Abstract
Objectives
Although veterinary workers may encounter various occupational health hazards, a national characterization of exposures is lacking in Canada. This study used secondary data sources to identify veterinary exposure prevalence for ionizing radiation and antineoplastic agents, as part of a national surveillance project.
Methods
For ionizing radiation, data from the Radiation Protection Bureau of Health Canada were used to identify veterinarians and veterinary technicians monitored in 2006. This was combined with Census statistics to estimate a prevalence range and dose levels. For antineoplastic agents, exposure prevalence was estimated using statistics on employment by practice type and antineoplastic agent usage rates, obtained from veterinary licensing bodies and peer-reviewed literature.
Results
In 2006, 7,013 (37% of all) Canadian veterinary workers were monitored for ionizing radiation exposure. An estimated 3.3% to 8.2% of all veterinarians and 2.4% to 7.2% of veterinary technicians were exposed to an annual ionizing radiation dose above 0.1 mSv, representing a total of between 536 and 1,450 workers. All monitored doses were below regulatory limits. For antineoplastic agents, exposure was predicted in up to 5,300 (23%) of all veterinary workers, with an estimated prevalence range of 22% to 24% of veterinarians and 20% to 21% of veterinary technicians.
Conclusion
This is the first national-level assessment of exposure to ionizing radiation and antineoplastic agents in Canadian veterinary settings. These hazards may pose considerable health risks. Exposures appeared to be low, however our estimates should be validated with comprehensive exposure monitoring and examination of determinants across practice areas, occupations, and tasks.
Key words: Veterinarians, occupational exposure, radiation, antineoplastic agents, Canada
Résumé
Objectifs
Bien que les agents vétérinaires puissent être exposés à divers dangers pour la santé au travail, il manque au Canada une caractérisation nationale de ce type d’exposition. Dans le cadre d’un projet de surveillance national, nous avons utilisé des sources de données secondaires pour cerner la prévalence des expositions aux rayonnements ionisants et aux antinéoplasiques en milieu vétérinaire.
Méthode
Pour les rayonnements ionisants, les données du Bureau de la radioprotection de Santé Canada ont servi à identifier les vétérinaires et les techniciens vétérinaires surveillés en 2006. Nous avons combiné ces données aux chiffres du Recensement pour estimer un intervalle de prévalence et des niveaux de dose. Pour les antinéoplasiques, la prévalence de l’exposition a été estimée à l’aide des statistiques sur l’emploi par type de pratique et des taux d’utilisation des antinéoplasiques, lesquels ont été obtenus dans les revues évaluées par les pairs et auprès des organismes de réglementation de la profession vétérinaire.
Résultats
En 2006, 7 013 (37%) des agents vétérinaires canadiens ont été surveillés pour leur exposition aux rayonnements ionisants. On estime qu’entre 3,3% et 8,2% des médecins vétérinaires et entre 2,4% et 7,2% des techniciens vétérinaires ont été exposés à une dose annuelle de rayonnements ionisants supérieure à 0,1 mSv, soit entre 536 et 1 450 personnes en tout. Toutes les doses surveillées étaient en deçà des limites réglementaires. Pour les antinéoplasiques, une exposition était prévisible chez jusqu’à 5 300 agents vétérinaires (soit 23%), avec un intervalle de prévalence estimatif de 22% à 24% des médecins vétérinaires et de 20% à 21% des techniciens vétérinaires.
Conclusion
Il s’agit de la première évaluation nationale de l’exposition aux rayonnements ionisants et aux antinéoplasiques en milieu vétérinaire au Canada. Ces dangers peuvent poser des risques considérables pour la santé. Les niveaux d’exposition semblent être faibles, mais nos estimations devraient être validées par une surveillance complète de l’exposition et par un examen des déterminants selon la sphère de pratique, la profession et la tâche.
Mots clés: vétérinaire, exposition professionnelle, rayonnement, antinéoplasiques, Canada
Footnotes
Acknowledgements: The authors thank the National Dose Registry for their assistance and advice on the use of Health Canada’s National Dose Registry data. We also thank Canada’s veterinary medical and technician/technologist associations for providing data on the numbers of veterinarians by practice type. Funding for this study and the CAREX Canada project was provided by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer.
Conflict of Interest: None to declare.
