Prevalence and Risk Factors of Sinus and Nasal Allergies among Tannery Workers of Kanpur City
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods and Material
2.1. Data
2.2. Study Area
2.3. Sampling Design
2.4. Participants and Occupational Categories
2.4.1. Dependent Variable
2.4.2. Independent Variables
2.5. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Demographic and Socio-Economic Characteristics of Tannery and Non-Tannery Workers
3.2. Work-Related Characteristics of Tannery and Non-Tannery Workers
3.3. Prevalence of Reported Sinus and Nasal Allergies
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
6. Limitations of the Study
- ✓
- The use of a cross-sectional survey to collect data may have underestimated the true prevalence of morbidities.
- ✓
- The results of self-reported morbidities could be biased due to subjectivity in responses as the severity was not quantified.
- ✓
- Recall bias may also have affected the estimated prevalence of morbidities.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Heggannavar, A.B.; Harugop, A.S.; Madhale, D.M.; Walavalkar, L.S. A randomised controlled study to evaluate the effectiveness of shortwave diathermy in acute sinusitis. Int. J. Physiother. Res. 2017, 5, 2066–2072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pratibha, M. 1 in 8 Indians Hit by Chronic Sinusitis: Study, TNN, Updated: 11 April 2012. Available online: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/12615317.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst (accessed on 16 December 2020).
- Rosheena, Z. Prone to Sinusitis? Air Pollution in Your City Is Making It Worse. 2018. Available online: https://fit.thequint.com/fit/sinusitis-and-pollution-in-india#gs.X5Jft29n (accessed on 16 December 2020).
- Ateeq, M.; Hameed, U.; Rehman, S.Z.; Ullah, F.; Khan, A.R.; Zahoor, B.; Akbar, N.U.; Saeed, K. Evaluation of health risks among the workers employed in tannery industry in Pakistan. J. Entomol. Zool Study 2016, 4, 244–246. [Google Scholar]
- Browning, E. Toxicity of Industrial Metals, 2nd ed.; Butterworth: London, UK, 1975; Volume 119, pp. 249–260. [Google Scholar]
- Walsh, E.N. Chromate hazards in industry. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1953, 153, 1305–1308. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Rastogi, S.K.; Pandey, A.; Tripathi, S. Occupational health risks among the workers employed in leather tanneries at Kanpur. Indian J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2008, 12, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Stern, R.M.; Berlin, A.; Fletcher, A. International conference on health hazards and biological effects of welding fumes and gases. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 1986, 57, 237–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angerer, J.; Amin, W.; Heinnrich-Ramm, R. Occupational chronic exposure to metals. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 1987, 59, 503–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lin, S.C.; Tai, C.C. Nasal septum lesion caused by chromium among chromium electroplating workers. Am. J. Ind. Med. 1994, 26, 221–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, A.H.; Bragt, P.C. Risk assessment of the allergic dermatitis: Potential of environmental exposure to hexavalent chromium. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 1993, 40, 613–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mikoczy, Z.; Hagmar, L. Cancer incidence in the Swedish leather tanning industry: Updated findings 1958–99. Occup. Environ. Med. 2005, 62, 461–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Veyalkin, L.V.; Milyutin, A.A. Proportionate cancer mortality among workers in the Belarussian tanning industry. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2003, 44, 637–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Basketter, D.; Horev, L.; Slodovnik, D.; Merimes, S.; Trattner, A.; Ingber, A. Investigation of the threshold for allergic reactivity to chromium. Contact Dermat. 2001, 44, 70–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rabbani, G.; Billah, B.; Giri, A.; Hossain, S.M.; Mahmud, A.I.; Banu, B.; Ara, U.; Alif, S.M. Factors Associated with Health Complaints Among Leather Tannery Workers in Bangladesh. Workplace Health Saf. 2020, 2165079920936222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kish, L. A procedure for objective respondent selection within the household. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1949, 44, 380–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, F.B. Mortality among chrome leather tannery workers: An update. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2003, 44, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kornhauser, C.; Katarzyna, W.; Kazimierz, W.; Malacara, J.M.; Laura, E.N.; Gomez, L.; González, R. Possible adverse effect of chromium in occupational exposure of tannery workers. Ind. Health 2002, 40, 207–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gupta, R.C.; Ranjan, R.; Kushwaha, R.N.; Khan, P.; Mohan, S. A questionnaire-based survey of dry eye disease among leather tannery workers in Kanpur, India: A case-control study. Cutan. Ocul. Toxicol. 2014, 33, 265–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- IARC. Wood, leather and some associated industries. Lyon, 3–10 June 1980. In IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans; Distributed for IARC by WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1981; Volume 25, pp. 1–379. [Google Scholar]
- Hasan, M.; Hosain, S.; Asaduzzaman, A.M.; Haque, M.A.; Roy, U.K. Prevalence of Health Diseases among Bangladeshi Tannery Workers and associated Risk factors with Workplace Investigation. J. Pollut. Eff. Control. 2016, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ASCIA (Australian Society of Clinical Emmunology and Allergy). Sinusitis and Allergy. 2015. Available online: https://www.allergy.org.au/patients/allergic-rhinitis-hay-fever-and-sinusitis/sinusitis-and-allergy (accessed on 16 December 2020).
