# Implementing Occupational Hazards Intervention Program for Small Farms

# 2007 - 2008 

# 

# Environmental Public Health Leadership Institute Fellow(s):

# Emmanuel A. Iyiegbuniwe, PhD

*Assistant Professor, Western Kentucky University*

*College of Health and Human Services, Department of Public Health*

*1906 College Heights Boulevard, #11082*

*Bowling Green, KY 42101*

*Tel.: (270) 745-5088*

*E-mail: emmanuel.iyiegbuniwe@wku.edu*

# Mentor(s):

# ***Daneen Farrow-Collier, MPH***

*Public Health Advisor, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC)*

# Acknowledgements:

I wish to use this opportunity to say "Thank you" to all EPHLI staff,
mentors, speakers and trainers whose efforts made the Institute a
reality. I gratefully acknowledge the talented and hardworking efforts
of Daneen Farrow-Collier, Nicole Kozma, and David Stroh for devoting
their time and providing needed support throughout the EPHLI Cohort 3
program. To my EPHLI Cohort 3 fellows, thank you for believing in
teamwork and networking. My participation in this program was made
possible by the approval, recommendation, and support received from
faculty and administrators at Western Kentucky University, including
Drs. John Bonaguro, David Dunn, Gary English, Steve Nagy, and Wayne
Higgins. Finally, my special thanks goes to my wife, Abiola and children
(Emmanuel Jr., Joel, Chiedu and Chidi) for their support, sacrifices,
and dedication throughout the EPHLI fellowship program.

> ![](media/image1.jpeg){width="1.3756944444444446in"
> height="0.6368055555555555in"}

**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:**

In the United States, agriculture ranks among the most hazardous
occupations. Small farm families are known to experience increased risks
of occupational diseases, have more lost-time injuries, less production,
and increased medical expenses. Physical hazards such as hazardous noise
result from the operation of farm machinery including tractors, grain
dryers, chain and electric saws, grinders, and other equipment. Although
hearing loss due to hazardous noise is preventable through the
implementation of hearing conservation programs, many small farmers lack
adequate protection. There are currently no federal occupational health
and safety regulations for small farms with less than 11 employees.
Additionally, most small farmers often lack basic resources for the
implementation of disease prevention and control measures. Education and
support are essential for the success and effectiveness of any
intervention program aimed at reducing occupational hazards among small
farmers.

The current project is aimed at developing and implementing an
intervention program for capacity building to reduce occupational health
hazards among a sample of small farmers in South-central Kentucky.
Specifically, the project involved the use of questionnaires and
occupational exposure assessment. Additionally, the project identified
key stakeholders and various intervention options including engineering
controls, substitution and the use of personal protective equipment by
small farmers. Preliminary data indicate that most small farmers seldom
use any form of hazard prevention or controls and that an intervention
program such as this would be effective in increasing awareness of
occupational hazards in farming.

# INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:

# In the United States, agriculture encompasses a wide range of sizes, ownership, business types, and other characteristics. Family farms account for 98%of all farms and 85% of total production. Although most farms are small (91% of farm count and 71% of farm assets), production has shifted to very large farms since farming has become increasingly consolidated and industrialized^1-4^. Small farms also differ in their contribution to agricultural production, product specialization, program participation, and dependence on farm income. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) defines a farm as an establishment that has or normally would have agricultural sales of \$1,000 in a given year^1^. Accordingly, small family farms are those with less than \$250,000 annual sales and are classified into five groups including limited-resource, retirement, residential/lifestyle, farming occupation/lower sales, and farming occupation/higher sales. Additionally, the USDA Economic Research Service has developed a farm typology that classifies farms into homogeneous groups based primarily on operator occupation and farm sales class^3^. The average small farmer practices polyculture, whereby a few acres are used to raise some cows as well as grow corn and vegetables simultaneously while large farms are generally monocultures. Small farms generate wealth in their respective rural areas through better housing, health services, education, local businesses, and the overall development of the local infrastructure and economy^2^. For the purpose of this project, small farms are defined as farming-occupation farms with less than 11 farmers whose operators report farming as their major occupation. 

