Advertisement

European Journal of Epidemiology

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 109–116 | Cite as

Occupational risks of zoonotic infections in Dutch forestry workers and muskrat catchers

  • A.W. Moll van Charante
  • J. Groen
  • P.G.H. Mulder
  • S.G.T. Rijpkema
  • A.D.M.E. Osterhaus
Article

Abstract

Lyme borreliosis (LymeB), Hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HemoFRS), Lymphocytic choriomeningitis (LymphoCM), Tick-borne encephalitis (TickBE), Q Fever (QFever), and Weil's leptospirosis (Lepto) are known to be occupational diseases for rural outdoor workers. We investigated the occupational infection risks for these diseases in greater detail. Antibodies to these agents were assessed in 312 forestry workers and muskrat catchers, and in 356 matched office workers. Three levels of occupational exposure were distinguished: high for active forestry workers, low for supervisory forestry staff and muskrat catchers and zero for office workers. At high exposure the prevalence odds ratios (with 95% CI between brackets) were: LymeB 15 (5.5–42), HemoFRS 11 (1.3–501), LymphoCM 5.4 (1.0–50), TickBE 1.0 (0.3–3.0), QFever 1.0 (0.4–2.1), and Lepto 0 (0.0–33). No significant risk of infection was found at low exposure. Part of the present group had also been studied in 1989 and 1990. Within this cohort the conversion rates to Borrelia burgdorferi have been estimated for the periods 1989–1990 and 1990–1993 as 0.23 and 0.066 year-1, respectively, and the reversion rate as 0.44 year-1. The corresponding values for HemoFRS were 0.031, 0.018 and 1.42 year-1. Active forestry workers in the Netherlands are at high risk of infection by LymeB, HemoFRS and LymphoCM. Prevalence of antibodies to LymeB and HemoFRS appeared to reflect the levels of these infection hazards in recent history.

Forestry workers Hantavirus nephropathy Lyme borreliosis Lymphocytic choriomeningitis Seroconversion rate Zoonoses 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Staudt FJ. Certification of forestry contractors to improve quality of forest work in The Netherlands. In: Staudt FJ (ed), Proceedings of the session of the IUFRO Ergonomic group held at the IURFO Centennial Berlin/ Eberswalde. Wageningen: Department of Forestry, Agricultural University Wageningen, 1992: 37–43.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marshall SW, Kawachi I, Cryer PC, Wright D, Slappendel C, Laird I. The epidemiology of forestry work-related injuries in New Zealand, 1975–88: Fatalities and hospitalisations. New Zealand Med J 1994; 107: 434–437.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Starck J, Pyykkoe I, Koskimies K, Pekkarinen J. Vibration exposure and prevention in Finland. Nagoya J Med Sc 1994; 57: Suppl 203–210.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Green LM. A cohort mortality study of forestry workers exposed to phenoxy acid herbicides. Brit J Ind Med 1991; 48: 234–238.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eduard W. Assessement of mould spore exposure and relations to symptoms in wood trimmers [Dissertation]. Wageningen: Eduard, 1993: 47–48.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dutkiewicz J, Jablonski L, Olenchok SA. Occupational biohazards: A review. Am J Indust Med 1988; 14: 605– 23.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Neubert U, Münchhoff P, Völker B, Reimers CD, Pflüger KH. Borrelia burgdorferi infections in Bavarian forest workers, a follow-up study. Ann NY Ac Sc 1987; 539: 476–479.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guy EC, Bateman DE, Martyn CN, Heckels JE. Lyme disease: Prevalence and clinical importance of Borrelia burgdorferi specific IgG in forestry workers. Lancet 1989; ii: 485–486.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kuiper H, Dam AP van, Moll van Charante AW, Nauta AP, Dankert J. One year follow-up study to assess the prevalence and incidence of Lyme borreliosis among Dutch forestry workers. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1993; 12: 413–418.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Waitkins SA. Leptospirosis as an occupational disease. Br J Indust Med 1986; 43: 721–725.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nutti M, Ammaddeo D, Autorino GL, et al. Seroprevalence of antibodies to hantaviruses and leptospires in selected Italian population groups. Eur J Epidemiol 1992; 8: 98–101.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clement J, McKenna P, Colson P, et al. Hantavirus epidemic in Europe, 1993. Lancet 1994; i: 114–116.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Groen J, Gerding MN, Jordans JGM, et al. Hantavirus infections in The Netherlands: Epidemiology and disease. Epidemiol Infect 1995; 114: 373–383.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ackerman, R. Epidemiologic aspects of lymphocytic choriomeningitis in man. In: Lehmann-Grube F (ed), Lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus and other arenaviruses. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1973: 233–237.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ross C, Morrow PS. Q fever: An issue in occupational health and safety? An overview of the methods of control and the effects of Coxiella burnetti on the human host. J Roy Soc Health 1994; 114: 151–152.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Prokopowicz D, Bobrowska E, Bobrowski M, Grzeszczuk A. Prevalence of antibodies against Tick-borne encephalitis among residents of North-Eastern Poland. Scand J Infect Dis 1995; 27: 15–16.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gustafson R. Epidemiological studies of Lyme borreliosis and Tick-borne encephalitis. Stockholm: Kongl. Carolinska Medico Chirurgiska Institutet, 1993: 24–6, 50.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moll van Charante AW, Groen J, Osterhaus ADME. Risk of infections transmitted by arthropods and ro116 dents in forestry workers. Eur J Epidemiol 1994; 10: 349–351.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schwartz BS, Goldstein MD. Lyme disease in outdoor workers: Risk factors, preventive measures, and tick removal methods. Am J Epidemiol 1990; 131: 877–885.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kosa J, Alpert JJ, Haggerty RJ. On the reliability of family health information, a comparative study of mothers' reports of illness and related behaviors. Soc Sc Med 1967; 1: 165–181.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Osterhaus ADME, Groen J. Hantavirus nephropathy in the Netherlands. Lancet 1989; ii: 338–339.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ma B, Christen B, Leung D, Vigo-Perlfrey C. Serodiagnosis of Lyme borreliosis by Western immunoblot: Reactivity of various significant antibodies against Borrelia burgdorferi. J Clin Microbiol 1992; 30: 370–376.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Groen J, Jordans HGM, Clement JPG, et al. Identification of Hantavirus serotypes by testing post-infection sera in immunoflorescence and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. J Med Virol 1991; 33: 26–32.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Terpstra WJ, Ligthart GS, Schoone GJ. ELISA for the detection of Specific IgM and IgG in human leptospirosis. J Gen Microbiol 1985; 131: 377–385.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rothman KJ. Modern epidemiology. Boston/Toronto: Little, Brown & Comp., 1986: 32–34.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Morgenstern H. Epidemiologic research, principles and quantitative methods. London: Lifetime learning publications, 1982: 120–122.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pether, JVS, Lloyd G. The clinical spectrum of human Hantavirus infection in Somerset. Epidemiol & Infect 1993; 111: 171–175.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • A.W. Moll van Charante
    • 1
  • J. Groen
    • 2
  • P.G.H. Mulder
    • 3
  • S.G.T. Rijpkema
    • 4
  • A.D.M.E. Osterhaus
    • 2
  1. 1.Arbo Management Groep AMGUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Clinical VirologyUniversity Hospital, Erasmus UniversityRotterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Institute of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsErasmus University RotterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Laboratory of Immunobiology of the National Institute of Public Health and Environment ProtectionRIVMBilthovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations