期刊名称：Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine
印刷版ISSN：1232-1966
电子版ISSN：1898-2263
出版年度：2002
卷号：9
期号：1
页码：99-103
出版社：Institute of Agricultural Medicine in Lublin
摘要：48 woodworkers employed in the furniture factory were examined. The control group consisted of 41 office workers with no exposure to organic dust. The examination included: interview on work-related symptoms, physical examination, and lung function test performed before and after the working-day. 38 out of 48 (79.2%) woodworkers reported work-related symptoms. The most common complaint was dry cough reported by 25 workers (52.1%), followed by general malaise -- reported by 17 (35.45%), conjunctivitis -- by 16 (33.3%), rhinitis - by 16 (33.3%), and skin symptoms by 16 (33.3%). Other symptoms such as headache, shortness of breath and chest pain occurred less frequently. Subjects working in initial processing and board processing departments had a higher prevalence of cough compared to workers employed in the varnishing department (p < 0.01).The prevalence of skin symptoms was significantly higher in board processing and varnishing departments compared to initial processing department (p < 0.05). Occupational asthma and allergic alveolitis were recorded in 3 out of 48 (6.2%) and 2 out of 48 (4.2%) workers, respectively. Baseline FVC and FEV(1) values were lower in woodworkers compared to controls (p < 0.01). The increased lung function parameters (FVC, FEV(1)) were observed in woodworkers who smoked compared to non-smokers. The difference was not statistically significant. There was a significant over-shift decrease of all measured spirometric values: FVC, FEV(1)), FEV(1)) /VC, PEF among woodworkers (p < 0.001). There was a significant pre-shift, post-shift decline in FVC, FEV(1)), FVC/FEV(1)), and PEF among workers under 30 years of age (p < 0.001). The same tendency was seen for FVC and FEV(1)) in subjects over 30. The percentage changes in FVC and FEV(1)) were greater in the group of younger workers (15.1% and 17.6%) respectively, than in the group of older subject (6.2%, 7.1%). The difference was not statistically significant.
