The contribution of respiratory and hearing protection use to psychological distress in the workplace: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: Workers from various industries use personal protective equipment (PPE) including masks, respirators, and hearing protection to reduce their exposures to workplace hazards. Many studies have evaluated the physiological impacts of PPE use, but few have assessed the psychological impacts. The aim of the present study was to carry out a scoping review to compile existing evidence and determine the extent of knowledge on workplace mask, respirator or hearing protection use as a psychosocial hazard (stressor) that could result in a stress response and potentially lead to psychological injury. METHODS: The scoping review followed recognized methods and was conducted using Ovid Emcare, PubMed, Sage Journals, ScienceDirect, Scopus, SpringerLink, Google Scholar and preprint databases (OSF Preprints and medRxiv). Articles on the stressors associated with the use of masks, respirators, and hearing protection were included. The extracted data included author(s) name, year of publication, title of article, study design, population data, stressors assessed, and key findings. RESULTS: We retrieved 650 articles after removal of duplicates, of which 26 were deemed eligible for inclusion for review. Identified factors associated with PPE use that could potentially create a stress response were identified: communication impacts, physical impacts, psychological illness symptoms, cognitive impacts, and perceived PPE-related impacts. Evidence for respirators suggest that there may be psychological injury associated with their use. However, hearing protection appears to have a protective effect in reducing psychological symptoms such as anxiety, depression, and aggression. CONCLUSIONS: Mask or respirator use may lead to an increase in work-related stress. Whereas hearing protection may have protective effects against psychological symptoms and improves speech intelligibility. More research is needed to better understand potential psychosocial impacts of mask, respirator and/or hearing protection use.

Using touchscreen mobile devices-when, where and how: a one-week field study.

This cross-sectional study explored the objectively measured Touchscreen Mobile Device (TSMD) use in free-living conditions. Data on TSMD use, gross body posture (lying, sitting, standing, stepping), and location of use (workplace, home, other) were collected over seven consecutive days from 54 adults (mean ± SD, 38 ± 10 years). The average duration of TSMD use was 152 ± 91 min/day, with a TSMD engagement of 51 ± 35 times/day. Participants under 30 years spent significantly more time on their TSMD, averaging 230 ± 108 min/day. By location, 54 ± 17% of use occurred at home and 24 ± 15% at work. The most common posture adopted during any TSMD use was sitting (77 ± 5 2 min/day), with participants also spending considerable time lying down in the home environment (39 ± 49 min/day). These findings provide valuable insights into how adults are using TSMDs, including the postures and locations of use. Further research is needed on the health and wellbeing implications of these usage patterns. Practitioner summary: This study explored Touchscreen Mobile Device (TSMD) use in free-living conditions among 54 adults (mean ± standard deviation, 38 ± 10 years). Participants under 30 years spent significantly more time on their devices. More than half of the time spent using TSMD occurred at home while sitting and lying down.Abbreviations: TSMD: touchscreen mobile device; SD: standard deviation; MSD: musculoskeletal disorder; HDR: higher degree by research; SEES: School of Earth and Environmental Sciences; UK: The United Kingdom; USA: United States of America; SAS: statistical analysis system; ANOVA: analysis of variance; SPSS: statistical package for the social sciences; h: hour; min/d: minutes per day; d: day; ICC: intraclass correlation; CI: confidence interval; min: minute; GPS: global positioning systemsHighlightsTouchscreen mobile device use and gross body posture were quantified objectively.The most common postures for touchscreen mobile device use were lying and sitting.Touchscreen mobile devices were used around twice as much at home than at work.Use at home, with a predominance of the lying posture, needs further investigation.

Evaluation of waste isoflurane gas exposure during rodent surgery in an Australian university.

Biomedical researchers use of inhalational anesthetics has increased in recent years. Use of isoflurane as an inhalational anesthetic may result in human exposure to waste anesthetic gas. Potential health effects from exposure include genotoxic and hepatotoxic effects with some evidence of teratogenic and reproductive effects. Research suggests that exposure to waste anesthetic gas within human hospital settings has improved substantially but exposures to biomedical researchers and veterinarians still requires improvement. A number of biomedical research facilities are located at The University of Queensland, Australia, where researchers and animal handlers are potentially exposed to waste isoflurane gas. There is limited published data on the exposures received by biomedical researchers performing routine procedures. This project aimed to assess isoflurane exposure received during routine rodent anesthetic protocols performed at the university. Atmospheric concentrations of isoflurane were assessed via two methods-personal active gas sampling using sorbent tubes and direct readings using infrared spectroscopy. Total procedure and isoflurane exposure times ranged from 135-268 min. Personal sorbent tube sampling detected isoflurane levels from below detectable limits (<0.01 ppm) to a Time Weighted Average for the task (TWA-Task) of 6.20 ppm (0.73 ± 9.13). Participants were not exposed to isoflurane outside of the sampling period during the remainder of the workday. TWA-8 hr adjusted levels ranged from below the limit of detection to 1.76 ppm isoflurane (0.69 ppm ± 0.61 ppm). The infrared spectroscopy readings taken in the breathing zone of participants ranged from 0.1-68 ppm. Results indicate that if adequately controlled through good room ventilation, effective active gas scavenging and well constructed anesthetic equipment, waste anesthetic exposures are minimal. However, where industry standards are not met exposures may occur, including some high peak exposures.