####### ***Problem Statement:*** 

A report by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) indicates that agriculture ranks among the most hazardous
industries^5^. NIOSH estimates that at least 5 million and as many as 30
million American workers are exposed to hazardous noise levels.
Workplace exposures to various physical, chemical, and biological
hazards that occur among small farms with less than 11 employees are not
currently regulated under the federal and state Occupational Safety and
Health Act. However, many chronic diseases, illnesses, and health
disorders in farming communities have been linked to agricultural
exposures and these often take time to manifest^6^. Children and
adolescents living on farms are also potentially exposed to farm-related
health problems and may have increased risk of developing occupational
diseases and illnesses.

A number of published reports indicate that the affected farmers and
their families tend to develop more lost-time injuries, less production,
and increased medical expenses^7,8^. The majority of the physical
hazards are produced as a result of operating machinery and equipment
such as tractors, self-propelled agricultural machines, chain and
electric saws, and various repair equipment. Additionally, most small
farmers often lack adequate resources to implement prevention and
control measures for occupational diseases and illnesses. There are
mounting pressures on small-scale farmers to learn new ways to produce
income through alternative enterprises, improved marketing strategies,
and management skills. Equally challenging will be integrating the
increasingly complex and changing goals of environmental and
occupational health policy (e.g., prevention and control of occupational
hazards, water and air pollution) with agricultural policy. The USDA has
noted that this helps farmers to improve productivity through resource
management, controlling crop pests, soil testing, livestock production
practices, and marketing. Although occupational illnesses such as
hearing loss due to hazardous noise is preventable through the
implementation of hearing conservation programs including the use of
hearing protection devices, many farm families do not use adequate
protection.

There is need for small farmers to become more aware of potential
environmental or occupational health hazards and applicable preventive
or control programs. To be successful in their programs, educators and
other stakeholders are being challenged to reconsider some fundamental
beliefs, customs and practices about farming and what constitutes
"success." It is essential that small farmers "buy into" any
occupational health preventive or control program. Communication and
education are vital to long-lasting success. This depends on farmers
obtaining "value-added education" and skillful application and/or
proficiency in using such information.

Figure 1 (Behavior Over Time) shows that the number of U.S. small
farmers and farm families has remained stable over time. The USDA's
National Agricultural Statistics Service has noted that the relatively
stable farm count over the last few decades reflects exits and entries
essentially in balance^2^. However, available resources have been
declining while the prevalence and incidence rates of occupational
injuries and illnesses have been rising.

####### Figure 1. Behavior Over Time 

![](media/image2.wmf)\
Causal Loop Diagrams and applicable archetypes:

Figure 2 shows the causal loops involved in maintaining and reinforcing
the prevalence of occupational hazards among small farmers in
South-central Kentucky. The focusing question is: "How can we prevent or
control the risks of occupational hazards among small farmers?" An
answer to this question lies in understanding and making a statement of
the problem and depicting it in a suitable archetype: shifting the
burden (Figure 3) as illustrated in The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook by
Senge, et.al.^7^.

Figure 2. Causal Loop Diagram![](media/image3.wmf)

#######  

####### ***10 Essential Environmental Health Services:***

The field of environmental health is an applied discipline dedicated to
the recognition, evaluation, and control of environmental factors or
stresses arising in the environment that may cause sickness, impaired
health and wellbeing, or significant discomfort among workers or
citizens of a community. These factors or stresses may be chemical (e.g.
solvents), physical (e.g. noise), biological (e.g. foodborne illnesses),
or ergonomic (e.g. repetitive motion) in nature and may arise in
virtually any sector of the environment. The Occupational Hazards
Intervention Program will reduce the risks of small farmers in
South-central Kentucky from developing work-related injuries and
illnesses.

In fiscal year 1990, the US Congress directed NIOSH to develop an
extensive agricultural safety and health program to address the high
risks of health hazards and illnesses experienced by agricultural
workers^6^. In 1996, NIOSH included occupational hearing loss as one of
the priority areas of research with a consensus of 21 top research
priorities and as one of the eight critical occupational diseases and
injuries requiring research and development activities within the
framework of the National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA)^10^.
Specifically, this project addresses two of NORA's priority research
areas: NIHL and the inclusion of a special and underserved population of
small farmers in rural areas. Through the development of occupational
health hazard awareness and intervention programs, this project seeks to
address the problems of environmental and occupational diseases. The
benefits to small farmers include prevention of occupational diseases,
reduced medical costs and lost wages. The project also addresses the
assessment aspect of the IOM report and the Ten Essential Environmental
Health Services (Monitoring Health, Investigation, Information,
Education and Enforcement).

