1993
DOI: 10.1002/ajim.4700240608
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cross‐sectional epidemiological study of respiratory disease in Turkey farmers

Abstract: This study was a cross-sectional epidemiological investigation of respiratory disease in farmers involved in the turkey growing industry. Pulmonary function tests and health history questionnaires were administered to a total of 95 turkey farmers throughout Minnesota. Respiratory symptoms were greatest during the winter months when exposure to environmental agents was highest. Prevalence of symptoms was higher for smokers, personnel who worked in hen barns, and for persons who had worked in the turkey growing … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

1
15
0

Year Published

1994
1994
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
1
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…3 In a study conducted in the United States, 53% of workers who had worked greater than 10 years in turkey operations had cough, 40% had phlegm, and 27% wheezed during the winter season. 4 Although poultry dust is a combination of feed and fecal particles, feathers, skin, fungal constituents, bacteria, viruses, and litter particles, 5 ammonia; 2,3,10,17 dust, and endotoxin are the most frequently reported environmental contaminants in poultry operations and also the contaminants most frequently associated with respiratory effects experienced by workers. The aerobic bacteria common in poultry confinement operations are Bacillus, Micrococcus, Proteus, Pseudomonas, Staphylococcus spp, and Escherichia coli, whereas the most common anaerobic bacteria are Clostridia, and the highest fungi airborne isolates are either Aspergillus or Penicillium with changes in the levels of bacteria and fungi occurring with pH increases in the litter.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3 In a study conducted in the United States, 53% of workers who had worked greater than 10 years in turkey operations had cough, 40% had phlegm, and 27% wheezed during the winter season. 4 Although poultry dust is a combination of feed and fecal particles, feathers, skin, fungal constituents, bacteria, viruses, and litter particles, 5 ammonia; 2,3,10,17 dust, and endotoxin are the most frequently reported environmental contaminants in poultry operations and also the contaminants most frequently associated with respiratory effects experienced by workers. The aerobic bacteria common in poultry confinement operations are Bacillus, Micrococcus, Proteus, Pseudomonas, Staphylococcus spp, and Escherichia coli, whereas the most common anaerobic bacteria are Clostridia, and the highest fungi airborne isolates are either Aspergillus or Penicillium with changes in the levels of bacteria and fungi occurring with pH increases in the litter.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…12 Likewise, significant cross-shift declines in FEV 1 and FVC were observed in turkey workers exposed to high concentrations of dust, endotoxin, ammonia, and bacteria. 3 Poultry growers and catchers exhibited significantly lower baseline measures of FEV 1 , FVC, and FEF 25-75 than normal predicted values. 13 Histopathology and in vitro studies provide additional evidence of elevated risk for obstructive respiratory disease in poultry confinement workers.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 79%
“…Poultry workers have a high prevalence of acute, work-related 58 JOURNAL OF AGROMEDICINE symptoms including cough, phlegm, eye irritation, dyspnea, chest tightness, fatigue, nasal congestion, wheezing, sneezing, nasal discharge, headache, throat irritation, and fever. 3,[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] Chronic symptoms of cough, phlegm, wheezing, dyspnea, and chest tightness have also been documented in poultry production workers and poultry processing workers. [12][13][14] Patterns of lung function change in poultry workers are suggestive of primary obstructive disorders with less consistent indication of restrictive pathology.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16) Illnesses attributed, at least in part, to endotoxin exposure include byssinosis, airway hyperreactivity, and organic dust toxic syndrome. (3,(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16) Inhalation of endotoxin induces a variety of biological responses such as cell activation (neutrophils, macrophages), with mediator release (interleukins), activation of complement, and damage to epithelial and endothelial cells. (8)(9)(10)14,16,17,18) Decrements in pulmonary function, especially FEV1, have also been demonstrated in response to endotoxin exposure.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(8)(9)(10)14,16,17,18) Decrements in pulmonary function, especially FEV1, have also been demonstrated in response to endotoxin exposure. (1,2,6,7,12,14,15) Occupational exposure to endotoxin occurs in a variety of industries including agriculture, wastewater plants, refuse-derived fuel production, metals machining, snowmaking, and in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals and medical devices. (3,11,12,14,18,(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24) Although occupational exposure limits have been suggested for endotoxin, evaluation of dose-response relationships is problematic, because sampling and analytical methods have not been standardized.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%