Variables | Tannery Workers (%) | Non-Tannery (%) | χ2-Value |
---|---|---|---|
Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | |
Age in years | |||
16–24 | 10.2 | 6.9 | χ2 = 6.007 p < 0.050 |
25–35 | 36.3 | 29.8 | |
36+ | 53.5 | 63.3 | |
Education | |||
Illiterate | 66.1 | 62.2 | χ2 = 9.249 p < 0.026 |
Up to primary | 13.4 | 9.0 | |
Middle school | 8.8 | 8.7 | |
High school and above | 11.7 | 20.1 | |
Marital Status | |||
Currently married | 85.5 | 89.9 | χ2 = 2.629 |
Never married | 9.4 | 6.3 | p < 0.269 |
Widowed/Widower | 5.1 | 3.8 | |
Religion | |||
Hindu | 33.8 | 40.8 | χ2 = 3.023 |
Muslim | 66.2 | 59.2 | p < 0.082 |
Caste | |||
Schedule caste | 65.5 | 36.3 | χ2 = 48.75 |
Other backward class | 18.3 | 34.3 | p < 0.000 |
Others | 16.2 | 29.4 | |
Media exposure | |||
Low | 22.9 | 21.1 | χ2 = 0.263 |
Medium | 48.6 | 42.2 | p < 0.048 |
High | 28.5 | 36.7 | |
Standard of living index | |||
Low | 37.7 | 29.2 | χ2 = 4.673 |
Medium | 31.3 | 36.1 | p < 0.097 |
High | 31.0 | 34.7 |
Variables | (%) | (N) |
---|---|---|
Age in years (Mean ± SD) | 38.5 ± 1.4 | 284 |
Type of Job contract | ||
Temporary job (daily wages) | 89.1 | 252 |
Permanent job | 10.8 | 32 |
Type of work engagement of tannery workers * | ||
Beam house work | 8.4 | 24 |
Wet finishing work | 24.2 | 69 |
Dry finishing work | 50.5 | 142 |
Miscellaneous work | 16.8 | 49 |
Type of work engagement of non-tannery workers ** | ||
Industrial work | 11.7 | 34 |
Manual work | 26.5 | 76 |
Construction work | 20.0 | 58 |
Clerical work | 10.0 | 24 |
Business and shop | 24.5 | 71 |
Others | 7.0 | 21 |
Work experience in current tannery (Mean ± SD) | 10.1 ± 0.9 | 284 |
Work experience in previous tannery (Mean ± SD) | 7.9 ± 1.3 | 99 |
Average working hours in day (Mean ± SD) | 9.5 ± 0.2 | 284 |
Average working days in a week (Mean ± SD) | 6.5 ± 0.1 | 284 |
Background Variables | Tannery Workers | Non-Tannery Workers | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sinus [%, CI] | Nasal Allergy [%, CI] | Number (N) | Sinus [%, CI] | Nasal Allergy [%, CI] | Number (N) | |
Age in years | ||||||
16–24 | 13.8 [5.16–32.00] | 6.9 [1.67–24.33] | 29 | 0.0 [0.0–0.00] | 0.0 [0.0–0.00] | 21 |
25–35 | 10.7 [5.98–18.35] | 9.7 [5.27–17.19] | 103 | 1.2 [0.1–7.93] | 4.7 [1.73–11.85] | 85 |
36+ | 15.1 [10.24–21.80] | 15.1 [10.23–21.80] | 152 | 5.5 [2.95–9.89] | 7.7 [4.56–12.54] | 183 |
Education | ||||||
Illiterate | 12.8 [8.72–18.47] | 15.5 [10.96–21.47] | 187 | 3.9 [1.86–8.01] | 7.8 [4.66–12.81] | 179 |
