Quantifiable urine glyphosate levels detected in 99% of the French population, with higher values in men, in younger people, and in farmers

France is the first pesticide-consuming country in Europe. Glyphosate is the most used pesticide worldwide and glyphosate is detected in the general population of industrialized countries, with higher levels found in farmers and children. Little data was available concerning exposure in France. Our objective was to determine glyphosate levels in the French general population and to search for an association with seasons, biological features, lifestyle status, dietary habits, and occupational exposure. This study includes 6848 participants recruited between 2018 and 2020. Associated data include age, gender, location, employment status, and dietary information. Glyphosate was quantified by a single laboratory in first-void urine samples using ELISA. Our results support a general contamination of the French population, with glyphosate quantifiable in 99.8% of urine samples with a mean of 1.19 ng/ml + / − 0.84 after adjustment to body mass index (BMI). We confirm higher glyphosate levels in men and children. Our results support glyphosate contamination through food and water intake, as lower glyphosate levels are associated with dominant organic food intake and filtered water. Higher occupational exposure is confirmed in farmers and farmers working in wine-growing environment. Thus, our present results show a general contamination of the French population with glyphosate, and further contribute to the description of a widespread contamination in industrialized countries.

Healthcare institutions’ recommendation regarding the use of FFP-2 masks and SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among healthcare workers: a multicenter longitudinal cohort study

Background Health care workers (HCW) are heavily exposed to SARS-CoV-2 from the beginning of the pandemic. We aimed to analyze risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion among HCW with a special emphasis on the respective healthcare institutions’ recommendation regarding the use of FFP-2 masks. Methods We recruited HCW from 13 health care institutions (HCI) with different mask policies (type IIR surgical face masks vs. FFP-2 masks) in Southeastern Switzerland (canton of Grisons). Sera of participants were analyzed for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies 6 months apart, after the first and during the second pandemic wave using an electro-chemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA, Roche Diagnostics). We captured risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection by using an online questionnaire at both time points. The effects of individual COVID-19 exposure, regional incidence and FFP-2 mask policy on the probability of seroconversion were evaluated with univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Results SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were detected in 99 of 2794 (3.5%) HCW at baseline and in 376 of 2315 (16.2%) participants 6 months later. In multivariable analyses the strongest association for seroconversion was exposure to a household member with known COVID-19 (aOR: 19.82, 95% CI 8.11–48.43, p < 0.001 at baseline and aOR: 8.68, 95% CI 6.13–12.29, p < 0.001 at follow-up). Significant occupational risk factors at baseline included exposure to COVID-19 patients (aOR: 2.79, 95% CI 1.28–6.09, p = 0.010) and to SARS-CoV-2 infected co-workers (aOR: 2.50, 95% CI 1.52–4.12, p < 0.001). At follow up 6 months later, non-occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals (aOR: 2.54, 95% CI 1.66–3.89 p < 0.001) and the local COVID-19 incidence of the corresponding HCI (aOR: 1.98, 95% CI 1.30–3.02, p = 0.001) were associated with seroconversion. The healthcare institutions’ mask policy (surgical masks during usual exposure vs. general use of FFP-2 masks) did not affect seroconversion rates of HCW during the first and the second pandemic wave. Conclusion Contact with SARS-CoV-2 infected household members was the most important risk factor for seroconversion among HCW. The strongest occupational risk factor was exposure to COVID-19 patients. During this pandemic, with heavy non-occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the mask policy of HCIs did not affect the seroconversion rate of HCWs.

Occupational Exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and Risk of Infection Among Healthcare Personnel

Objective: To assess the rate and factors associated with healthcare personnel (HCP) testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 after an occupational exposure Design: Retrospective cohort study Setting: Academic medical center with sites in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Florida Subjects: HCP with a high or medium risk occupational exposure to a patient or other HCP with SARS-CoV-2 Methods: We reviewed the records of HCP with significant occupational exposures from March 20th, 2020 through December 31st, 2020. We then performed regression analysis to assess the impact of demographic and occupational variables to assess their impact on the likelihood of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 Results: A total of 2,253 confirmed occupational exposures occurred during the study period. Employees were the source for 57.1% of exposures. Overall, 101 (4.5%) HCP tested positive in the postexposure period. Of these, 80 had employee sources of exposure and 21 had patient sources of exposure. The post exposure infection rate was 6.2% when employees were the source, compared to 2.2% with patient sources. In a multivariate analysis, occupational exposure from an employee source had a higher risk of testing positive compared to a patient source (OR 3.22 95% CI (1.72-6.04)). Gender, age, high-risk exposure, and HCP role were not associated with increased risk of testing positive. Conclusions: The risk of acquiring COVID-19 following a significant occupational exposure is relatively low, even in the pre-vaccination era. Exposure to an infectious coworker carries a higher risk than exposure to a patient. Continued vigilance and precautions remain necessary in healthcare settings.

Health risks and mitigation strategies from occupational exposure to wildland fire: a scoping review

Objectives Due to accelerating wildland fire activity, there is mounting urgency to understand, prevent, and mitigate the occupational health impacts associated with wildland fire suppression. The objectives of this review of academic and grey literature were to: Identify the impact of occupational exposure to wildland fires on physical, mental, and emotional health; and Examine the characteristics and effectiveness of prevention, mitigation, or management strategies studied to reduce negative health outcomes associated with occupational exposure to wildland fire. Methods Following established scoping review methods, academic literature as well as government and industry reports were identified by searching seven academic databases and through a targeted grey literature search. 4679 articles were screened using pre-determined eligibility criteria. Data on study characteristics, health outcomes assessed, prevention or mitigation strategies studied, and main findings were extracted from each included document. The results of this scoping review are presented using descriptive tables and a narrative summary to organize key findings. Results The final sample was comprised of 100 articles: 76 research articles and 24 grey literature reports. Grey literature focused on acute injuries and fatalities. Health outcomes reported in academic studies focused on respiratory health (n = 14), mental health (n = 16), and inflammation and oxidative stress (n = 12). The identified studies evaluated short-term outcomes measuring changes across a single shift or wildland fire season. Most research was conducted with wildland firefighters and excluded personnel such as aviation crews, contract crews, and incident management teams. Five articles reported direct study of mitigation strategies, focusing on the potential usage of masks, advanced hygiene protocols to reduce exposure, fluid intake to manage hydration and core temperature, and glutamine supplementation to reduce fatigue. Conclusions While broad in scope, the evidence base linking wildland fire exposure to any one health outcome is limited. The lack of long-term evidence on changes in health status or morbidity is a clear evidence gap and there is a need to prioritize research on the mental and physical health impact of occupational exposure to wildland fire.