Organophosphate ester (OPE) exposure among waste recycling and administrative workers in Denmark using silicone wristbands.

In a recent estimate, 96 million tons of hazardous waste were produced in the European Union, most of which were handled among the member states. Organophosphate esters (OPEs) are applied as flame retardants and plasticizers and are present in many products, e.g., electronics, which end up in the hazardous waste stream upon disposal. Given the growing body of information suggesting potential adverse health effects of OPEs, waste recycling workers who handle hazardous waste could potentially be at risk of elevated exposure to these chemicals. Using silicone wristbands, we evaluated OPE exposure among waste recycling workers who handled hazardous waste and compared their exposure to that of administrative workers from the same waste companies. Wristbands were extracted and analyzed for six OPEs, which were all detected in >75% of wristbands. Overall, the sum of tris(2-chloroisopropyl) phosphate (∑TCIPP) isomers was the most abundant OPE across all wristbands collected within the study. In general, the sum of tri(methyl phenyl) phosphate isomers (∑TMPP) was elevated for all waste workers (10ß = 7.9), whereas tri-n-butyl phosphate (TnBP), tris(1,3-dichloroisopropyl) phosphate (TDCIPP), and ∑TMPP were 3-12 times higher among those specifically handling electronic and hazardous waste compared to the administrative workers (p < 0.05). Repeated wristband measurements from the same worker had fair to good consistency in OPE concentrations (intraclass correlation coefficients = 0.54-0.77), except for the two most volatile chlorinated OPEs. Taken together, our results suggest that waste recycling workers who handle electronic and hazardous waste have significantly elevated exposure to OPEs, and efforts to reduce these exposures should be considered.

Systemic reactogenicity following homologues and heterologous prime-boost AZD1222 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination of 2862 healthcare workers compared with an unvaccinated population.

During spring 2021, AZD1222 and BNT162b2 were used as prime and BNT162b2 as booster COVID-19 vaccines in Denmark. We obtained self-reported information on systemic reactogenicity day-by-day during two weeks for 2862 healthcare workers vaccinated with heterologous AZD1222 + BNT162b2 or homologous BNT162b2 + BNT162b2 regimens and compared prevalences of symptoms with unvaccinated healthcare workers. We found comparable systemic reactogenicity during the first week in the two vaccine regimens and no reactogenicity during the second week. Most of the symptoms returned to a level equal to the control population four days after booster vaccination.

Extent of smoking at a Danish hospital with a smoke-free policy.

AIM: One-fifth of the Danish population smoke and exposure to second-hand smoke has well-documented adverse health effects. The smoking policy at hospital level prohibits hospital staff from smoking on the hospital grounds while patients and visitors may smoke in outdoor smoking cabins. This study aimed to quantify smoking at a Danish hospital and document any policy breaches. METHODS: In April 2020, we collected cigarette butts and observed smokers at the outdoor grounds to document smoking behaviour. RESULTS: In total, 7152 cigarette butts were collected during one week and 368 people were observed smoking at the outdoor grounds during four observation days. Of all collected cigarette butts, 55% were collected outside the smoking cabins and 62% of all smokers were observed smoking outside the smoking cabins. In addition, 31 staff were observed smoking. CONCLUSIONS: This study documents that smoking is prevalent at a smoke-free hospital and that the smoking policy is frequently violated. The frequency of smoking outside the cabins may at least partly be influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic. Smoking at a hospital can expose patients, visitors and staff to second-hand smoke with subsequent adverse health effects. Hospitals could play an exemplary role towards a smoke-free society (and not the exception), but the opportunity is not always seized.

From inequitable to sustainable e-waste processing for reduction of impact on human health and the environment.

Recycling of electric and electronic waste products (e-waste) which amounted to more than 50 million metric tonnes per year worldwide is a massive and global operation. Unfortunately, an estimated 70-80% of this waste has not been properly managed because the waste went from developed to low-income countries to be dumped into landfills or informally recycled. Such recycling has been carried out either directly on landfill sites or in small, often family-run recycling shops without much regulations or oversights. The process traditionally involved manual dismantling, cleaning with hazardous solvents, burning and melting on open fires, etc., which would generate a variety of toxic substances and exposure/hazards to applicators, family members, proximate residents and the environment. The situation clearly calls for global responsibility to reduce the impact on human health and the environment, especially in developing countries where poor residents have been shouldering the hazardous burden. On the other hand, formal e-waste recycling has been mainly conducted in small scales in industrialized countries. Whether the latter process would impose less risk to populations and environment has not been determined yet. Therefore, the main objectives of this review are: 1. to address current trends and emerging threats of not only informal but also formal e-waste management practices, and 2. to propose adequate measures and interventions. A major recommendation is to conduct independent surveillance of compliance with e-waste trading and processing according to the Basel Ban Amendment. The recycling industry needs to be carefully evaluated by joint effort from international agencies, producing industries and other stakeholders to develop better processes. Subsequent transition to more sustainable and equitable e-waste management solutions should result in more effective use of natural resources, and in prevention of adverse effects on health and the environment.