####### ***National Goals Supported*** 

This research project is about implementing an occupational health
hazards intervention program for small farmers. It will certainly
contribute to the field of literature on occupational noise exposures
and the development of hearing loss among farmers with a view to
implementing a holistic educational and intervention program to address
this pervasive but preventive disorder in South-central Kentucky.
Additionally, the project will allow for the examination of multiple
occupational exposures that contribute to other environmental public
health injuries and illnesses. The main outcome is that the results of
this research project have great potential of being applicable to other
small farmers and special populations throughout the United States.

1.  The research project is relevant to the CDC's goals of Healthy
    People 2010 related to occupational health hazard exposures^11^.
    Specifically, the project addresses CDC's goal of "Healthy People in
    Healthy Places" (promoting and protecting the health and safety of
    people who work by preventing workplace-related fatalities,
    illnesses, injuries, and personal health risks) through assessment
    (monitoring of health hazards through the use of questionnaires and
    exposure determination for noise and chemical hazards).

2.  This project seeks to develop an awareness and intervention program
    that will reduce the risks of occupational hazards among small
    farmers. Additionally, by creating and disseminating knowledge, the
    project supports the national strategy of Public Health Research. By
    encouraging the modification of existing farming equipment and
    implementation of relevant prevention and control measures, the
    project supports the need for public health protection of small
    farmers now and in the future.

3.  The project addresses a number of guidelines and recommendations
    established by the American Public Health Association (APHA) for
    local public health leaders on the core non-technical competencies
    needed by practitioners working in local health departments.
    Specifically, this project focuses on the three primary functions of
    any environmental health program (assessment, management, and
    communication). Three graduate students are participating in this
    study and their assigned responsibilities include field data
    collection, analysis, interpretation and management (assessment and
    management), development and dissemination of questionnaires, and
    providing feedback to small farmers (communication).

####### ***Project Logic Model:***

Why, despite our best efforts, have we not been able to prevent
occupational exposures and promote health and safety among small private
farmers and their families?

**Key Stakeholders**

The key stakeholders are small farmers with less than 11 employees and
their households. Farm families are concerned about their health,
particularly work-related exposures and the development of chronic
diseases such as hearing losses and would seek recommendations on
prevention strategies and control measures to reduce their leisure-time
and work-related exposures. Many farmers recognize that occupational
exposures may cause irreversible hearing loss, social problems and
stress, impaired communication, increased injuries, decreased
self-esteem, annoyance, irritability, lost productivity, and increased
medical expenses and workers' compensation costs.

**Pre-conditions for Change**

Small farm and their families lack education, adequate financial
resources and equipment for interventions, but are willing and able to
invest time and effort needed to learn various ways to reduce exposure
to hazards by implementing prevention and control measures. Table 1
shows the Cost-Benefit Analysis of Change or No Change.

1.  *Senior management alignment around vision.* The proposed project
    addresses Western Kentucky University (WKU)'s *Challenging the
    Spirit* strategic plan that encourages faculty involvement in
    community-related research development and service activities that
    provide optimum services to the citizens of Kentucky. Additionally,
    the project involves a topic that is one of the priority areas of
    the National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) that is
    administered by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
    Health (NIOSH) under its pilot research grants.

2.  *Willingness of relevant stakeholders to invest time and/or
    resources for learning* NIOSH and WKU have committed to investing
    needed time and resources (grant to the tune of \$7,000) to ensure
    that this project is accomplished.

3.  *Willingness and ability of stakeholders to make tradeoffs between
    the short- and long-term**. ***Farm families are willing and able to
    make necessary tradeoffs to ensure that they reduce their
    occupational exposures and improve their overall health.

4.  *Openness to commonly held beliefs and assumptions.* Yes, I believe
    that farmers and their families are willing and capable of embracing
    change as long as they know that it will reduce their occupational
    exposures and improve their overall health and safety.

