LITERATURE REVIEW MATRIX

RESEARCH 1

Name of Student: Jay-ar J. Torres Research Adviser: Mrs. Olivia Rosacia Date: March 02, 2018 Semester/Academic Year: 2nd
Semester 2017-2018

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM:

Citations/References Participants/Subjects Purpose of the Comparison Outcomes Evaluation

study
Respiratory Health in Working population To assess the Characteristics of the participants There was a Strength
Waste Collection and of 375 employees of potential effects Characteristics Exposed Control p Values reduction in the  There is a
N 63 61
Disposal Workers by two waste collection on respiratory FEV1 values in the significant number
Sex (M) 63 61
Luigi Vimercati, and disposal health of this F 0 0 exposed workers as of participants
Antonio Balssarre, companies 300 waste exposure in Age (Average) 53 51 0.38 compared to the used
Maria Franca Gatti, collectors (exposed) workers in the SD 7 7 controls Relevance
Median 54 52
Luigi De Maria, and 75 clerks waste Range 32-66 36-63  It probes the
Antonio Caputi, (controls) management and BMI (Average) 26.40 26.00 0.71 potential effects
Angelica A. Dirodi, disposal field, as SD 11.06 4.36 on respiratory
Median 26.37 25.25
Francesco Cuccaro, compared with a health of workers
and Raffaello Maria group of workers in the exposure to
Bellino; Int J Environ with no Spirometric test results
waste
Spirometric Exposed Control p Values
Res Public occupational Values management and
Healthv.13(7); 2016 exposure to N 63 61 disposal field
Jul outdoor FVC (Average) 4.76 4.56 0.114 compared to
SD 0.99 1.09
pollutants. Median 4.67 4.49 occupational
% mean 115.06 114.2 exposure to
 % SD 22.42 18.06 outdoor pollutants
% median 113 112
FEV1 (Average) 3.53 3.64 0.046
SD 0.73 0.85
Median 3.42 3.50
Citations/References Participants/Subjects Purpose of the Comparison Outcomes Evaluation
study
Respiratory health of One hundred and To evaluate the Spirometric lung function measurements There was a Strength
municipal solid waste eighty-four municipal respiratory MSSWs Controls higher  There is a
workers by M. employees of health of FVC% 95.5* 100.2 prevalence of significant
Athanasiou, G. Keratsini 104 municipal solid FEV1% 94.6 96.9 respiratory number of
Markynos and G. Municipal Solid waste workers FEV1/FVC 82.7 81.9 symptoms and a participants used
Dounias; Waste Workers (MSWWs) FEV1/FVC% 104.1 102.2 greater decrease Relevance
Occupational (exposed) and 80 Note: *P < 0.05 in lung function in  It evaluates the
Medicine, Volume controls MSWWs respiratory
60, Issue 8, 1 Respiratory symptoms compatible with health of
December 2010, asthma or COPD municipal solid
Pages 618–623 waste workers
compared to
workers who are
not exposed
Citations/References Participants/Subjects Purpose of the Comparison Outcomes Evaluation
study
Respiratory functions 178 conservancy To evaluate the Anthropometric parameters of the study of The pulmonary Strength
of conservancy workers (100 pulmonary subjects functions of the  There is a
workers working in sweepers & 78 function of Anthropometric Sweepers Loaders conservancy significant
solid waste loaders) of the workers in this Measurement (n=100) (n = 78) workers were number of
Age (yrs) 44.64±8.61 44.01±6.61
management sector Chennai Corporation environment significantly participants used
Height (cm) 154.42±9.74 161.79±6.57
of Chennai, India by with the Weight (kg) 54.99±11.28 55.92±9.79 lower than their Relevance
Department of intention of BMI (kg/m2) 23.1±4.52 21.39±3.83 predicted values.  It evaluates the
Physiology, Sri aiding Moreover, the pulmonary
Ramachandra subsequent Note: All values are represented as Mean ± pulmonary function of
Medical College & environmental Standard Deviation; BMI = Body Mass Index functions workers exposed
Research Institute, Sri health declined with in solid waste
Ramachandra management Observed and predicted pulmonary function increasing years management
University, Porur, initiatives aimed of the study population of working. sector of
Chennai, 600 116, at preventing Parameter Observed Predicted Among both the Chennai
India such job-related Values Values groups of
exposures. Males conservancy
FVC 2.8±0.7* 3.2±0.5 workers, the
FEV1 2.4± 0.5* 3.0±0.4 pulmonary
PEFR 6.9±0.7* 7.9±0.3 functions were
significantly
Females
lower in
FVC 1.9±0.5* 2.3±0.2
sweepers than
FEV1 1.6±0.5* 1.9±0.2
loaders
PEFR 5.3±0.9* 7.1±0.4

Note: * P < 0.05; the study population had

significantly lower pulmonary function values
than their own predicted values
: All values are represented as Mean ±
Standard Deviation
Comparison of Pulmonary functions between
Sweepers and loaders
Pulmonary Sweepers Loaders
function (n=100) (n=78)
parameters
FVC 2.22±0.77 2.88±0.68
FEV1 1.86±0.62 2.39±0.59
PEFR 5.17±1.89 6.45±1.83

Note: * P < 0.01; Sweepers had significantly

lower values compared to loaders
: All values are represented as Mean ±
Standard Deviation