 |
|
Adolescent Occupational Toxic Exposures
A National Study
Alan Woolf, MD, MPH;
Hillel R. Alpert, MPM, BSc;
Anjali Garg, BS;
Samuel Lesko, MD, MPH
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001;155:704-710.
ABSTRACT
| |
Background While many previous studies describe workplace-associated injuries in
adolescents, few focus on toxic exposures. Such incidents are unlikely to
be reported to either federal or state agencies. However, poison control centers
often get called about these poisonings and might serve as a resource for
monitoring their occurrence.
Objective To describe the frequency and severity of job-related toxic exposures
involving adolescents, the specific toxic agents involved, and trends over
time.
Methods Occupational toxic exposures occurring in the United States between
1993 and 1997 were analyzed using the Toxic Exposure Surveillance System database
compiled by the American Association of Poison Control Centers. Contingency
tables with the  2 statistic were used to test bivariate associations.
Logistic regression was performed to investigate trends over time.
Results Of 301 228 workplace toxic exposures reported over 5 years, 8779
(3%) involved adolescents younger than 18 years. The most common agents involved
were alkaline corrosives (13.2%), gases and fumes (12.0%), cleaning agents
(9.7%), bleaches (8.3%), drugs (7.4%), acids (7.2%), and hydrocarbons (6.9%).
The injuries were rated as severe in 14.2% of exposures, life-threatening
in 0.3%, and there were 2 deaths. The proportionate frequency of occupational
exposures occurring among adolescents vs adults increased over time (odds
ratio, 1.003; P<.001).
Conclusions Adolescent occupational toxic exposures are an underrecognized hazard
in the United States. Poison control center experience can be used to fill
a gap in the surveillance of such injuries.
INTRODUCTION
MORE THAN 5 million American children and adolescents are legally employed
and another 1 to 2 million are employed in violation of provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).1 Child labor
is resurgent in the United States because of a variety of factors, including
increased immigration, the increased need for family income, a robust economy,
employers' increased needs for unskilled help, the social acceptability of
work among adolescents, and their desire for disposable income.2, 3, 4
Working adolescents risk being injured while on the job, but previous studies
do not provide much information about the working teenager's risk of toxic
exposures.5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Many adolescent jobs are not covered by workers' compensation and many poisonings
occurring in small, unmonitored businesses go unreported to the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration. Blanc et al10
have estimated that the incidence of occupational illness in the United States
may be 3 to 5 times higher than that captured from these incomplete sources.
Thus, the importance of adolescent occupational toxic exposures may go unappreciated
because of the lack of a source of data.
Poison control centers (PCCs) have spread nationwide over the past 45
years, and have been aggregating their data on poisoning annually through
the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) since the 1980s.11 They collect data on product safety and perform surveillance
activities with relevance to occupational toxic exposures.12, 13, 14, 15
A pilot study in Massachusetts revealed that 269 adolescent occupational toxic
exposures were reported to a single PCC over a 6-year period.16
The objective of the current study was to examine whether national PCC data
could be used to describe the types, severity, and trends over time of adolescent
workplace toxic exposures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
TESS DATABASE
A secondary analysis of 1993 to 1997 Toxic Exposure Surveillance System
(TESS) data maintained by the AAPCC was performed. Some calls previously reported
in the pilot study were included here as well.16
The number of other PCCs participating in the TESS database during the period
1993 to 1997 ranged from 64 to 67 (covering 70.0%-93.5% of the US population).17, 18, 19, 20, 21
Of 75 PCCs who submitted data in at least 1 of the 5 years under study, 58
centers (77%) reported data from all 5 years, with year-to-year consistency
in the number of cases reported.
Occupational toxic exposures in the United States were identified 2
ways: by the site of the incident (the workplace) and by the circumstances
given by the caller as a reason for the exposure (occupationally related).
Calls to a PCC to obtain only information, without evidence of a human toxic
exposure, were excluded. The analysis reported here was limited to records
concerning children younger than 17 years, although the coincident validation
study included cases outside of this age range.
