Findings on the Central Auditory Functions of Endemic Disease Control Agents
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
4. Discussion
4.1. Recommendations Based on the Results of This Study
4.2. Limitations of the Study
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Carneiro, F.F.; Rigotto, R.M.; Augusto, L.G.S.; Friedrich, K.; Búrigo, A.C. Dossiê ABRASCO: Um Alerta Sobre os Impactos dos Agrotóxicos na Saúde; Expressão Popular: São Paulo, SP, Brazil; EPSJV: Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil, 2015; p. 624. [Google Scholar]
- Torres, R. Agente de combate a endemias. Rev. Poli–Saúdeeduc. E Trab. 2009, 3, 16–17. [Google Scholar]
- Lima, E.P.; Lopes, S.M.B.; Amorin, M.I.M.; Araújo, L.H.S.; Neves, K.T.; Maia, E.R. Pesticide exposure and its repercussion in the health of sanitary agents in the State of Ceará, Brazil. Ciência Saúde Coletiva 2009, 14, 2221–2230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- OSHA. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 2009. Available online: https://www.osha.gov/news/newsreleases/infodate-y/2018 (accessed on 3 March 2019).
- Morata, T.C.; Little, M.B. Suggested guidelines for studying the combined effects of occupational exposure to noise and chemicals on hearing. Noise Health 2002, 4, 73–87. [Google Scholar]
- Koelle, G.B. Pharmacology of organophosphates. J. Appl. Toxicol. 1994, 14, 105–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sidell, F.R. Clinical effects of organophosphorus cholinesterase inhibitors. J. Appl. Toxicol. 1994, 14, 111–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- França, D.M.V.; Lacerda, A.B.M.; Lobato, D.; Ribas, A.; Dias, K.Z.; Leroux, T.; Fuente, A. Adverse effects of pesticides on central auditory functions in tobacco growers. Int. J. Audiol. 2017, 56, 233–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, M.; Minhas, R.S.; Machhan, P.; Azad, R.K.; Mohindroo, S. Audiological assessment in organophosphorus poisoning. Int. J. Otorhinolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2018, 4, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cáceres, T.; Megharaj, M.; Venkateswarlu, K.; Sethunathan Nethunathan, N.; Naidu, R. Fenamiphos and related organophosphorus pesticides: Environmental fate and toxicology. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2010, 205, 117–162. [Google Scholar]
- Secretaria de Estado da Saúde do Paraná–SESA/PR. Protocolo de Avaliação das Intoxicações Crônicas por Agrotóxicos; Superintendência de Vigilância em Saúde: Curitiba, Brazil, 2013; p. 75.
- Teixeira, C.F.; Augusto, L.G.S.; Morata, T.C. Saúde auditiva de trabalhadores expostos a ruído e inseticidas. Rev. Saúde Pública 2003, 37, 417–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Körbes, D.; Silveira, A.F.; Hyppolito, M.A.; Murano, G. Alterações no sistema vestibulococlear decorrentes da exposição ao agrotóxico: Uma revisão de literatura. Rev. Soc. Bras. Fonoaudiol. 2010, 15, 146–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kós, M.I.; Hoshino, A.C.; Asmus, C.I.F.; Mendonça, R.; Meyer, A. Efeitos da exposição a agrotóxicos sobre o sistema auditivo periférico e central: Uma revisão sistemática. Cad. Saúde Pública 2013, 29, 1491–1506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gatto, M.P.; Fioretti, M.; Fabrizi, G.; Gherardi, M.; Strafella, E.; Santarelli, L. Effect of potential neurotoxic on hearing loss: A review. Neurotoxicology 2014, 42, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Teixeira, C.F.; Augusto, L.G.S.; Morata, T.C. Occupational exposure to insecticides and their effects on the auditory system. Noise Health 2002, 4, 31–39. [Google Scholar]
