Objectives-Employees in alumina refineries are known to be exposed to a num
ber of potential respiratory irritants, particularly caustic mist and bauxi
te and alumina dusts. To examine the prevalence of work related respiratory
symptoms acid lung function in alumina refinery employees and relate these
to their jobs.
Methods-2964 current employees of three alumina refineries in Western Austr
alia were invited to participate in a cross sectional study, and 89% respon
ded. Subjects were given a questionnaire on respiratory symptoms, smoking,
and occupations with additional questions on temporal relations between res
piratory symptoms and work. Forced expiratory volume in I second (FEV1) and
forced vital capacity (FVC) were measured with a rolling seal spirometer.
Atopy was assessed with prick skin tests for common allergens. Associations
between work and symptoms were assessed with Cox's regression to estimate
prevalence ratios, and between work and lung function with linear regressio
n.
Results-Work related wheeze, chest tightness, shortness of breath, and rhin
itis were reported by 5.0%, 3.5%, 2.5%, and 9.5% of participants respective
ly. After adjustment for age, smoking, and atopy, most groups of production
employees reported a greater prevalence of work related symptoms than did
office employees. After adjustment for age, smoking, height, and atopy, sub
jects reporting work related wheeze, chest tightness, and shortness of brea
th had significantly lower mean levels of FEV1 (186, 162, and 272 mi respec
tively) than subjects without these symptoms. Prevalence of most work relat
ed symptoms was higher at refinery 2 than at the other two refineries, but
subjects at this refinery had an adjusted mean FEV1 >60 mi higher than the
others. Significant differences in FVC and FEV1/ FVC ratio, but not FEV1 we
re found between different process groups.
Conclusions-There were significant differences in work related symptoms and
lung function between process groups and refineries, but these were mostly
not consistent. Undefined selection factors and underlying population diff
erences may account for some of these findings but workplace exposures may
also contribute. The differences identified between groups were unlikely to
be clinically of note.