+-------+-------------------------------------+------------------------+
| ##    |                                     |                        |
| ##### |                                     |                        |
| # Tab |                                     |                        |
| le 1. |                                     |                        |
|  Cost |                                     |                        |
|  Bene |                                     |                        |
| fit A |                                     |                        |
| nalys |                                     |                        |
| is of |                                     |                        |
|  Chan |                                     |                        |
| ge -- |                                     |                        |
|  No C |                                     |                        |
| hange |                                     |                        |
+-------+-------------------------------------+------------------------+
|       | **Changing**                        | **Not Changing**       |
+-------+-------------------------------------+------------------------+
| **    | **1) Benefits of Changing**         | **3) Benefits of Not   |
| Benef |                                     | Changing**             |
| its** | -   Increased return on assets,     |                        |
|       |     improved productivity,          | -   Comfort and        |
|       |     profitability and               |     predictability of  |
|       |     sustainability                  |     doing business the |
|       |                                     |     old-fashioned or   |
|       | -   Improved human well-being and   |     traditional way    |
|       |     environmental management        |                        |
|       |     practices                       | -   Fear of the        |
|       |                                     |     unknown            |
|       | -   Decreased costs of farming over |                        |
|       |     the long-term and tax           |                        |
|       |     incentives for business-related |                        |
|       |     expenses                        |                        |
|       |                                     |                        |
|       | -   Formal and informal alliances   |                        |
|       |     or partnerships to offer a      |                        |
|       |     comprehensive program for small |                        |
|       |     farmers                         |                        |
|       |                                     |                        |
|       | -   Complementary to existing       |                        |
|       |     cooperative extension services  |                        |
|       |     for small farmers               |                        |
|       |                                     |                        |
|       | -   Increased potential for         |                        |
|       |     government-funded programs      |                        |
+-------+-------------------------------------+------------------------+
| **Co  | **4) Cost of Changing**             | **2) Costs of Not      |
| sts** |                                     | Changing**             |
|       | -   Short-term impacts resulting    |                        |
|       |     from time commitment for        | -   Increased          |
|       |     limited resource small farmers  |     incidence and      |
|       |     in collaboration and adapting/  |     prevalence of      |
|       |     implementing the new            |     farming-related    |
|       |     intervention program rather     |     illness, disease   |
|       |     than doing business as usual    |     or disability      |
|       |                                     |                        |
|       | -   Moderate increase in physical   | -   Decreased incomes  |
|       |     capital needed for program      |     and business       |
|       |     implementation                  |     revenues           |
|       |                                     |                        |
|       |                                     | -   Increased medical  |
|       |                                     |     costs and          |
|       |                                     |     hospitalizations   |
|       |                                     |                        |
|       |                                     | -   More jobs being    |
|       |                                     |     lost than created  |
+-------+-------------------------------------+------------------------+

#  PROJECT OBJECTIVES/DESCRIPTION/DELIVERABLES:

####### ***Program Goal:*** 

To promote and encourage the implementation and promotion of
environmental and occupational health intervention programs including
education, prevention and control programs for small farmers. Education
is key and support from stakeholders is essential for the success and
effectiveness of any intervention program aimed at reducing occupational
health hazards.

***Health Problem:*** A number of chronic diseases, illnesses, and
health disorders of adults in agricultural communities are linked to
occupational exposures and these often take time to manifest. Children
and adolescents living on farms are also potentially exposed to
farm-related health problems and may have increased risk of developing
occupational diseases and illnesses.

####### Small farm families are concerned about their health, particularly environmental and occupational health exposures and the development of injuries and acute or chronic diseases. They would seek recommendations on feasible prevention strategies and control measures to reduce their leisure-time and work-related exposures. Additionally, many farmers recognize that occupational exposures may cause such serious health problems (e.g., irreversible hearing loss, social problems and stress, impaired communication, increased injuries, decreased self-esteem, annoyance, irritability, lost productivity, and increased medical expenses and workers' compensation costs).

####### ***Outcome Objective:*** When farmers recognize the benefits of this program to sustain human and environmental health, they will be committed to investing needed time and resources to ensure its success. Other important stakeholders will also be willing to ensure that the goals of the program are accomplished

####### ***Determinant:*** Agriculture is one of the most hazardous industries in the United States, yet government does not regulate small farmers. Farm families who often lack the awareness, adequate resources, empowerment and motivation to prevent and control occupational health hazards in their farms.