- Lizardi, P.S.; O’Rourke, M.K.; Morris, R.J. The effects of organophosphate pesticide exposure on Hispanic children’s cognitive and behavioral functioning. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 2008, 33, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Dassanayake, T.; Gawarammana, I.B.; Weerasinghe, V.; Dissanayake, P.S.; Pragaash, S.; Dawson, A.; Senanayake, N. Auditory event-related potential changes in chronic occupational exposure to organophosphate pesticides. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2009, 120, 1693–1698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Camarinha, C.R.; Frota, S.M.M.C.; Pacheco-Ferreira, H.; Lima, M.A.M.T. Avaliação do processamento auditivo temporal em trabalhadores rurais expostos ocupacionalmente a agrotóxicos organofosforados. J. Soc. Bras. Fonoaudiol. 2011, 23, 102–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jayasinghe, S.S.; Pathirana, K.D. Effects of deliberate ingestion of organophosphate or paraquat on brain stem auditory-evoked potentials. J. Med. Toxicol. 2011, 7, 277–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Andrade, M.I.K.P. Efeitos da Exposição ao Agrotóxico no Sistema Auditivo Eferente Através das Emissões Otoacústicas Transientes com Supressão. Ph.D. Thesis, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Institute of Public Health Studies, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Bazílio, M.M.M.; Frota, S.; Chrisman, J.R.; Meyer, A.; Asmus, C.I.F.; Camara, V.M. Processamento auditivo temporal de trabalhadores rurais expostos a agrotóxicos. J. Soc. Bras. Fonoaudiol. 2012, 24, 174–180. [Google Scholar]
- Murthy, V.A.; Reddy, I.J.V. Audiological assessment in organophosphorus compound poisoning. Indian J. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2012, 66, 22–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- França, D.M.V. Efeitos do uso dos Agrotóxicos no Sistema Auditivo Central dos Fumicultores da Região do Centro-Sul do Paraná. Ph.D. Thesis, Tuiuti University of Paraná, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Delecrode, C.R. Processamento Auditivo em Trabalhadores Expostos a Ruído e Inseticidas: Testes de Ordenação Temporal e P300. Master’s Thesis, Paulista State University, Marília, São Paulo, Brazil, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Alcarás, P.A.S.; Lacerda, A.B.M.; Marques, J.M. Estudo das emissões otoacústicas evocadas e efeito de supressão em trabalhadores expostos a agrotóxicos e ruído. CoDAS 2013, 25, 527–533. [Google Scholar]
- Lobato, D.C.B. Disfunção Auditiva Induzida por Agrotóxicos em Trabalhadores Agrícolas do Paraná. Ph.D. Thesis, Tuiuti University of Paraná, Curitiba, Paraná, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Guida, H.L.; Morini, R.G.; Cardoso, A.C.V. Audiological evaluation in workers exposed to noise and pesticide. Braz. J. Otorhinolaryngol. 2010, 76, 423–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Brasil. Norma Regulamentadora 7–Programa de Controle Médico de Saúde Ocupacional. Portaria 19, Anexo I. Diretrizes e Parâmetros mínimos para avaliação e acompanhamento da audição em trabalhadores expostos a níveis de pressão sonora elevados. In Manuais de Legislação-Segurança e Medicina do Trabalho, 62th ed.; Atlas: São Paulo, Brazil, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Vilela, R.A.G.; Malagoli, M.E.; Morrone, L.C. Trabalhadores de risco: O uso de pulverizadores no controle de vetores. Production 2005, 15, 263–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministério da Saúde, Fundação Nacional de Saúde. Controle de Vetores–Procedimento de Segurança–Manual do Supervisor de Campo, 1st ed.; Ministério da Saúde, Fundação Nacional de Saúde: Brasília, Brazil, 2001; p. 144.
- Pereira, L.D.; Schochat, E. Processamento Auditivo Central–Manual de Avaliação; Lovise: São Paulo, SP, Brazil, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Collet, L.; Veuillet, E.; Bene, J.; Morgon, A. Effects of contralateral white noise on click-evoked emissions in normal and sensorineural ears: Towards an exploration of the medial olivocochlear system. Audiology 1992, 31, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daniel, W.W. Biostatistics: A Foundation for Analysis in the Health Sciences, 6th ed.; Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1995; p. 780. [Google Scholar]
- Brasil; Ministério da Saúde. Manual Sobre Medidas de Proteção à Saúde dos Agentes de Combate às Endemias. Arboviroses Transmitidas Pelo Aedes Aegypti; Ministério da Saúde, Departamento de saúde ambiental, do Trabalho e Vigilância das Emergências Públicas: Brasília, Brazil, 2019; p. 90.