A guide of rules and protocols for coding decisions is uniformly used
by PCCs to reduce variation in the coding of data.22
The database included the following variables: date and time of call, PCC
identity, locations of the exposure incident and the caller, age and sex of
the victim, circumstances, toxin(s) involved, route of exposure, triage, disposition,
and outcome. For certain analyses, toxins implicated in the exposure were
classified into 12 broad descriptive categories: acids, alkali, bleaches,
cleaners (not including bleach), drugs, gases, hydrocarbons, miscellaneous
chemicals, pesticides, plants, soaps and detergents, and others. In this determination,
only the first agent entered into the record (if there was more than 1 agent
involved) was counted per incident. For analysis of severity, outcomes coded
as moderate or major injurious effects were collapsed into 1 group ("major
severity"), whereas those coded as no or minimal effect were collapsed into
another ("minor severity").
DATA VALIDATION
Data from the original medical records were compared with those previously
entered into the TESS database. A sample of 900 medical records was ascertained
by a computer-generated random algorithm. Original paper medical records solicited
from participating PCC were redacted according to written AAPCC guidelines22 by a trained, blinded research assistant (A.G.).
Eight relevant variables were compared between the electronic database and
the redacted paper record: agent type, age, exposure site, caller site, reason
for the call, route of exposure, duration of effect, and outcome. The extent
of correlation was assessed using the  statistic. Thirty-five (45%)
of 72 PCCs sent 453 records (50%) for analysis. Of these, 31 had missing data;
422 cases (93.2%) were analyzed. The was greater than 0.80 in 14 of
15 separate comparisons. Only the variable "outcome" showed agreement of less
than 80% and a of less than 0.67.
STATISTICAL METHODS
Contingency table analyses with the 2 statistic were
used to test bivariate associations. A 2-tailed  was set at .05 to
establish significance, but corrected to .01 for analyses with multiple comparisons.
Logistic regression was performed to investigate binomial trends of proportions
over time and expressed as an odds ratio (OR) of change per month. Multiple
logistic regression analysis was used to compare the severity of outcome by
month, day, time of day, age, sex, and route. STATA version 6 for microcomputers
(College Station, Tex) was used for data analysis.
HUMAN SUBJECTS REVIEW
This study was approved by the committee on clinical investigation at
Children's Hospital, Boston, Mass. It was also authorized by the board of
directors of the AAPCC.
RESULTS
Figure 1 shows the flow of
the data assessed in this study. There were 301 460 occupational exposure
cases reported to TESS in 1993 through 1997, of which 232 cases were invalid
or duplicated, leaving 301 228 cases. There were 17 354 cases excluded
from the study because of incomplete age information. There were 275 095
adult cases outside the inclusive age criteria; this left 8779 poisonings
(3.1% of cases in which the age was known) among children aged 12 to 17 years,
which formed the basis for further analysis. The percentage of exposure reports
attributable to adolescents by month is shown in Figure 2. This percentage increased over time (OR, 1.003; P<.001) and was greatest in the summer months.
|
|
|
|
Figure 1. Flow diagram of case selection
and initial medical triage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 2. Monthly percentage of adolescent
toxic exposures in the United States, 1993 through 1997.
|
|
|
AGE AND SEX
Figure 3 shows the number
of cases reported to poison control centers, by sex and year, for 8758 cases
(in 21 cases, sex was not specified). Males consistently predominated, accounting
for 63.9% of the exposure incidents. The distribution of cases by age and
sex are shown in Figure 4. The median
age of the sample was 16 years; however, 2093 cases (23.8%) involved adolescents
younger than 16 years and 287 cases (3.3%) involved 12-year-olds.
|
|
|
|
Figure 3. Adolescent occupational toxic
exposures in the United States from 1993 to 1997, by sex and year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 4. Adolescent occupational toxic
exposures in the United States from 1993 to 1997, by sex and age.
|
|
|
SEASON, TIME OF DAY, AND SITE OF THE CALLER
Adolescents were most likely to suffer toxic exposures during the summer
months (38.2% of the total occurred in June, July, and August). Exposures
were reported during weekends as frequently as during weekdays; 25.0% occurred
between 6 and 9 PM; another 20.7% occurred between 3 and 6 PM. The initial
call to the PCC was made from the home in 41.7% of cases, from the workplace
in 28.3%, and from a health care facility in 23.3%.