***Impact Objective:*** To examine occupational exposure sources and
profiles during normal activities and identify specific areas and
farming activities associated with potentially high physical and
chemical exposures. Small farmers and their families are willing and
capable of embracing change as long as they know that it will reduce
their occupational exposures and improve their overall health and
safety.

####### ***Contributing Factors:*** Government does not regulate small farms. Small farm families lack the awareness of occupational health hazards, have inadequate financial resources and equipment for interventions, but are willing and able to invest time and effort needed to learn various exposure prevention and control methods.

####### ***Process Objectives:*** To assess occupational health exposures for a sample of small farmers in South-central Kentucky. Farm families are willing and able to make necessary tradeoffs to ensure that they reduce their occupational exposures and improve their overall health.

# METHODOLOGY:

The project is conducted to assess occupational health hazard exposures,
primarily noise, of small farms in South Central Kentucky: farms in
three counties as the intervention farms and Western Kentucky University
(WKU) farms as the comparison farm. Three WKU faculty members and three
graduate Public Health students were assigned the responsibility of
field data collection and analysis. By using an interdisciplinary
approach for occupational health hazard exposure assessment, the study
seeks to document work activities, the presence of chemical and
biological substances of public health importance.

####### The study covers a period of one year. Distribution of questionnaires and field sample collection were scheduled and conducted during normal farming seasons (planting and growing seasons). Questionnaires will be distributed to all adult participants in each of the intervention and comparison farms. Participants in each selected farm will comprise of adults who regularly work on the farm. Each participant in the intervention group was made to complete a formal consent form that explains the voluntary and confidential nature of this study and to agree to wear any applicable personal sampling devices throughout the monitoring period. None of the participants in the comparison group will be required to wear any personal sampling device. No recruitment incentives or compensation will be paid to the participating farmers. Additionally, the use and participation of individual small farmers in this project was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board.

# NEXT STEPS:

The results of this project will be presented at the 2008
NIOSH-sponsored Pilot Research Program (PRP) symposium at the University
of Cincinnati. The project also has a great potential for future
funding, hence additional grant money will be sought from various
federal agencies, institutes, and foundations to assess long-term
applications of intervention programs to reduce occupational hazards
among small farmers. Additionally, when completed, the results of this
project will be disseminated to the affected small farmers and the
professional environmental health community with a view to promoting and
encouraging the implementation of environmental and occupational health
prevention and control programs and among farmers.

# EXPECTED OUTCOMES:

The project is on-going and the final results will be available by late
spring 2008. However, preliminary data indicate that most small farmers
hardly implement or use any form of active hazard prevention or control
during normal farming activities. An intervention program such as this
would be effective in increasing small farmers' awareness of
occupational hazards in agriculture. This research project has
identified key stakeholders and various intervention options including
feasible engineering controls, substitution and the use of personal
protective equipment for the prevention and control of occupational
hazards among small farmers.

This project will contribute to a scanty field of literature regarding
occupational health exposures among small farmers in Kentucky. In
addition, the project will allow for the examination of other potential
occupational exposures that contribute to the development of hearing
loss among farmers with a view to developing a holistic educational and
intervention programs to address this pervasive but preventive disorder.
The main outcome is that the results of this project can be generalized
to other special populations throughout the United States.

It is anticipated that the project will provide an opportunity for
interdisciplinary and experiential learning for the graduate students in
environmental public health sciences have participated in field data
collection and analysis.

Education is key to the implementation of an effective intervention
program that would increase the use of hearing protection during farm
activities involving hazardous noise exposure. Through the development
of educational and intervention programs, we can address the problem of
environmental and occupational noise and this will benefit the
Commonwealth of Kentucky in terms of prevention of occupational
diseases, particularly hearing losses, reduced medical costs and lost
wages for farm families.

In the field of environmental and occupational health, the
implementation of feasible engineering and administrative controls are
preferred strategies to reduce or prevent chemical, biological, and
physical hazards. By implementing this intervention program, many small
farmers (although they may lack adequate resources) would be able to
effectively control their risks of occupational hazards to acceptable
levels or below regulatory or recommended levels. However, where the
implementation of an effective engineering control program is not
feasible, the use of personal protective equipment (respiratory and
hearing protection) would be the next best and most practical strategy
to prevent the risks of occupational diseases and illnesses among small
farmers. It is anticipated that the implementation of this intervention
program would lead to increased awareness of occupational hazards,
increase sense of empowerment and revenue for the affected small farmers
and their families.