- Sousa, L.C.A.; Piza, M.R.T.; Alvarenga, K.; Cóser, P.L. Eletrofisiologia da Audição e Emissões Otoacústicas: Princípios e Aplicações Clínicas, 3rd ed.; BookToy: Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil, 2016; p. 372. [Google Scholar]
- Menezes, P.L.; Andrade, K.C.L.; Frizzo, A.C.F.; Carnaúba, A.T.L.; Lins, O.G. Tratado de Eletrofisiologia Para Audiologia, 1st ed.; BookToy: Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil, 2018; p. 317. [Google Scholar]
- Fuente, A.; McPherson, B. Central auditory processing effects induced by solvent exposure. Int. J. Occup. Med. Environ. Health 2007, 20, 271–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Léonard, M.R. Effet de la Co-Exposition au Bruit et aux Pesticides Organophosphorés sur l’audition des Travailleurs Agricoles. Master’s Thesis, École d’orthophonie et d’audiologie Faculté de Médecine, Montreal University, Montreal, QC, Canada, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Quevedo, L.S.; Tochetto, T.M.; Siqueira, M.A. Condição coclear e do sistema olivococlear medial de frentistas de postos de gasolina expostos a solventes orgânicos. Arq. Int. Otorrinolaringol. 2012, 16, 50–56. [Google Scholar]
- Hood, L.J. The role of otoacoustic emissions in identifying carriers of hereditary hearing loss. In Otoacoustic Emissions Basic Science and Clinical Applications; Berlin, C.I., Ed.; Singular Publishing Group: San Diego, CA, USA, 1996; pp. 137–148. [Google Scholar]
- Oliveira, J.R.M.; Fernandes, J.C.; Costa-Filho, O. A Influência da idade na atividade do sistema eferente nas propriedades mecânicas da cóclea de ouvintes normais. Braz. J. Otorhinolaryngol. 2009, 75, 340–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Test | Sample Included | Recording Parameters | Analysis Criteria |
---|---|---|---|
BAEP | Participants with auditory thresholds up to 25 dB HL at the frequencies from 2000 to 4000 Hz; Participants with auditory thresholds from 30 to 50 dB HL at the frequencies from 2000 to 4000 Hz. | Equipment: Vivosonic/Integrity®, V500, Vivosonic Inc, Toronto, ON, Canada Surface electrodes: forehead (Fz—positive electrode), and right and left mastoids (M1 and M2—negative electrodes) Transducer: E3-A insert earphone Immittance: <5 kOhms Promediations: 2000 stimuli Type of stimulus: click Presentation rate: 27.7 clicks/s Filters: 100–3000 Hz Recording window: 12 ms Polarity: rarefied Intensity: 80 dBnHL | Presence of waves I, III, and V. Latency of waves I, III, and V. Interpeak latencies of waves I–V, I–III, and III–V. Amplitude of waves I’ and V’. The analysis criterion was the comparison between the records of the two groups. |
DDT—binaural integration | Participants with a four-frequency mean (500, 1 kHz, 2 kHz, and 4 kHz) up to 25 dB HL. | Equipment: Madsen®/Itera II, GN Otometrics, Ballerup, Denmark. Additionnal material: CD by Pereira and Schochat (1997) [32], volume 2, track 3, and test 6. Intensity: 50 dB SL List: 80 digits | Up to 59 years old = score higher than 95%. 60 years or older, without hearing loss = 78%. |
