Factors affecting lead dust in construction workers' homes in the Greater Boston Area.
Factors affecting lead dust in construction workers' homes in the Greater Boston Area.
复制标题
影响大波士顿地区建筑工人住宅中铅尘的因素。
DOI：
10.1016/j.envres.2020.110510
复制
发表时间：
2021
影响因子：
8.3
通讯作者：
Spengler,JohnD
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ceballos,DianaM;Herrick,RobertF;Dong,Zhao;Kalweit,Andrew;Miller,Melisa;Quinn,Jenna;Spengler,JohnD
铅是一种已知的生殖、发育和神经毒物。在工作中极有可能接触到铅的工人可能会无意中将铅带回家，这被称为“带回家接触”。这对许多工人来说是令人担忧的，因为他们的工作地点和雇主经常变化，集中的策略是不够的，所以工作场所的干预是不可行的。本研究旨在更好地了解与儿童同住的工人家中铅与建筑工作之间的关系（n = 23），而其他职业作为对照组（清洁工n = 5，汽车工人n = 2）。2018-2019年，通过与非营利组织和具有低收入或移民工人专业知识的工会合作，招募了30名生活在大波士顿地区弱势社区的工人。从事翻修、桥梁建设、焊接、金属工作和拆除的建筑工人在招聘时优先考虑。在访问他们的住所期间，工作人员进行了问卷调查，并收集了家中的观察结果和吸尘样本。通过双变量分析和多变量回归模型探讨了家庭粉尘中铅的影响因素。我们发现家庭灰尘中的铅含量在20 - 8310 ppm之间。建筑工人家庭的铅尘浓度（平均775，最大8300 ppm）通常高于汽车和看门人家庭的铅尘浓度（平均296，最大579 ppm）。五名建筑工人家中的铅尘浓度超过了美国儿童游乐区庭院土壤中400ppm的指导标准，与20世纪90年代初对铅冶炼厂、超级基金场址或波士顿地区附近家庭的其他研究相似，表明了与工作有关的差异。多变量回归模型的结果表明，工人家中的铅尘与社会人口、家庭和工作相关因素有关，并指向重叠的脆弱性；然而，需要更大的样本量来验证研究结果。研究结果证明，在评估家庭暴露时，工作相关因素是重要的考虑因素，从事铅高风险工作（如建筑）的工人带回家暴露可能是家庭暴露的重要来源，因此需要在工作、家庭和社区层面进行公共卫生干预。
Lead is a known reproductive, developmental, and neurological toxicant. Workers with a high likelihood of being exposed to lead at work may inadvertently transport lead home from work, known as “take-home exposure.” This is concerning for many workers for whom a workplace intervention is not feasible because their worksites and employers often change, rendering centralized strategies insufficient. This study aimed to better understand the connection between lead in the home of workers living with children and work in construction (n = 23), while other occupations were used as a comparison group (janitorial n = 5, autobody n = 2). Thirty workers living in disadvantaged communities in the Greater Boston area were recruited in 2018–2019 through collaboration with non-profits and worker unions with expertise working with low-income or immigrant workers. Construction workers that performed renovations, bridge constructions, welding, metal work, and demolitions were prioritized during recruitment. During a visit to their residences, a worker questionnaire was administered, and observations and a dust vacuumed sample of the home were collected. Factors predicting lead in home dust were explored by a bivariate analysis and a multivariable regression model. We found lead in homes’ dust in the range of 20–8,310 ppm. Homes of construction workers generally had higher and more variable lead dust concentrations (mean 775, max 8,300 ppm) than autobody and janitor worker homes combined (mean 296, max 579 ppm). Five of the construction workers’ home lead dust concentrations exceeded US guidelines for yard soil in children's play areas of 400 ppm, and were similar to other studies of homes near lead smelters, superfund sites, or in the Boston area in the early 1990s, pointing to disparities relating to work. Results from the multivariable regression model suggest that lead dust in homes of workers was associated with sociodemographic-, home-, and work-related factors, and pointed to overlapping vulnerabilities; however, a larger sample size is needed to verify findings. Results provide evidence that work-related factors are important to consider when assessing home exposures, and that take-home exposures for workers in lead high-risk jobs such as construction may be an important source of exposure in the home prime for public health intervention at work, home, and community levels.