1. Introduction
According to the International Organization of Work (OIT), working conditions include the time of work, the salary, physical condition and the physiologic demands at the workplace [1]. The word health organization (WHO) defines health as a complete physical, mental and, social well-being condition. It is not only the absence of illness [2]. The National Institute of Research Health and Security reports that the work in the bodywork paint sector exposes the staff to numerous chemical and physical risks for their health [3].
In France, in 2009, Barnig C et al. reported that out of 2178 cases of occupational asthma recorded by the National Observatory of Occupational Asthma (ONAP); 8.1% of affected subjects were body painters [4]. In Ethiopia, in 2020, Tamene A et al. reported that lumbar musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) accounted for 62.8% of the most common complaints among body painters [5]. In Ivory Cost, in 2011, Kouassi YM et al. reported that of 37 workers performing paintwork in a car garage, 86.5% of the workers suffered from rhinitis followed by Cough (73%) and headaches (62.2%) [6].
Most body paint workshop in the car repair sector operate in the informal sector and do not meet the labour standards. Also the personnel working there, do not have the required training on protective measures, which exposes them to occupational hazards and, workers do not benefit from regulatory medical surveillance.
We aimed to study working conditions and their impact on workers' health in a body-painting workshop in Conakry.
2. Materials and Methods
The Simanbossia workshop was used as a framework for this study. The main activities are cosmetic repairs. This was a cross-sectional study over 03 months (from 01 July to 31 December 2021). All the coachbuilders and/or painters of the workshop present were included.
After a full consent of the workers to participate on the study and the workshop manager, data were collected during an interview. We included the workers present at the workshop during our period of study.
We collected and analyse the socio-occupational datas, parameters of ergonomic working conditions and, the impact of exposures on workers’ health. We paid a particular evaluation on the lighting intensity (1000 lux), the vibratory intensity (2.5 m/s2) and the sound level (80 dB) according to the mean recommended. The instruments used to measure these parameters were the vibrometer (for vibration intensity), the luxmeter (for light intensity) and the sound level meter (for sound intensity).
Variables was Using Epi info version 7.2.2.6., quantitative data were described by mean and standard deviation. Qualitative variables were described by frequencies. We use the Fisher’ exact test to identify any health risk factor due to the working conditions. The statistic significant was noticed the P-value less than 5%.
3. Results
Sixty one workers meet our criterias. They were all men (100%) with a mean age of 37 ± 11 years and, the bodybuilders-painters were the most represented (31.1%). Table 1 describe the workers characteristics.
Table 1. Characteristiques of the workers n our study.
Socioprofessional characteristics |
Effectif (n = 61) |
Frequency (%) |
Age (years) |
|
|
18 - 27 |
16 |
26.2 |
28 - 37 |
10 |
16.4 |
38 - 47 |
22 |
36.1 |
≥48 |
13 |
21.3 |
Mean: 37.0 |
Ecart-type: ±11 |
[18 - 54] |
Job |
|
|
Bodybuilders |
19 |
31.1 |
Painters |
20 |
32.8 |
Bodybuilders-painters |
22 |
36.1 |
Over 80% of workers was exposed to more than 1000 lux and, 78.2% of workers was exposed to the vibratory intensity level of the cordless drill higther than 2.5 m/s2. The most common postures were standing arms in front extension and standing arms curved (93.4%). The average sound level was 90.5 9.2 dB(A). All the chemicals type (thin, filler, paint) available in the work environment were used by all workers. These parameters are described in Table 2.
Table 2. Assessment of worker exposure.
|
Effectif (n = 61) |
Frequency (%) |
Lighting level (lux) |
|
|
>1000 |
49 |
80.3 |
<1000 |
12 |
19.7 |
Mean: 3421.3 |
Ecart-type: ±2422.9 |
[940 - 9450] |
Vibrations intensity (m/s2) |
|
|
Cordless drill |
(n = 55) |
|
≤2.5 |
12 |
21.8 |
>2.5 |
43 |
78.2 |
Mean: 5.0 |
Ecart-type: ±1.0 |
[1 - 5.5] |
Sound characteristics (dB) |
|
|
Paint Booth |
|
|
≤80 |
20 |
32.8 |
>80 |
18 |
29.5 |
Out of paint booth |
|
|
≤80 |
- |
- |
>80 |
23 |
37.7 |
Mean: 90.5 |
Ecart-type: ±9.2 |
[75.4 - 99.6] |
The most frequent symptoms reported by the workers were back pain, headache, itchy eyes, numbness of fingers and hands. These manifestations are described in Table 3.
Table 3. Clinical manifesations according to the work condition.
Clinical manifesations according to the work condition |
Effectif (n = 61) |
Frequency (%) |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
Lighting |
|
|
|
|
Itchy eyes |
49 |
12 |
80.3 |
19.7 |
Eyes erythema |
32 |
29 |
52.5 |
47.5 |
Sound |
|
|
|
|
Tinnitus |
3 |
58 |
4.9 |
95.1 |
Hearing difficulty |
8 |
53 |
13.1 |
86.9 |
Vibrations |
|
|
|
|
Back pain |
8 |
53 |
13.1 |
86.9 |
Numbness of fingers and hands |
37 |
24 |
60.6 |
39.4 |
Posture and dynamic work |
|
|
|
|
Knee swelling |
5 |
56 |
8.2 |
91.8 |
Back pain |
59 |
2 |
96.7 |
3.3 |
Chemical products |
|
|
|
|
Headhache |
59 |
2 |
96.7 |
3.3 |
Abdominal pain |
0 |
61 |
0 |
100 |
The bivariate analysis of working conditions and clinical manifestations showed a significant relationship between the level of lighting and the eyes problems (p = 0.0007). We also found a significant relationship between the vibratory intensity of the drill and the numbness of fingers and hands (p = 0.01). These results are described in Table 4.
Table 4. The bivariate analysis findings.
Variables |
|
OR |
IC |
P-value |
Lighting level (lux) |
>1000 |
34.2 |
3.4 - 338.4 |
0.0007 |
≤1000 |
Vibrations intensity (m/s2) |
>2.5 |
9.9 |
2.2 - 43.7 |
0.01 |
≤2.5 |
4. Discussion
In this study, we aimed to analyzed the working conditions and their impact on workers’ health in a body-painting workshop in Conakry.
All the worker were men as found in the literature [7]. Women seemed to be less interested on the industry maybe due to the working condition which could explain this result.
The average age of workers was 37 years. They were younger than those found by Bates MN et al. [8] in the USA in 2019. Reginald G et al. [9] in India in 2014 reported an average age of 30.8 years. The car repair sector requires a certain physical conditions an aptitude. These criterias can explain the young age in this industry.
The bodybuilders-panters was the most represented with a proportion of 36.1%. This result could be explained by the fact that most workers are doing practice for a dual qualification to gain recognition in the labour market.
The average Lighting exposure was more than the double founded in the literature; 3421.3 lux and 2422.9 lux versus 1018 lux [10]. Among workers exposed to the drill, those exposed to an acceleration greater than 2.5 m/s2 were most represented. This result could be justified by the fact that the vibratory intensity level of the drills increases with the engine power and the strength of the body to be drilled.
In the paint booth, workers exposed to a noise level of 80 dB(A) or less are most represented with a proportion of 32.8%; outside the paint booth, workers exposed to a sound level of more than 80 dB(A) are the only ones represented with a proportion of 37.70%. Vallet S et al. [11] in France reported noise intensity levels ranging from 80 to 95 dB(A) for bodybuilders and painters in 2010. Regarding the sound level, these results could be explained by the fact that the paint booth is located far from noisy mechanical tools. However, outside the paint booth area, workers are in the vicinity of noisy tools such as the compressor.
All workers were found exposed to all chemicals products. Velazquez L. et al. [12] in Mexico in 2013 and Petit A. et al. [13] in 2014 reported that 71% of coachbuilders were exposed to isocyanate paint daily, and 7% of coach painters were exposed to isocyanate paint daily 1% of coachbuilders exposed to neurotoxic chemicals. This result could be explained by the fact that chemicals are part of the essential work equipment of coachbuilders and also the lack of personal protective equipment.
The most frequent symptoms were back pain, headache, itchy eyes, numbness of fingers and hands. Kouassi YM et al. [6] in Ivory Cost in 2011 reported 62.2% of headaches. These results could be explained by the regular exposure to noise and the adoption of restrictive postures during the working day.
We establish a significant association between working conditions and clinical manifestations. Workers exposed to a level of illumination above 1000 lux had 34.2 times more risk of experiencing eye tingling than those exposed to a level of illumination below 1000 lux (OR = 34.2; p = 0.0007). Workers exposed to a drill vibration intensity level greater than 2.5 m/s2 had a 9.9 times higher risk of developing finger and hand numbness than workers exposed to a vibration intensity level less than or equal to 2.5 m/s2 (OR = 9.9; p = 0.01).
These results can be applied to other body painting shops because the working conditions are identical. At the end of this work we had an ergonomic visit. The results of this work and the ergonomics report were presented to employers with a particular emphasis on risk factors and preventive measures.
However, other longitudinal studies on the impact of these working conditions on the health of a body shop-worker should be performed for beter analysis.
5. Conclusion
The working conditions in a body-painting shop are multiple and practically the same for the staff regardless of the workstation occupied. They are occupational risk factors that can become hazards for workers if they ignore them. In their carelessness, workers perform risky tasks that may have an impact on their health. The study shows that some clinical manifestations are related to exposure to occupational nuisances in the body-painting workshop.