TEOAE | Participants with the presence of TEOAE and type A tympanometric curve. | Equipment: Otodynamics®/ILO 292/V6, Hatfield, UK Intensity of the stimulus: 60–65 dB SPL Intensity of contralateral white noise: 60 dB SPL Type of stimulus: linear click Number of stimuli: 200 sweeps with noise, and 200 sweeps without noise. | Comparison between the OAE results with and without contralateral noise in each frequency and general response. Minimum decrease in the general response of 0.5 to 1.0 dB. |
BAEP | Mean | SD | p-Value | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wave I | RE | exposed (N = 20) | 1.63 | 0.12 | 0.3953 |
control (N = 12) | 1.62 | 0.06 | |||
LE | exposed (N = 18) | 1.64 | 0.12 | 0.3579 | |
control (N = 12) | 1.62 | 0.07 | |||
Wave III | RE | exposed (N = 20) | 3.90 | 0.19 | 0.0058 * |
control (N = 12) | 3.74 | 0.10 | |||
LE | exposed (N = 18) | 3.94 | 0.18 | 0.0034 * | |
control (N = 12) | 3.76 | 0.14 | |||
Wave V | RE | exposed (N = 20) | 5.81 | 0.24 | 0.0111 * |
control (N = 12) | 5.63 | 0.12 | |||
LE | exposed (N = 18) | 5.86 | 0.25 | 0.0312 * | |
control (N = 12) | 5.69 | 0.21 | |||
Interpeak I–III | RE | exposed (N = 20) | 2.27 | 0.18 | 0.0053 * |
control (N = 12) | 2.11 | 0.12 | |||
LE | exposed (N = 18) | 2.30 | 0.15 | 0.0039 * | |
control (N = 12) | 2.14 | 0.15 | |||
Interpeak III–V | RE | exposed (N = 20) | 1.92 | 0.15 | 0.2608 |
control (N = 12) | 1.89 | 0.07 | |||
LE | exposed (N = 18) | 1.91 | 0.15 | 0.3581 | |
control (N = 12) | 1.93 | 0.14 | |||
Interpeak I–V | RE | exposed (N = 20) | 4.19 | 0.24 | 0.0093 * |
control (N = 12) | 4.0 | 0.14 | |||
LE | exposed (N = 18) | 4.21 | 0.21 | 0.0451 * | |
control (N = 12) | 4.07 | 0.22 | |||
Amplitude I’ | RE | exposed (N = 20) | 0.14 | 0.10 | 0.0591 |
control (N = 12) | 0.09 | 0.05 | |||
LE | exposed (N = 18) | 0.13 | 0.07 | 0.2374 | |
control (N = 12) | 0.11 | 0.08 | |||
Amplitude V’ | RE | exposed (N = 20) | 0.26 | 0.12 | 0.3207 |
control (N = 12) | 0.28 | 0.11 | |||
LE | exposed (N = 18) | 0.30 | 0.09 | 0.2398 | |
control (N = 12) | 0.27 | 0.14 |
BAEP | Mean | SD | p-Value | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wave I | RE | exposed (N = 12) | 1.68 | 0.12 | 0.0830 |
control (N = 06) | 1.60 | 0.09 | |||
LE | exposed (N = 13) | 1.64 | 0.11 | 0.0914 | |
control (N = 06) | 1.57 | 0.08 | |||
Wave III | RE | exposed (N = 12) | 3.86 | 0.20 | 0.2898 |
control (N = 06) | 3.81 | 0.11 | |||
LE | exposed (N = 13) | 3.87 | 0.19 | 0.0748 | |
control (N = 06) | 3.75 | 0.04 | |||
Wave V | RE | exposed (N = 12) | 5.83 | 0.38 | 0.2372 |
control (N = 06) | 5.71 | 0.16 | |||
LE | exposed (N = 13) | 5.78 | 0.31 | 0.5000 | |
control (N = 06) | 5.78 | 0.12 | |||
Interpeak I–III | RE | exposed (N = 12) | 2.18 | 0.20 | 0.3723 |
control (N = 06) | 2.21 | 0.13 | |||
LE | exposed (N = 13) | 2.22 | 0.17 | 0.2936 | |
control (N = 06) | 2.18 | 0.06 | |||
Interpeak III–V | RE | exposed (N = 12) | 1.97 | 0.24 | 0.2718 |
control (N = 06) | 1.90 | 0.19 | |||
LE | exposed (N = 13) | 1.91 | 0.25 | 0.1579 | |
control (N = 06) | 2.02 | 0.09 | |||
Interpeak I–V | RE | exposed (N = 12) | 4.15 | 0.39 | 0.4053 |
control (N = 06) | 4.11 | 0.10 | |||
LE | exposed (N = 13) | 4.14 | 0.25 | 0.2874 | |
control (N = 06) | 4.20 | 0.06 | |||
Amplitude I’ | RE | exposed (N = 12) | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.2177 |