TOXIC AGENTS
Table 1 gives the frequencies
of the 12 toxic agent categories most often involved in these exposures, by
sex. The most common specific categories implicated in adolescent workplace
exposures were to alkaline corrosives (13.2%), gases and fumes (12.0%), cleaning
agents (9.7%), bleaches (8.3%), drugs (7.4%), acids (7.2%), and hydrocarbons
(6.9%). A second toxic agent was implicated in the exposure in 862 (9.8%)
cases. Females were more likely to suffer toxic exposures involving medications,
gases, bleach, and cleaners, and were less likely to suffer toxic occurrences
involving hydrocarbons, acids, pesticides, and plants.
|
|
|
|
Frequencies of the 12 Toxic Agent Categories Most Often Involved in
Exposures*
|
|
|
ROUTE OF EXPOSURE
Of the 8779 cases, 34.9% involved toxic inhalations, 26.8% ocular exposures,
and 23.6% skin exposures. There were 19.3% ingestions, and 2.4% exposures
involved bites or stings. In 1.7% of incidents, the toxin was injected, aspirated,
or involved an unclear route. More than 1 route of exposure (eg, a chemical
splashed both in the eyes and on the skin) was reported in 7.7% of cases.
As shown in Figure 5, ocular splashes
and dermal exposures were a common route of exposure for many toxins encountered
by adolescents in the workplace. More than 71% of the exposures to alkaline
agents, 71% of exposures to cleaners, 71% of exposures to soaps and detergents,
and 55% of exposures to acids involved dermal or ocular splashes. Exposures
to bleach included a number of inhalations (39%) and ocular contacts (41%),
with a smaller number of dermal exposures (11.5%) and ingestions (15.3%).
|
|
|
|
Figure 5. Most frequent agents involved
in adolescent occupational toxic exposures, by route of exposure.
|
|
|
TOXIC SYMPTOMS AND MANAGEMENT
In 7176 of the incidents (81.7%), adolescents reported that they developed
some symptoms as a result of the exposure incident. Of those cases in which
clinical symptoms were reported, the duration of the effects lasted less than
2 hours in 34.3% of cases and 1 day or less in 80.9%. In 5.6% of cases the
symptoms reported were judged to be unrelated to a toxic exposure.
Ocular or dermal irritations were the most commonly reported symptoms
(25.9% and 12.5% of all reported symptoms, respectively). Other dermal symptoms
were also common, including erythema (7.2%), burns (7.1%), and swelling or
edema (2.6%). Respiratory or throat symptoms were also common, with 9.5% of
adolescents reporting coughing or choking, 6.7% reporting throat irritation,
4.7% reporting dyspnea, and 2.6% reporting chest pain. Gastrointestinal complaints
included nausea (11.6%), vomiting (7.3%), and abdominal pain (2.8%). Headache
(8.8%) and dizziness (6.0%) were also frequently reported.
Therapies were offered in 81.1% of all cases. These included dilution
or irrigation (57.8%), fresh air (19.8%), oxygen (3.2%), antihistamines (1.2%),
bronchodilators (1.3%), intravenous fluids (1.2%), and other therapies (19.2%).
TRIAGE
As shown in Figure 1, 49.9%
of these toxic exposures were treated on site (either at the workplace or
at home). Another 36.6% of patients were treated and released from the emergency
department of a health care facility; less than 2.2% required admission to
the hospital. Another 11.4% of cases were classified as other, which includes
those who left the clinic or emergency department without being seen or against
medical advice and those who were lost to follow-up.
SEVERITY
The outcomes in 8.4% of the cases were coded as resulting in no toxic
effect or were deemed to be nontoxic incidents by PCC staff. In 65.8% of cases,
only minor injurious effects were the reported or expected outcome of the
incident. However, in 13.5% of cases, the toxic exposures resulted in injuries
coded as of major severity, with another 6.6% coded as having potential for
toxicity, but the poison center staff were unable to contact the patient for
follow-up information.
Severity varied by the toxic agent involved (Figure 6). The highest percentage of cases with moderate or severe
injury outcomes involved alkaline products (27.6% of the total), acids (20.7%),
glues and pastes (19.0%), herbicides (17.6%), gases and fumes (17.4%), cleaners
(16.8%), pesticides (15.6%), miscellaneous chemicals (15.4%), soaps and detergents
(15.4%), and bleach (13.6%). Many of the more severe injuries from workplace
exposures among adolescents involved dermal or ocular splashes, or inhalation-related
injuries.
|
|
|
|
Figure 6. Most frequent agents and routes
involved in toxic exposures resulting in severe injury outcomes.
|
|
|
Proportionate severity of injury from adolescent workplace toxic exposures
did not vary significantly by either season or year. However 16.4% of the
males with toxic exposures suffered severe injuries vs 13.9% of females (2 = 8.87; P = .003). A multivariate analysis
of associations between selected variables and severity revealed no association
between severity and the month, day, or year of occurrence. However, a dermal
route of exposure (OR, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.34); the time
of day (between midnight and noon) that the incident took place (OR, 1.35;
95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.55); male sex (OR, 1.19; 95% confidence interval,
1.04-1.36); and age (OR, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.14) all predicted
severe outcomes.
There were 2 reported deaths, both of which involved exposures to caustic
agents. A 13-year-old boy was taken to the emergency department after inhaling
sulfuric acid fumes while cleaning out a pipe at work. He experienced respiratory
arrest, coma, and cardiac arrest, and did not respond to cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
This case was reported previously in abstract form.20
The other involved a 16-year-old boy who swallowed an alkaline corrosive agent
that he thought was a beverage while he was working at a construction site.
The potassium hydroxide mixture was in a milk jug that he obtained from the
back of a truck. He vomited, aspirated, and developed respiratory arrest.
He also suffered oral and esophageal burns, chest and abdominal pain, pneumonia,
and suffered a cardiac arrest. Despite intensive medical support, including
artificial ventilation and vasopressors, the patient died.
COMMENT
This study supports a role for PCC in conducting surveillance of occupational
toxic exposures among adolescents. The percentage of workplace toxic exposures
occurring among adolescents reported here (3.1%) is similar to that reported
previously (3.8%) in the pilot study conducted by the Massachusetts PCC.16 The seasonality we found is easily understood, with
more adolescents working, and thus more likely to be injured from a toxic
exposure, during the summer months than during the school year. This study
found an increasing trend nationally in the relative frequency of such toxic
exposures among adolescents between 1993 and 1997. There could be many reasons
for this: it could be that more adolescents are gainfully employed in a tight
labor market, giving them more opportunities to become victims of a toxic
exposure. It could also be that the same tight market is causing employers
to ask teenagers to perform different tasks on the job, involving chemicals
more frequently, because they do not have enough experienced adults who otherwise
would do such work. An increase in frequency could also be explained by improved
familiarity of the population with the services offered by PCCs, such that
families and health care professionals are using them more and reporting toxic
exposures more often than in past years. It is also possible that the use
of PCCs for reporting adult occupational exposures has, for unknown reasons,
decreased over time.
The risk factors associated with agents of injury and both the physical
and social environments to which adolescents are exposed in the workplace
are incompletely understood.23, 24
According to Baker et al,25 the first step
in ascertaining determinants of risk should be to implement surveillance (eg,
using poison control center data) so that we can then actively intervene to
prevent these conditions. For example, the male predominance in the current
study could be explained by their greater participation in part-time employment,
although estimates of adolescent employment probably undercount participation
by both males and females, making it difficult to speculate about employment
rates between the sexes. The observation that older males working late at
night or early in the morning were overrepresented in those toxic exposures
resulting in severe injuries also suggests differences in the categories and
types of jobs in which they are employed. Since circumstances and identification
of the workplaces involved in these reports were not specified in the data,
such differences are speculative at best. However, if males are more likely
to be employed in construction, automotive, agriculture and landscaping work,
and painting activities, then this could account for their exposure to more
potent toxins such as caustics, hydrocarbon solvents, pesticides, herbicides,
heavy metals, paints, and thinners.
