Once occupational asthma develops, the asthma will be induced by many non-specific triggers common to non-occupational asthma. The challenge is to identify changes in peak expiratory flow due to work among other nonoccupational causes. Standard statistical tests have been found to be insensitive or non-specific, principally because of the variable period for deterioration to occur after exposure, and the sometimes prolonged time for recovery to occur, such that days away from work may initially have lower measurements than days at work. A computer assisted diagnostic aid (Oasys) has been developed to separate occupational from non-occupational causes of airflow obstruction. Oasys-2 is based on a discriminant analysis, and achieved a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of at least 94%; therefore peak expiratory flow monitoring combined with Oasys-2 analysis is better to confirm than to exclude occupational asthma. A neural network version in development has improved on this. Both have been based on expert interpretation of peak flow measurements plotted as daily maximum, mean, and minimum, with the first reading at work taken as the first reading of the day. Oasys has been evaluated with independent criteria against measurements made in a wide range of occupational situations. Oasys is suYciently developed to be the initial method for the confirmation, although less so for exclusion of occupational asthma. (Occup Environ Med 1999;56:758-764)

Background: The diagnosis of occupational asthma requires objective confirmation. Analysis of serial measurements of peak expiratory flow (PEF) is usually the most convenient first step in the diagnostic process. A new method of analysis originally developed to detect late asthmatic reactions following specific inhalation testing is described. This was applied to serial PEF measurements made over many days in the workplace to supplement existing methods of PEF analysis. Methods: 236 records from workers with independently diagnosed occupational asthma and 320 records from controls with asthma were available. The pooled standard deviation for rest day measurements was obtained from an analysis of variance by time. Work day PEF measurements were meaned into matching 2-hourly time segments. Time points with mean work day PEF statistically lower (at the Bonferroni adjusted 5% level) than the rest days were counted after adjusting for the number of contributing measurements. Results: A minimum of four time point comparisons were needed. Records with >2 time points significantly lower on work days had a sensitivity of 67% and a specificity of 99% for the diagnosis of occupational asthma against independent diagnoses. Reducing the requirements to >1 non-waking time point difference increased sensitivity to 77% and reduced specificity to 93%. The analysis was only applicable to 43% of available records, mainly due to differences in waking times on work and rest days. Conclusion: Time point analysis complements other validated methods of PEF analysis for the diagnosis of occupational asthma. It requires shorter records than are required for the Oasys score and can identify smaller changes than other methods, but is dependent on low rest day PEF variance.

Chromium salt and cobalt can be responsible for OA and OR in workers exposed to MWF aerosols. Onset of symptoms in those with positive specific challenges followed change in MWF brand. Workers with OA had increased urinary concentrations of chromium and cobalt, and those with OR had increased urinary concentrations of chromium.