No abstract

Rationale: Cleaning work and professional use of certain cleaning products have been associated with asthma, but respiratory effects of nonprofessional home cleaning have rarely been studied. Objectives: To investigate the risk of new-onset asthma in relation to the use of common household cleaners. Methods: Within the follow-up of the European Community Respiratory Health Survey in 10 countries, we identified 3,503 persons doing the cleaning in their homes and who were free of asthma at baseline. Frequency of use of 15 types of cleaning products was obtained in a face-to-face interview at follow-up. We studied the incidence of asthma defined as physician diagnosis and as symptoms or medication usage at follow-up. Associations between asthma and the use of cleaning products were evaluated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards or log-binomial regression analysis. Measurements and Main Results: The use of cleaning sprays at least weekly (42% of participants) was associated with the incidence of asthma symptoms or medication (relative risk [RR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1221.99) and wheeze (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.0621.80). The incidence of physician-diagnosed asthma was higher among those using sprays at least 4 days per week (RR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.1523.89). These associations were consistent for subgroups and not modified by atopy. Dose-response relationships (P , 0.05) were apparent for the frequency of use and the number of different sprays. Risks were predominantly found for the commonly used glass-cleaning, furniture, and air-refreshing sprays. Cleaning products not applied in spray form were not associated with asthma. Conclusions: Frequent use of common household cleaning sprays may be an important risk factor for adult asthma.

Confined animal feeding operations may contribute to the burden of respiratory disease among their neighbors. Our findings underline the importance of objective assessment of exposure and outcome in environmental epidemiology.

Farmers are known to be at high risk for the development of occupational airway disease. The aim of this European study was to determine which airway symptoms predominate in different types of animal farmers (cattle, pigs, poultry, sheep) and to compare the prevalence of symptoms to the general population.A total of 6,156 randomly selected animal farmers in Denmark, Germany (SchleswigHolstein, Niedersachsen), Switzerland, and Spain completed a questionnaire on respiratory symptoms and farming characteristics in 1995±1997. The prevalence of general respiratory symptoms was compared to the results of the European Community Respiratory Health Survey (ECRHS) obtained in the same regions.Pig farmers were at highest risk for the development of work-related symptoms. A signi®cant dose-response relationship between daily hours worked inside animal houses and symptoms was established for pig and poultry farmers. Additionally, self-reported nasal allergies (odds ratio (95% con®dence interval): 3.92 (3.26±4.71)) and nasal irritation during work (3.98 (3.35±4.73)) were shown to be associated with the development of chronic phlegm. The prevalence of wheezing, shortness of breath, asthma and nasal allergies was sign®cantly lower among all farmers in the age group 20±44 yrs than among the general population. However, the prevalence of usually bringing up phlegm in winter among farmers was signi®cantly higher than in the general population (9.4 (8.3±10.5%) versus 7.5 (6.5±8.5%)).Individual factors have been shown to be related to the prevalence of chronic phlegm among farmers. Additionally, this study could support the hypothesis that farming could be negatively related to allergic diseases. Eur Respir J 2001; 17: 747±754.