RESUMO
Aim: Human infertility is a public problem and a cause of social and psychological complications affecting more than 50 million couples globally. Bisphenol A (BPA) is a ubiquitous environmental endocrine disrupting chemical and has been associated with infertility problems in women.The aim of the present study was to analyze concentrations of bisphenol A and circulating hormones in infertile Saudi women for evaluating the association of BPA with infertility.Methodology: The present study was done on 43 infertile women for evaluating possible association of systemic BPA concentrations with infertility in Saudi Arabia. The clinical indications were irregular menses, hyper-androgenism, multiple small ovarian cysts, polycystic ovarian syndrome and unexplained infertility. Blood samples from infertile women and a control group of 18 healthy fertile women were analyzed and compared for concentrations of BPA and circulatory hormones. Results: The results showed that BPA concentrations were not significantly different between infertile women and controls. BPA concentrations were also not correlated with systemic hormone concentrations in infertile women. Interpretation: Serum BPA levels had no association with hormone imbalance in this cohort of infertile Saudi women. However, considering the previous studies that have shown a relationship of BPA with female infertility, an argument can be made that there might be lower exposure of Saudi population to BPA in comparison to BPA analogues such as BPS (according to recent reports). Therefore, it is suggested to conduct more infertility studies that include detection of BPA and its analogues in infertile Saudi women
RESUMO
This cross-sectional study aimed to serve as a pilot investigation to identify the level of discomfort and awkward posture among the workers of a garments manufacturing industry. The study was conducted for both male (54) and female (26) workers working in two different departments - stitching and finishing. Data were collected using both questionnaire and direct observation. As discomfort cannot be measured directly, a questionnaire was used to measure it based on subjective ratings by the workers. For analyzing posture, two objective assessment tools were used – rapid upper limb assessment (RULA) to analyze sitting posture and rapid entire body assessment (REBA) for standing posture. The cumulative scores of discomfort for different body parts were measured. The lower back was found to be at the highest risk as compared to other body parts. Female workers had higher score of discomfort (mean = 2.9615, S.D. = 1.3931) as compared to their male counterparts (mean = 1.2693, S.D. = 0.6538). Similarly, standing workers suffered more discomfort (mean = 2.7272, S.D. = 1.3090) as compared to sitting workers (mean = 1.0909, S.D. = 0.3784). No worker received ergonomically acceptable score for both of postural assessment tools. The mean RULA score was 5.25 and mean REBA score was 5. The results of this study necessitate a company-wide ergonomic assessment immediately.