ijerph-logo

Journal Browser

Journal Browser

Modern Occupational Medicine

A special issue of International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (ISSN 1660-4601). This special issue belongs to the section "Global Health".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 30 September 2024 | Viewed by 4187

Special Issue Editors


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Occupational and Social Medicine, Holbæk Hospital, part of Copenhagen University Hospital, 4300 Holbæk, Denmark
Interests: aerobic and physical workload; cardiorespiratory fitness; exercise; hypertension; physical activity; blood pressure; worksite interventions; inequality in health across occupational groups

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Occupational and Social Medicine, Holbæk Hospital, Part of Copenhagen University Hospital, 4300 Holbæk, Denmark
Interests: skin cancer; occupational medicine; contact dermatitis; occupational lung disease; occupational allergies

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Previously, occupational medicine has focused on the elimination of risks in the physical work environment, which have initiated a regulated and standardized work environment in many countries. However, workers still suffer from risks posed by the physical work environment, pointing towards a need for a shift in focus towards individual susceptibility and integration of health promotion and prevention in the organization of the work and environment. Nonetheless, the workforce stills need to maintain and improve work ability and good health due to increasing retirement ages; thus, initiatives targeting these objectives are warranted.

In particular, less educated employees and employees exposed to high levels of occupational physical activity and chemical or organic exposure are at a risk of decreased work ability. Occupational physical activity may have adverse health consequences, contrary to leisure time physical activity, which is called the physical activity paradox, although the physiological mechanisms surrounding this paradox are yet to be understood. The incidence of allergic diseases continues to rise and new occupational exposure to chemical and organic compounds are constantly introduced in the work environment. This is a general problem in workplaces, but individual hypersensitivity may also be a problem.

Dr. Mette Korshøj
Dr. Tanja Korfitsen Carøe
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2500 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • worksite intervention
  • health promotion/prevention at the worksite
  • mechanisms explaining the physical activity paradox
  • healthy workforce promotion
  • chemical and organic compounds at the worksite/workplace
  • occupational asthma
  • occupational allergy
  • occupational eczema/dermatitis

Published Papers (2 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Review

8 pages, 784 KiB  
Article
Pinch Grip per SE Is Not an Occupational Risk Factor for the Musculoskeletal System: An Experimental Study on Field
by Emma Sala, Nicola Francesco Lopomo, Francesco Romagnoli, Cesare Tomasi, Jacopo Fostinelli and Giuseppe De Palma
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(15), 8975; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph19158975 - 23 Jul 2022
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 1138
Abstract
Introduction: Some ergonomic evaluation methods define pinch grip as a risk factor independent of the exerted force. The present experimental study was performed with the main aim of objectively measuring the muscle engagement during the execution of pinch grip. Methods: the participants of [...] Read more.
Introduction: Some ergonomic evaluation methods define pinch grip as a risk factor independent of the exerted force. The present experimental study was performed with the main aim of objectively measuring the muscle engagement during the execution of pinch grip. Methods: the participants of the study were healthy workers occupationally involved in a high-intensity repetitive job related to the sorting of letters and small packages. Surface electromyography (sEMG) was used to study the activity of the abductor pollicis brevis and first dorsal interosseous fibers related to the execution of the required working tasks, while the force exerted during voluntary muscle contraction for pinch grip was measured by a portable acquisition system. The subjects were specifically asked to exert the maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) and further voluntary isometric contractions with a spontaneous force (SF) equal to 10%,20% and 50% of the MVIC; finally, the workers were asked to hold in pinch grip two types of envelopes, weighing 100 g and 500 g, respectively. Results: The force required to pinch 100 and 500 g envelopes by the fifteen subjects of the study corresponded to 4 and 5% MVIC, respectively. The corresponding sEMG average rectified values (ARV) were approximately 6% of that at MVIC for first dorsal interosseus (FDI) fibers and approximately 20–25% of MVIC for abductor pollicis brevis (ABP) fibers. Bivariate correlation analysis showed significant relationships between force at MVIC and FDI ARV at MCV. Conclusions: The obtained results demonstrate that muscle recruitment during pinch grip varies as a function of the SF: not only the position but also the exerted force should be considered when assessing the pinch grip as risk factor for biomechanical overload of the upper limb. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Modern Occupational Medicine)
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Review

Jump to: Research

25 pages, 1061 KiB  
Review
Skin Toxicity of Selected Hair Cosmetic Ingredients: A Review Focusing on Hairdressers
by Cara Symanzik, Patricia Weinert, Željka Babić, Sarah Hallmann, Martin Stibius Havmose, Jeanne Duus Johansen, Sanja Kezic, Marija Macan, Jelena Macan, Julia Strahwald, Rajka Turk, Henk F. van der Molen, Swen Malte John and Wolfgang Uter
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(13), 7588; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph19137588 - 21 Jun 2022
Cited by 6 | Viewed by 2647
Abstract
The safety assessment of cosmetics considers the exposure of a ‘common consumer’, not the occupational exposure of hairdressers. This review aims to compile and appraise evidence regarding the skin toxicity of cysteamine hydrochloride (cysteamine HCl; CAS no. 156-57-0), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP; CAS no. 9003-39-8), [...] Read more.
The safety assessment of cosmetics considers the exposure of a ‘common consumer’, not the occupational exposure of hairdressers. This review aims to compile and appraise evidence regarding the skin toxicity of cysteamine hydrochloride (cysteamine HCl; CAS no. 156-57-0), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP; CAS no. 9003-39-8), PVP copolymers (CAS no. 28211-18-9), sodium laureth sulfate (SLES; CAS no. 9004-82-4), cocamide diethanolamine (cocamide DEA; CAS no. 68603-42-9), and cocamidopropyl betaine (CAPB; CAS no. 61789-40-0). A total of 298 articles were identified, of which 70 were included. Meta-analysis revealed that hairdressers have a 1.7-fold increased risk of developing a contact allergy to CAPB compared to controls who are not hairdressers. Hairdressers might have a higher risk of acquiring quantum sensitization against cysteamine HCl compared to a consumer because of their job responsibilities. Regarding cocamide DEA, the irritant potential of this surfactant should not be overlooked. Original articles for PVP, PVP copolymers, and SLES are lacking. This systematic review indicates that the current standards do not effectively address the occupational risks associated with hairdressers’ usage of hair cosmetics. The considerable irritant and/or allergenic potential of substances used in hair cosmetics should prompt a reassessment of current risk assessment practices. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Modern Occupational Medicine)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop