Use of cotinine biomarker in workers to detect green tobacco sickness
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.3141.3194Keywords:
Biomarkers; Cotinine; Occupational Diseases; Tobacco; Nicotine; Rural WorkersAbstract
Objective
using the urinary cotinine biomarker to verify the occurrence of green tobacco sickness in workers who cultivate Burley tobacco.
Method
paired case-control study, based on smoking status and on the 1:4 ratio, with participation of 20 case workers and 91 controls. Data collection included household surveys and urine collection for cotinine examination. Student’s T-Test, the Mann-Whitney test, Pearson’s chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests were used.
Results
of the 23 suspected cases, 20 showed elevated levels of cotinine, signs and symptoms of headache, skin irritation, nausea, sickness and general malaise, especially in the morning. Most had worked with tobacco that was wet from the morning dew and when the weather was warm.
Conclusion
there are signs suggestive of green tobacco sickness in Burley tobacco workers. The action of health professionals is necessary for the development of health promotion and preventive actions addressing work-related illness.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
RLAE’s authorship concept is based on the substantial contribution by each of the individuals listed as authors, mainly in terms of conceiving and planning the research project, collecting or analyzing and interpreting data, writing and critical review. Indication of authors’ names under the article title is limited to six. If more, authors are listed on the online submission form under Acknowledgements. The possibility of including more than six authors will only be examined on multicenter studies, considering the explanations presented by the authors.Including names of authors whose contribution does not fit into the above criteria cannot be justified. Those names can be included in the Acknowledgements section.
Authors are fully responsible for the concepts disseminated in their manuscripts, which do not necessarily reflect the editors’ and editorial board’s opinion.