# 

**CONCLUSIONS:**

# 

Small farmers are known to experience increased risks of exposure to a
variety of occupational hazards, often have more lost-time injuries,
less production, and increased medical expenses. The majority of
work-related physical hazards in agriculture result from farm machinery
and equipment. There are currently no federal occupational health and
safety regulations for small farms with less than 11 employees.
Additionally, most small farmers often lack the awareness and basic
resources needed for effective implementation of hazard reduction and
disease prevention and controls. The project involved the assessment of
occupational hazards, primarily noise among a sample of small farmers in
South-central Kentucky with a view to developing and implementing an
effective intervention and control program. Specifically, the project
involved the use of questionnaires and occupational exposure assessment.
Additionally, the project identified key stakeholders and various
intervention options including engineering controls, substitution and
the use of personal protective equipment by small farmers. Preliminary
data indicate that most small farmers do not use any form of
occupational hazard prevention or control measures while working on the
farm. The expected outcome of this project is the increased awareness
and capacity building for the prevention and control of occupational
health hazards among small farmers in South-central Kentucky. An
intervention program such as this would be effective in increasing
awareness of occupational hazards among rural small farming. Education
is key for the success and effectiveness of any intervention program
aimed at reducing occupational hazards among small farmers. The project
also has the potential of being applicable to small farmers throughout
the U.S.

# LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES:

####### ***Emmanuel A. Iyiegbuniwe, PhD***

EPHLI has been very rewarding and challenging at the same time. The
SKILLSCOPE 360 survey and MBTI provided opportunities for a deeper
personal understanding, assessment of my skill level and relevant input
from supervisors, colleagues, and students. Additionally, the sessions,
assignments, classroom discussions, and group activities are invaluable
in my career development with regards to improving my communication
skills, tactical strategies and in designing programs for more effective
communication and relationship skills with faculty, staff and students
at my institution. I am excited about what I have learned that are
necessary to improve my *\"People Skills\"* and the development of a
more holistic and satisfying relationship with others. As a future
leader in environmental health, I feel a good sense of accomplishment
knowing that success favors the prepared mind and to always keep an open
mind toward solving problems. I am very excited about the opportunity to
attend a course on leadership and business development strategies in
Southeast Asia, specifically Malaysia. Additionally, I have been awarded
a summer fellowship by the Japanese Study Institute to attend a
three-week course at San Diego State University. However, I fell short
of accomplishing all my desired goals for this project. Specifically, I
was not able to complete my project due to delays in receiving funding
from the grant applications that I submitted. Nonetheless, I am grateful
for the University of Cincinnati's Pilot Research grant award of \$7,000
from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
This funding is necessary to complete the project and subsequently
inform EPHLI staff of my progress. I am confident that the Institute has
provided me with a set of tools for continuous improvement and the
development of a deeper understanding of leadership qualities in
environmental public health. Looking back to the beginning of EPHLI
Cohort3 one year ago, there is no doubt in my mind that active
participation in the Institute has been a very challenging and rewarding
experience.

# ABOUT THE EPHLI FELLOW(s)

Dr. Emmanuel Iyiegbuniwe (Ph.D., University of Illinois at Chicago,
1997) is an Assistant Professor of Environmental Health Sciences at
Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY. Dr. Iyiegbuniwe has over
fifteen years of experience in academia, consulting, and industry in the
areas of Air Quality Management, Environmental Health & Industrial
Exposure Assessment, Epidemiology, and Public Health Management of
Disasters. His teaching, research, and service interests are in the
areas of agricultural safety, industrial workplace and indoor air
quality (IAQ) exposure assessments for substances of public health
importance. Dr. Iyiegbuniwe is an ATLAS scholar and Thomas Jefferson
fellow. Additionally, Dr. Iyiegbuniwe is a fellow of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Environmental Public Health
Leadership Institute (EPHLI 2007-2008), the American Industrial Hygiene
Association (AIHA) Future Leaders Institute (FLI 2006), and Japanese
Studies Institute. He is a member of several national and international
professional organizations including the KPHA, AIHA, and APHA.