Up to primary | 15.8 [7.16–31.29] | 10.5 [3.93–25.24] | 38 | 3.9 [0.05–23.65] | 3.9 [0.05–23.65] | 26 |
Middle school | 16.0 [ 5.98–36.30] | 8.0 [1.93–27.66] | 25 | 4.0 [0.05–24.45] | 8.0 [1.93–27.65] | 26 |
High school and above | 12.1 [4.53–28.60] | 0.0 [0.00–00.00] | 33 | 3.5 [0.08–12.97] | 1.7 [0.02–11.50] | 58 |
Religion | ||||||
Hindu | 14.6 [8.78–23.22] | 7.3 [3.49–14.60] | 96 | 6.8 [3.40–13.04] | 5.1 [2.28–10.92] | 117 |
Muslim | 12.8 [8.68–18.38] | 14.9 [10.45–20.77] | 188 | 1.8 [0.05–5.33] | 7.0 [4.01–11.99] | 172 |
Caste | ||||||
SC/ST | 13.4 [ 9.22–19.18] | 12.9 [8.77–18.57] | 186 | 6.7 [3.1813.40] | 5.7 [2.57–12.21] | 105 |
Other backward class | 7.7 [2.87–18.99] | 13.5 [6.48–25.86] | 52 | 4.0 [1.51–10.36] | 7.1 [3.38–14.18] | 98 |
Others | 19.6 [10.40–33.75] | 8.7 [3.25–21.24] | 46 | 0.0 [0.0–0.00] | 3.5 [2.44–13.47] | 86 |
Media exposure | ||||||
Low | 13.8 [7.30–24.68] | 9.2 [4.16–19.22] | 65 | 6.6 [2.45–16.37] | 9.8 [4.44–20.38] | 61 |
Medium | 11.6 [7.19–18.15] | 15.2 [10.10–22.27] | 138 | 4.1 [1.70–9.53] | 9.0 [5.03–15.61] | 122 |
High | 16.0 [9.49–25.82] | 9.9 [4.98–18.64] | 81 | 1.9 [0.04–7.31] | 5.3 [0.01–6.49] | 106 |
Standard of living index | ||||||
Low | 10.3 [5.75–17.69] | 11.2 [6.44–18.79] | 107 | 4.7 [1.78–12.11 ] | 8.3 [3.99–16.57] | 85 |
Medium | 16.9 [10.37–26.20] | 13.5 [7.77–22.36] | 89 | 4.8 [1.99–11.11] | 4.8 [1.99–11.11] | 104 |
High | 13.6 [7.86–22.60] | 12.5 [7.01–21.28] | 88 | 2.0 [0.04–7.73] | 6.0 [2.70–12.80] | 100 |
Total | 13.4 | 12.3 | 284 | 3.8 | 6.3 | 289 |
Variables | Model-1 | C.I. | Model-II | C.I. | Model-III | C.I. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age in years | ||||||
16–24 ® | ||||||
25–35 | 0.90 | [0.25–3.22] | 0.91 | [0.22–3.86] | 0.79 | [0.16–3.83] |
36+ | 1.40 | [0.41–4.83] | 1.57 | [0.38–6.49] | 1.41 | [0.30–6.50] |
Education | ||||||
Illiterate ® | ||||||
Up to primary | 1.10 | [0.39–3.10] | 0.87 | [0.28–2.68] | 1.22 | [0.36–4.20] |
Middle school | 0.81 | [0.20–3.20] | 0.81 | [0.18–3.68] | 0.89 | [0.14–5.52] |
High school and above | 0.54 | [0.14–2.10] | 0.42 | [0.09–1.87] | 0.74 | [0.14–3.87] |
Religion | ||||||
Hindu ® | ||||||
Muslim | 0.72 | [0.32–1.60] | 1.54 | [0.60–3.98] | 1.49 | [0.52–4.27] |
Caste | ||||||
SC/ST ® | ||||||
Other backward class | 0.53 | [0.17–1.66] | 0.75 | [0.21–2.69] | 0.76 | [0.22–2.57] |
Others | 1.85 | [0.72–4.77] | 0.93 | [0.31–2.80] | 1.18 | [0.26–5.42] |
Media exposure | ||||||
Low ® | ||||||
Medium | 0.78 | [0.31–2.00] | 1.01 | [0.36–2.86] | 3.04 | [0.94–9.78] |