References
- 1.Epp T, Waldner C. Occupational health hazards in veterinary medicine: Physical, psychological, and chemical hazards. Can Vet J. 2012;53(2):151–57. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Shuhaiber S, Einarson A, Radde I, Sarkar M, Koren G. A prospective-controlled study of pregnant veterinary staff exposed to inhaled anesthetics and x-rays. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2002;15(4):363–73. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Benoit J, Ponce F, Falcy M, Keck G. Anti-cancéreux en médecine vétérinaire. Risques liés à leur utilisation et prévention. Montreal, QC: INRS; 2008. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Sont W. 2008 Report on Occupational Radiation Exposures in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Health Canada; 2009. [Google Scholar]
- 5.IARC Monographs: Radiation Volume 100 D. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. 2012. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Jeyaretnam J, Jones H. Physical, chemical and biological hazards in veterinary practice. Aust Vet J. 2000;78(11):751–58. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2000.tb10446.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Elliot KM, Mayer MN. Cancer treatment therapies. Can Vet J. 2009;50(7):771–72. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Falck K, Gröhn P, Sorsa M, Vainio H, Heinonen E, Holsti LR. Mutagenicity in urine of nurses handling cytostatic drugs. Lancet. 1979;1(8128):1250–51. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(79)91939-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Paoloni M, Khanna C. Translation of new cancer treatments from pet dogs to humans. Nature Reviews Cancer. 2008;8(2):147–56. doi: 10.1038/nrc2273. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Perrin T. The Business Of Urban Animals Survey: The facts and statistics on companion animals in Canada. Can Vet J. 2009;50(1):48–52. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Meijster T, Fransman W, Veldhof R, Kromhout H. Exposure to antineoplastic drugs outside the hospital environment. Ann Occup Hyg. 2006;50(7):657–64. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/mel023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Canadian Veterinary Medical Association. Veterinary Statistics. 2013. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Statistics Canada. 2006 Census of Population. 2006. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Shirangi A, Fritschi L, Holman C. Prevalence of occupational exposures and protective practices in Australian female veterinarians. Aust Vet J. 2007;85(1–2):32–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2006.00077.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Sont W. 2007 Report on Occupational Radiation Exposures in Canada. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2008. [Google Scholar]
- 16.The Canadian Association of Animal Health TechnologistsTechnicians. Canadian Association of Animal Health Technologists/Technicians Survey 2002–2003. 2013. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Poole A, Shane S, Kearney M, Rehn W. Survey of occupational hazards in companion animal practices. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1998;212(9):1386–88. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.van Soest E, Fritschi L. Occupational health risks in veterinary nursing: An exploratory study. Aust Vet J. 2004;82(6):346–50. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2004.tb11101.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Cave T, Norman P, Mellor D. Cytotoxic drug use in treatment of dogs and cats with cancer by UK veterinary practices (2003 to 2004) J Small Anim Pract. 2007;48(7):371–77. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-5827.2007.00343.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Bigelow S, Schulz H, Dobish R, Chambers C. Antineoplastic agent workplace contamination study: The Alberta Cancer Board Pharmacy perspective Phase III. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2009;15(3):157–60. doi: 10.1177/1078155208101097. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Hon C, Teschke K, Chua P, Venners S, Nakashima L. Occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs: Identification of job categories potentially exposed throughout the hospital medication system. Safety and Health at Work. 2011;2(3):273–81. doi: 10.5491/SHAW.2011.2.3.273. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Couch J, Gibbins J, Connor TH. Evaluation of chemotherapy drug exposure at a veterinary teaching hospital in Michigan. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2013;10(4):D45–D51. doi: 10.1080/15459624.2013.766561. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.HealthWelfare Canada. Radiation Protection in Veterinary Medicine–Recommended Safety Procedures for Installation and Use of Veterinary X-ray Equipment–Safety Code 28. 1991. [Google Scholar]
- 24.OHS RegulationRelated Materials. Part 7 Noise, Vibration, Radiation and Temperature. Richmond, BC: Workers’ Compensation Board of British Columbia (WorkSafeBC); 2005. [Google Scholar]
- 25.The Radiation Health and Safety Regulations, 2005. Regina, SK: Government of Saskatchewan, 2005. Available at: https://doi.org/www.publications.gov.sk.ca/details.cfm?p=9623 (Accessed July 22, 2013).
- 26.Fritschi L. Cancer in veterinarians. Occup Environ Med. 2000;57(5):289–97. doi: 10.1136/oem.57.5.289. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Shirangi A, Fritschi L, Holman C, Bower C. Birth defects in offspring of female veterinarians. J Occup Environ Med. 2009;51(5):525–33. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0b013e3181a01af3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Schenker MB, Samuels SJ, Green RS, Wiggins P. Adverse reproductive outcomes among female veterinarians. Am J Epidemiol. 1990;132(1):96–106. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115648. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Steele L, Wilkins J. Occupational exposures and risks of spontaneous abortion among female veterinarians. Int J Occup Environ Health. 1996;2(1):26–36. doi: 10.1179/oeh.1996.2.1.26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Valanis B, Vollmer W, Steele P. Occupational exposure to antineoplastic agents: Self-reported miscarriages and stillbirths among nurses and pharmacists. J Occup Environ Med. 1999;41(8):632–38. doi: 10.1097/00043764-199908000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]