While many of the 8779 exposures recorded were medically trivial, more
than a third required medical attention in a health care facility and 2% of
patients with such exposures were hospitalized. There were only 2 deaths reported
in this study; however, there are other anecdotal reports26, 27, 28
and systematic studies29, 30 of
adolescent workplace injury deaths that include worksite toxic exposures.
Previous studies have documented the incompleteness of PCC fatality reporting31 and the deaths reported here are likely to underestimate
their true incidence. Our findings suggest that an important expenditure of
scarce health care resources is directed toward these injuries; there are
also the human costs of suffering or even death. Our results confirm the need
for efforts directed to the prevention of adolescent occupational toxic exposures
as a public health issue. The most frequently involved toxic agents were also
in many cases those accounting for the highest percentage of severe injuries.
Incidents involving caustics (acids and alkalis), gases, cleaners, bleaches,
pesticides, and soaps and detergents deserve the particular attention of public
health officials, because of their frequent use by adolescents, and because
precautions can be taken to prevent such mishaps involving such chemicals.
For example, many of the poisoning incidents described in this report involved
dermal and/or ocular splashes, preventable by the appropriate use of barrier
clothing, gloves, and goggles.
There are limitations to this study, which dictate that the results
should be interpreted with caution. The number of PCCs contributing data increased
slightly during 1993 through 1997 (64-67 reporting centers) although the population
covered increased from 70% in 1993 to more than 90% of the United States by
1997. This may account for some of the increase in the absolute number of
adolescent exposures over time, but does not explain their increasing percentage
relative to those of adults.
As mentioned previously, while cases are labeled by exposure site at
the time of the original telephone call, currently, no element in TESS specifies
the occupation involved or the type of work effort undertaken at the time
of the injury. Bresnitz et al13, 14
have previously pointed out the inadequacies of documentation and the questionable
quality of recommendations of PCC staff regarding their management of occupational
toxicity cases. We can only speculate here on the work activities that resulted
in the toxic exposure; further research into the type of work establishment
and the type of activity leading to an adolescent's toxic injury is necessary.
Coding errors could affect the accuracy of the data; however, our validity
study found good concordance between data recorded in the original PCC record
and that in the TESS file. There was a lower correlation only for the outcome
variable; much of the discrepancy here seemed to be between labeling a case
as either no effect or a minor effect on the patient vs an unknown effect.
These mismatches point out the ambiguity in coding choices at this level of
precision. While clear rules are given in the coding handbook furnished by
the AAPCC, how they are applied may differ from center to center and specialist
to specialist. However, marginal choices—the difference between the
outcome of "minor effect" and "unknown effect, probably nontoxic"—are
of negligible clinical importance. This analysis only considered the PCC record;
no review of the emergency department's medical record of the poisoning was
attempted. Thus, the study could not take into account those incidents in
which erroneous information is given to and recorded by PCC staff.
Calls to PCC are acceptable as evidence of the standard of medical care
administered to a poisoned patient. Nevertheless, such calls are entirely
voluntary; TESS reporting is a passive surveillance system and there is no
requirement to report toxic exposures to the AAPCC, so that results reported
here almost certainly underestimate the frequency of these injuries. Health
care providers may not call a PCC for many reasons: if they know how to treat
the patient, if they fail to diagnose or misdiagnose the patient's problems,
or if the injury from the toxic exposure is judged by them to be relatively
minor. Poison control centers are more likely to be consulted for perceived
emergencies and acute poisonings than for subacute or chronic exposures presenting
with more indolent symptoms. Toxic exposures to carcinogens, teratogens, fertility-lowering
chemicals, or other agents whose adverse effects are only apparent after long
latency periods will likely never come to the attention of a PCC. Adolescents
who are exposed to toxic chemicals may not attribute their symptoms to the
exposure. They, their families, or their physicians may misdiagnose the poisoning
as some other ailment or simply may not view the PCC as a resource to consult
after a workplace toxic exposure. For all these reasons, PCC calls undercount
the true incidence of workplace toxic exposures.