##### 

##### Professional Experience

1989-1992 NGO Liaison Officer/Occupational Hygienist, Federal Ministry
of Health, Lagos, Nigeria

1993--1997 Environmental Health & Product Safety Coordinator John Crane,
Inc., Morton Grove, IL

1998--1999 Occupational Hygienist, Maxxam Analytics, Inc., Toronto,
Canada

1999--2000 Industrial Hygiene Manager, Environmental Design
International Inc, Chicago, IL

2000--2002 Senior Environmental Consultant, Theodore J. Hogan &
Associates, Inc., Lemont, IL

2000-- 2003 Adjunct Professor, Roosevelt University, Chicago, IL;
College of DuPage, Glen Ellyn, IL; and Benedictine University, Lisle, IL

2003-- Present Assistant Professor of Public Health, Western Kentucky
University, Bowling Green, KY

######## 

**[Awards (Selected)]{.underline}**

AIHA Future Leaders Institute (FLI) Fellow, 2006

Illinois Environmental Health Association Award, 1996

University of Illinois/John & Grace Nuveen International Scholar Award,
1995

National Safety Council/Campus Safety Association Award, 1995

Thomas Jefferson Fellowship/USAID Training for Leadership and Advanced
Skills Scholarship, 1992-1994

**[Publications (Selected)]{.underline}**

Iyiegbuniwe, E., Chekuri, L., Iyiegbuniwe, A. (2007). Workers' Exposures
to Ultra-fine Particulate Matter during Automobile Components
Production. [Int. J. Nanomanufacturing]{.underline} Vol. 1, No.5, pp.
608-626.

Iyiegbuniwe, E., Iyiegbuniwe, A., Chekuri, L, Lewis, J. (2007).
Nanomaterials and Health: A Critical Review of Exposure Assessment and
Control Strategies. [Int. J. Nanomanufacturing]{.underline}, Vol. 1,
No.5, pp. 574-591.

Iyiegbuniwe, E., Chekuri, L., Iyiegbuniwe, A. (2006). Workers' Exposures
to Ultra-fine Particulate Matter during Automobile Components
Production. [Proceedings of the 5^th^ International Surface Engineering
Congress]{.underline}, October 2006, ASM International, Materials Park,
OH 44073, ISBN-10:0-87170-843-4, Vol. 5, pp. 63-72.

Iyiegbuniwe, E. (2006). Institute Uses "City as Text" or "Walkabout"
Methodology for Student Engagement. Teaching Spirit, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp.
1-5.

# REFERENCES

1.  U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics
    Service. *2002 Census of Agriculture*, Vol. 1: Geographic Area
    Series, Part 51: United States Summary and State Data, AC97-A-51,
    June 2004.

2.  United States Department of Agriculture. *A Time to Act: A Report of
    the USDA National Commission on Small Farms.* USDA Miscellaneous
    Publication 1545, 1998.

3.  US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration,
    Bureau of the Census: 1990 CP-2-1. [1990 Census of Population,
    Social and Economic Characteristics, United States]{.underline}.
    Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1993.

4.  U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy.
    [Characteristics of Small Business Employees and Owners
    1997]{.underline}, January 1998.

5.  NIOSH. "*Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise
    Exposure*." Revised criteria 1998. Cincinnati, OH, National
    Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Accessed January
    15, 2008. Available at (<http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/98-126.html>).

6.  Thelan J, Davis W, Baker D, Hosokawa M. High-frequency hearing loss
    in male farmers of Missouri. *Public Health Reports*, 98, 268-273,
    1983.

7.  Concha-Barrientos M, Cambell-Lendrum D, Steenland K. "*Occupational
    Noise: Assessing the burden of disease from work-related hearing
    impairment at national and local levels*." Geneva, World Health
    Organization (WHO Environmental Burden of Disease Series, No. 9),
    2004.

8.  NIOSH. "*Work-Related Hearing Loss*." National Institute for
    Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Pub No. 2001-103,
    Cincinnati, OH, 2001

9.  Senge P, Kleiner A, Roberts C, Ross R, Smith B. [The Fifth
    Discipline Fieldbook]{.underline}: Strategies and Tools for Building
    a Learning Organization. New York, NY: DoubleDay, 1994.

10. NIOSH. "*National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA)*." National
    Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Pub No.
    96-115, Cincinnati, OH, 1996.

11. US Department of Health and Human Services. *Healthy People 2010*
    (Conference Edition Volume II). Washington, DC: January 2000.