4.3 Article

Cleaning agent occupational asthma in the West Midlands, UK: 2000-16

Journal

OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE-OXFORD
Volume 68, Issue 8, Pages 530-536

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/occmed/kqy113

Keywords

Cleaning agents; healthcare; leisure; occupational asthma

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Cleaning agents are now a common cause of occupational asthma (OA) worldwide. Irritant airway and sensitization mechanisms are implicated for a variety of old and new agents. Aims To describe the exposures responsible for cleaning agent OA diagnosed within a UK specialist occupational lung disease service between 2000 and 2016. Methods The Birmingham NHS Occupational Lung Disease Service clinical database was searched for cases of OA caused by cleaning agents, and data were gathered on age, gender, atopic status, smoking history, symptom onset, diagnostic investigations (including Occupational Asthma SYStem analysis of workplace serial peak expiratory flow measurements and specific inhalational challenge), proposed mechanism, industry, occupation and causative agent. Results Eighty patients with cleaning agent OA (77% female, 76% arising de novo) were identified. The median annual number of cases was 4 (interquartile range = 2-7). The commonest cleaning agents causing OA were chloramines (31%), glutaraldehyde (26%) and quaternary ammonium compounds (11%) and frequently implicated industries were healthcare (55%), education (18%) and leisure (8%). Conclusions Certain cleaning agents in common usage, such as chlorine-releasing agents, quaternary ammonium compounds and aldehydes, are associated with sensitization and asthma. Their use alters over time, and this is particularly evident in UK healthcare where cleaning and decontamination practice and policy have changed. Vigilance for OA in workplaces such as hospitals, nursing homes, leisure centres and swimming pools, where these cleaning agents are regularly used, is therefore essential.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available