The Institute of Medicine has called for the investigation of "ambulatory
services" databases to improve the monitoring of adolescent occupational injuries.32 This study suggests that occupational exposure surveillance
activities of PCC can be useful to policymakers by providing information on
sentinel occupational toxic events involving adolescents. By determining the
effectiveness of PCC operations as a mechanism for surveillance of adolescent
occupational exposures, this study informs the national debate concerning
the vulnerability of children in the workplace to toxic injury and gives evidence-based
arguments being developed in the pursuit of national consensus-building. Adolescent
occupational exposures to toxins are an important but underrecognized injury
category; PCC data can be used to fill in gaps in surveillance for this type
of worksite-associated injury.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Accepted for publication December 8, 2000.
Supported in part by a grant from the National Institute of Occupational
Safety and Health, Washington, DC, and grant R03 OH03796-01 from the National
Occupational Research Agenda (Dr Woolf). Dr Woolf's work is supported in part
by funds through a cooperative agreement (U50/ATU300014) with the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Public Health Service, US Department
of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.
Presented as a poster at the meeting of the National Congress of the
American Association of Clinical Toxicologists, La Jolla, Calif, October 1-5,
1999, and in part at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics,
Chicago, Ill, October 31, 2000.
We thank poison control centers for their participation in providing
original medical records used to validate the Toxic Exposure Surveillance
System dataset.
From Harvard Medical School (Dr Woolf) and
Harvard School of Public Health (Miss Garg), Harvard University; the
Program in Clinical Toxicology, Division of General Pediatrics,
Boston's Children's Hospital (Dr Woolf); School of Public Health (Dr
Lesko) and Vital Science and Health (Mr Alpert), Boston University; and
the Massachusetts and Rhode Island Poison Control System (Dr Woolf and
Mr Alpert), Boston, Mass.
Reprints: Alan Woolf, MD, MPH, IC Smith Building, Children's Hospital,
Regional Poison Control and Prevention Center, 300 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA
02115 (e-mail: woolf{at}a1.tch.harvard.edu).
REFERENCES
| |
1. Widome M, ed. Injury Prevention and Control for Children and Youth. 3rd ed. Elk Grove Village, Ill: Injuries in the Workplace, Committee
on Injury and Poison Prevention, American Academy of Pediatrics; 1996.
2. Landrigan PJ, McCammon JB. Child labor: still with us. Public Health Rep. 1997;112:466-473.
ISI
| PUBMED
3. Fitzgerald ST, Laidlaw AD. Adolescents and work: risks and benefits of teenage employment. AAOHN J. 1995;43:185-189.
PUBMED
4. Mortimer JT, Finch MD, Ryu S, Shanahan MJ, Call KT. The effects of work intensity on adolescent mental health, achievement,
and behavioral adjustment: new evidence from a prospective study. Child Dev. 1996;67:1243-1261.
ISI
| PUBMED
5. Kinney JA. Health hazards to children in the service industries. Am J Ind Med. 1993;24:291-300.
ISI
| PUBMED
6. Schober SE, Handke JL, Halperin WE, Moll MB, Thun MJ. Work-related injuries in minors. Am J Ind Med. 1988;14:585-595.
ISI
| PUBMED
7. Layne LA, Castillo DN, Stout N, Cutlip P. Adolescent occupational injuries requiring hospital emergency department
treatment: a nationally representative sample. Am J Public Health. 1994;84:657-660.
FREE FULL TEXT
8. Brooks DR, Davis LK. Work-related injuries to Massachusetts teens, 1987-1990. Am J Ind Med. 1996;29:153-160.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
9. Belville R, Pollack SH, Godbold JH, Landrigan PJ. Occupational injuries among injury among working adolescents in New
York State. JAMA. 1993;269:2754-2759.
ABSTRACT
10. Blanc PD, Rempel D, Maizlish N, Hiatt P, Olson KR. Occupational illness: case detection by poison control surveillance. Ann Intern Med. 1989;111:238-244.
11. Lovejoy FH, Robertson WO, Woolf AD. Poison centers, poison prevention, and the pediatrician. Pediatrics. 1994;94:220-224.
