Method: A cross-sectional study was conducted in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah between January and April 2020. Data were collected using a validated questionnaire which encompasses details about sociodemographic, health status, environment, and employment characteristics.
Results: A total of 290 waste collectors with a mean age of 40 (±9) years old were participated in the study. Most of them were from Kadazan-Dusun-Murut ethnic origin with educational background till secondary school. The average monthly income of the workers was USD 298.45 (±171.9) per month, and they had been in service for 11 (±9.04) years. Respiratory symptoms were seen in 21% of the workers. The identified significant risk factors were determined as underlying chronic diseases (OR=2.34; 95% CI=1.054, 5.219) and contact with pets (OR=1.87; 95% CI=1.004, 3.288).
Conclusion: Respiratory symptoms are prevalent amidst domestic waste collectors and related to their health and field activities.
METHODS: GHS classification for reproductive toxicity of 157 UOG-related chemicals identified as potential reproductive or developmental toxicants in a previous publication was assessed using eleven governmental regulatory agency databases. If there was discordance in classifications across agencies, the most stringent classification was assigned. Chemicals in the category of known or presumed human reproductive toxicants were further evaluated for carcinogenicity and germ cell mutagenicity based on government classifications. A scoring system was utilized to assign numerical values for reproductive health, cancer and germ cell mutation hazard endpoints. Using a Cytoscape analysis, both qualitative and quantitative results were presented visually to readily identify high priority UOG chemicals with evidence of multiple adverse effects.
RESULTS: We observed substantial inconsistencies in classification among the 11 databases. By adopting the most stringent classification within and across countries, 43 chemicals were classified as known or presumed human reproductive toxicants (GHS Category 1), while 31 chemicals were classified as suspected human reproductive toxicants (GHS Category 2). The 43 reproductive toxicants were further subjected to analysis for carcinogenic and mutagenic properties. Calculated hazard scores and Cytoscape visualization yielded several high priority chemicals including potassium dichromate, cadmium, benzene and ethylene oxide.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reveal diverging GHS classification outcomes for UOG chemicals across regulatory agencies. Adoption of the most stringent classification with application of hazard scores provides a useful approach to prioritize reproductive toxicants in UOG and other industries for exposure assessments and selection of safer alternatives.