Are serum eosinophilic cationic protein levels of toll collectors affected by diesel exhaust exposure?

Objective: There are few studies on the diesel exhaust particulates [DEP] / eosinophilic cationic protein [ECP] level relationship. This study aimed to detect ECP levels in a highly DE exposed group, named as toll collectors

Methods:In a cross-sectional study, levels of serum ECP, rates of respiratory symptoms, mean levels of respiratory functions, smoking status, and variations in peak expiratory flow [PEF] during weekends and working days were compared for 68 toll collectors [TC] [range of age, 24-48 years] and 28 controls [range of age, 25-61 years]. All subjects in the study group were men

Results:No significant difference was observed in terms of symptoms and smoking rates between the toll collectors and control group. The number of toll collectors [12/68 [17.7%] vs 1/28 [3.5%]] with diurnal PEF variability in the working period was higher than that of controls [p=0.058]. Mean ECP level of toll collectors was higher than that of controls [32.8 vs 21.4 ng/L], but the difference was not significant. Mean ECP levels were higher in subjects experiencing diurnal PEF variability during work and off-work periods [34.9 vs 28.3 ng/L, p=0.410]

Conclusions:Serial PEF measurements combined with serum ECP measurements did not add a new tool to detect the sensitivity of workers dealing with DE. Much more diesel exhaust exposed workers should be included to search for cheap and available methods when evaluating airway

Does periodic lung screening of films meets standards?

Objective: To determine whether the workers' periodic chest x-ray screening techniques in accordance with the quality standards is the responsibility of physicians. Evaluation of differences of interpretations by physicians in different levels of education and the importance of standardization of interpretation

Methods: Previously taken chest radiographs of 400 workers who are working in a factory producing the glass run channels were evaluated according to technical and quality standards by three observers [pulmonologist, radiologist, pulmonologist assistant]. There was a perfect concordance between radiologist and pulmonologist for the underpenetrated films. Whereas there was perfect concordance between pulmonologist and pulmonologist assistant for over penetrated films

Results: Pulmonologist [52%] has interpreted the dose of the films as regular more than other observers [radiologist; 44.3%, pulmonologist assistant; 30.4%]. The frequency of interpretation of the films as taken in inspiratory phase by the pulmonologist [81.7%] was less than other observers [radiologist; 92.1%, pulmonologist assistant; 92.6%]. The rate of the pulmonologist [53.5%] was higher than the other observers [radiologist; 44.6%, pulmonologist assistant; 41.8%] for the assessment of the positioning of the patients as symmetrical. Pulmonologist assistant [15.3%] was the one who most commonly reported the parenchymal findings [radiologist; 2.2%, pulmonologist; 12.9%]

Conclusion: It is necessary to reorganize the technical standards and exposure procedures for improving the quality of the chest radiographs. The reappraisal of all interpreters and continuous training of technicians is required