FREE FULL TEXT
12. Litovitz T. The TESS database: use in product safety surveillance. Drug Saf. 1998;18:9-19.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
13. Bresnitz EA. Poison control center follow-up of occupational disease. Am J Public Health. 1990;80:711-712.
FREE FULL TEXT
14. Bresnitz EA, Gittleman JL, Shic F, Temple B, Henretig F. A national survey of regional poison control centers' management of
occupational exposure calls. J Occup Environ Med. 1999;41:93-99.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
15. Blanc PD, Maizlish N, Hiatt P, Olson KR. Occupational illness and poison control centers: referral patterns
and service needs. West J Med. 1990;152:181-184.
ISI
| PUBMED
16. Woolf AD, Flynn E. Workplace toxic exposures involving adolescents aged 14 to 19 years:
one poison center's experience. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2000;154:234-239.
FREE FULL TEXT
17. Litovitz TL, Clark LR, Soloway RA. 1993 annual report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers
Toxic Exposure Surveillance System. Am J Emerg Med. 1994;12:546-584.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
18. Litovitz TL, Felberg L, Soloway RA, Ford M, Geller R. 1994 annual report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers
Toxic Exposure Surveillance System. Am J Emerg Med. 1995;13:551-597.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
19. Litovitz TL, Felberg L, White S, Klein-Schwartz W. 1995 annual report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers
Toxic Exposure Surveillance System. Am J Emerg Med. 1996;14:487-537.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
20. Litovitz TL, Smilkstein M, Felverg L, Klein-Schwartz W, Berlin R, Morgan JL. 1996 annual report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers
Toxic Exposure Surveillance System. Am J Emerg Med. 1997;15:447-500.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
21. Litovitz TL, Klein-Schwartz W, Dyer KS, Shannon M, Lee S, Powers M. 1997 annual report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers
Toxic Exposure Surveillance System. 1998;16:443-497.
22. Toxic Exposure Surveillance System Coding Book. Washington, DC: American Association of Poison Control Centers; 1999.
23. Veazie MA, Landen DD, Bender TR, Amandus HE. Epidemiologic research on the etiology of injuries at work. Ann Rev Public Health. 1994;15:203-221.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
24. Alexander CS, Ensminger ME, Somerfield MR, Kim YJ, Johnson KE. Behavioral risk factors for injury among rural adolescents. Am J Epidemiol. 1992;136:673-685.
FREE FULL TEXT
25. Baker EL, Melius JM, Millar JD. Surveillance of occupational illness and injury in the United States:
current perspectives and future directions. J Public Health Policy. 1988;9:198-221.
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
26. Wong DS. Youth in state care dies in Worcester. Boston Globe. May 13, 1998:B1.
27. Landrigan PJ, McCammon JB. Child labor: still with us after all these years. Public Health Rep. 1997;112:466-473.
28. Suruda A, Halperin W. Work-related deaths in children. Am J Ind Med. 1991;19:739-745.
ISI
| PUBMED
29. Dunn KA, Runyan CW. Deaths at work among children and adolescents. AJDC. 1993;147:1044-1047.
30. Castillo DN, Landen DD, Layne LA. Occupational injury deaths of 16- and 17-year-olds in the United States. Am J Public Health. 1994;84:646-649.
FREE FULL TEXT
31. Soslow A, Woolf AD. Reliability of data sources for poisoning deaths in Massachusetts. Am J Emerg Med. 1992;10:124-127.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
32. Committee on the Health and Safety Implications of Child Labor, Board
on Children Youth and Families, National Research Council, Institute of Medicine. Protecting Youth At Work. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1998.
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Adolescents' Descriptions of Hazards in the Workplace
Woolf
Pediatrics 2007;120:685-685.
FULL TEXT
Adolescents' Descriptions of Hazards in the Workplace: In Reply
Runyan et al.
Pediatrics 2007;120:686-686.
FULL TEXT
Severe Hydrogen Sulfide Exposure in a Working Adolescent
Nikkanen and Burns
Pediatrics 2004;113:927-929.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Childhood and adolescence poisoning in NSW, Australia: an analysis of age, sex, geographic, and poison types
Lam
Inj. Prev. 2003;9:338-342.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