High | 1.39 | [0.42–4.61] | 1.55 | [0.41–5.86] | 2.66 | [0.74–9.59] |
Standard of living index | ||||||
Low ® | ||||||
Medium | 2.15 * | [0.87–5.29] | 2.45 * | [0.89–6.75] | 3.059 * | [0.920–10.16] |
High | 1.65 | [0.61–4.44] | 2.17 | [0.70–6.71] | 2.810 | [0.795–9.926] |
Work experience in current tannery | ||||||
Up to 5 Yrs ® | ||||||
6 to 10 Yrs | 3.17 ** | [1.17–8.59] | 4.46 ** | [1.48–13.38] | ||
11+ Yrs | 1.64 | [0.54–4.96 ] | 1.28 | [0.36–4.52] | ||
Type of work | ||||||
Beam house work ® | ||||||
Wet finishing work | 1.55 | [0.28–8.69] | 1.64 | [0.25–10.83] | ||
Dry finishing work | 1.44 | [0.27–7.69] | 1.31 | [0.21–8.06] | ||
Miscellaneous work | 0.77 | [0.12–5.05] | 0.50 | [0.06–4.23] | ||
Type of Job contract | ||||||
Temporary job (daily wages) ® | ||||||
Permanent job | 0.46 | [0.12–1.75] | 0.28 | [0.06–1.38] | ||
Chemicals in the Air | ||||||
No exposure ® | ||||||
Low exposure | 1.31 | [0.41–4.23] | 1.05 | [0.30–3.66] | ||
Moderate/High exposure | 0.39 | [0.07–2.37] | 0.18 * | [0.02–1.35] | ||
Airborne dust | ||||||
No exposure ® | ||||||
Low exposure | 4.16 ** | [1.22–14.18] | 4.69 ** | [1.16–18.88] | ||
Moderate/High exposure | 1.20 | [0.22–6.54] | 0.72 | [0.11–4.65] | ||
Headache Problem | ||||||
No headache® | ||||||
Up to 10 times | 1.28 | [0.46–3.56] | ||||
More than 10 times but not every day | 2.23 | [0.51–9.73] | ||||
Almost every day | 1.52 ** | [0.23–9.98] | ||||
Nasal Allergy | ||||||
No ® | ||||||
Yes | 20.59 *** | [6.09–69.63] |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kashyap, G.C.; Vishwakarma, D.; Singh, S.K. Prevalence and Risk Factors of Sinus and Nasal Allergies among Tannery Workers of Kanpur City. Sinusitis 2021, 5, 5-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/sinusitis5010002
Kashyap GC, Vishwakarma D, Singh SK. Prevalence and Risk Factors of Sinus and Nasal Allergies among Tannery Workers of Kanpur City. Sinusitis. 2021; 5(1):5-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/sinusitis5010002
Chicago/Turabian StyleKashyap, Gyan Chandra, Deepanjali Vishwakarma, and Shri Kant Singh. 2021. "Prevalence and Risk Factors of Sinus and Nasal Allergies among Tannery Workers of Kanpur City" Sinusitis 5, no. 1: 5-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/sinusitis5010002
APA StyleKashyap, G. C., Vishwakarma, D., & Singh, S. K. (2021). Prevalence and Risk Factors of Sinus and Nasal Allergies among Tannery Workers of Kanpur City. Sinusitis, 5(1), 5-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/sinusitis5010002