Sensitisation against environmental antigens and respiratory symptoms in swine workers.

Abstract

Adverse effects caused by airborne material to the respiratory tract are due either to nonspecific irritation or to hypersensitivity. In this study 20 people employed in swine barns and 18 controls were tested for sensitisation against dusts present in the barns. Immunoprecipitation and enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) were used to test for IgG antibodies; IgE antibodies against swine epithelium were tested using solid phase radioimmunoassay. Precipitins against swine antigens were found in two swine workers; while ELISA found six to be sensitised. Sensitisation The atmosphere of swine barns contains numerous airborne materials that are potentially hazardous to the respiratory tract by reason of their large quantity or of their qualitative nature. The total dust load is known to reach temporarily very high levels during feeding.' 2 According to Nilsson,2 pig feeds and particles of animal origin are quantitatively the most important components of the particulate matter in the air. In addition, chemicals such as ammonia and hydrogen sulphide, also of animal origin, are present in gaseous form in barn atmospheres.3 The detrimental effect of dusts and other aerial impurities on pork production has been recognised in recent years3 and has become a factor of increasing importance with the trend toward bigger units in swine confinement systems. Airborne biological materials also have an adverse effect on the respiratory tract of anyone working in the dusty barn environment and respiratory symptoms are a common problem among people employed in swine production.2 An earlier survey on the prevalence of farmer's lung4 found several workers with respiratory disorders associated with working in swine barns; the

Effects of exposure to dust in swine confinement buildings--a working group report.

“…However, 70 % of these farmers also had an elevated IgE level again st hou se du st mite (Derma tophygoides) allergens. No IgE antibodies were found again st swine ant igens; this findin g is consistent with the results of a Finnish study (4). Another study showed no difference in precip ita ting antibod ies to agents related to hypersensitivity and swine ant igens and molds isolated from the swine environment (16).…”

“…Clinical evidence of classical hypersensitivity pneumonitis has not yet been reported (3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17). This lack should not, however, be interpreted as an absence of risk.…”

“…Only a few studies have evaluated the relation of atopy to the development of symptoms and lung function changes (4,16,20,21). The number of workers studied has usually been small, and appropriate reference groups have sometimes been lacking.…”

“…The fir st studies on the health o f persons wo rking in sw ine confinement buildings were published in the United States (3) and Finland (4) , fo llowed by severa l reports from the United Sta tes, The Netherlands, Canada, and Sweden (5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17). A working gro u p was assem bled to summarize the sympto matology, clini cal findings, and pathogenesis of the expo sure.…”

Respiratory health of workers exposed to swine confinement buildings only or to both swine confinement buildings and dairy barns.

“…4 ardous airborn e contaminants. Previous reports show a n increased prevalenc e of respiratory ailments for both of the se environments (10,11).…”