control (N = 06) | 0.10 | 0.05 | |||
LE | exposed (N = 13) | 0.13 | 0.06 | 0.1516 | |
control (N = 06) | 0.10 | 0.05 | |||
Amplitude V’ | RE | exposed (N = 12) | 0.22 | 0.11 | 0.3595 |
control (N = 06) | 0.20 | 0.08 | |||
LE | exposed (N = 13) | 0.23 | 0.12 | 0.1335 | |
control (N = 06) | 0.17 | 0.06 |
Correlation between | Correlation Coefficient (r) | p |
---|---|---|
Age and RE DDT | −0.2306 | 0.2201 |
Age and LE DDT | −0.0260 | 0.8914 |
Age and binaural DDT | −0.1306 | 0.4917 |
RE threshold and RE DDT | −0.2724 | 0.0736 |
LE threshold and LE DDT | −0.1016 | 0.5115 |
Binaural threshold and binaural DDT | −0.2324 | 0.1289 |
TEST | Exposed | Control | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | 95% CI | Mean | SD | 95% CI | |
RE DDT | 94.5 | 1.4 | 91.76–97.28 | 99.46 | 0.39 | 98.70–100.00 |
LE DDT | 93.9 | 1.6 | 90.67–97.07 | 98.75 | 0.51 | 97.75–99.75 |
BI DDT | 94.2 | 1.4 | 91.43–96.95 | 99.11 | 0.40 | 98.32–99.90 |
RIGHT EAR | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Exposed (N = 14) | Control (N = 12) | ||||||||
Mean | SD | Min | Max | Mean | SD | Min | Max | p-Value | |
1 kHz | −0.44 | 2.66 | −5.5 | 4.1 | 0.70 | 5.04 | −11.3 | 6.6 | 0.2342 |
1.4 kHz | 1.11 | 3.65 | −8.7 | 4.6 | 0.07 | 2.75 | −4 | 3.4 | 0.2133 |
2 kHz | −0.86 | 2.87 | −5.4 | 4.5 | −0.06 | 2.08 | −4.1 | 2.8 | 0.2155 |
2.8 kHz | 1.96 | 1.97 | −0.7 | 6 | 1.26 | 3.12 | −3.7 | 7.4 | 0.2470 |
4 kHz | 0.33 | 2.10 | −2.2 | 4.5 | 0.38 | 2.01 | −3.2 | 4.4 | 0.4756 |
GenRes | 0.15 | −0.9 | 0.7 | 0.41 | 0.47 | −0.7 | 2 | 0.72 | 0.0844 |
LEFT EAR | |||||||||
Exposed (N = 13) | Control (N = 14) | ||||||||
Mean | SD | Min | Max | Mean | SD | Min | Max | p-Value | |
1 kHz | −0.2 | 4.51 | −6.5 | 7.1 | 0.70 | 5.50 | −11 | 9.4 | 0.3238 |
1.4 kHz | 0.0 | 2.33 | −4 | 5.3 | 0.00 | 2.24 | −3 | 4.1 | 0.5000 |
2 kHz | 0.8 | 1.85 | −1.8 | 4.4 | −0.19 | 2.66 | −4.7 | 5.4 | 0.1380 |
2.8 kHz | −0.4 | 2.66 | −7.1 | 3.3 | 1.01 | 2.36 | −5 | 4.5 | 0.0845 |
4 kHz | 0.9 | 2.13 | −1.7 | 6.8 | 0.31 | 2.39 | −3.6 | 5.6 | 0.2560 |
GenRes | 0.1 | −1.6 | 1.5 | 0.85 | 0.46 | −1.3 | 3.5 | 1.05 | 0.1696 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
de Souza Alcarás, P.A.; Zeigelboim, B.S.; Corazza, M.C.A.; Lüders, D.; Marques, J.M.; de Lacerda, A.B.M. Findings on the Central Auditory Functions of Endemic Disease Control Agents. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7051. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18137051
de Souza Alcarás PA, Zeigelboim BS, Corazza MCA, Lüders D, Marques JM, de Lacerda ABM. Findings on the Central Auditory Functions of Endemic Disease Control Agents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(13):7051. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18137051
Chicago/Turabian Stylede Souza Alcarás, Patrícia Arruda, Bianca Simone Zeigelboim, Maria Cristina Alves Corazza, Débora Lüders, Jair Mendes Marques, and Adriana Bender Moreira de Lacerda. 2021. "Findings on the Central Auditory Functions of Endemic Disease Control Agents" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 13: 7051. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18137051