Does Oil Rich in Alpha-Linolenic Fatty Acid Cause the Same Immune Modulation as Fish Oil in Walker 256 Tumor-Bearing Rats?

Objective: Polyunsaturated fatty acids n-3 (PUFA n-3) have shown effects in reducing tumor growth, in particular eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) abundantly present in fish oil (FO). When these fatty acids are provided in the diet, they alter the functions of the cells, particularly in tumor and immune cells. However, the effects of α-linolenic fatty acid (ALA), which is the precursor of EPA and DHA, are controversial. Thus, our objective was to test the effect of this parental fatty acid. Methods: Non-tumor-bearing and tumor-bearing Wistar rats (70 days) were supplemented with 1 g/kg body weight of FO or Oro Inca® (OI) oil (rich in ALA). Immune cells function, proliferation, cytokine production, and subpopulation profile were evaluated. Results: We have shown that innate immune cells enhanced phagocytosis capacity, and increased processing and elimination of antigens. Moreover, there was a decrease in production of pro-inflammatory cytokines (tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) and interleukin 6 (IL-6)) by macrophages. Lymphocytes showed decreased proliferation capacity, increased cluster of differentiation 8 (CD8⁺) subpopulation, and increased TNF-α production. Conclusions: Oil rich in ALA caused similar immune modulation in cancer when compared with FO.     

Longitudinal evaluation of a hearing protector fit training program

Objective:The present study evaluates a training program for fitting different hearing protection devices (HPDs) based on personal attenuation rating (PAR) before, immediately after, and six months after training.Methods:A total of 67 workers from a public university in the city of São Paulo, Brazil, were invited to participate in the measurement of PARs for foam and silicone protectors through the 3M™ E-A-Rfit Validation System. Two evaluations were performed for each protector at each sampling date: one after reading printed material (the package instructions) and another after being trained by an audiologist. The same procedures were repeated after six months. The final sample consisted of 30 individuals. ANOVA was used for statistical analysis.Results:Larger PAR values were observed after training by the audiologist, and smaller values were observed after six months. Then, after re-training, the values increased again. There were no statistically significant differences in PAR among the HPDs tested. Even after the two training sessions, 23 to 27% of the subjects did not obtain adequate PAR values.Conclusion:These findings emphasize the need for continual worker training in the correct fit of earplug HPDs and the importance of longitudinal PAR monitoring. In addition, some workers, despite the training provided, did not adapt to the HPDs used. Therefore, it is essential that other protection methods and/or other HPD types are made available to these individuals.Key words: Hearing, noise-induced hearing loss, occupational health, personal protective equipment, hearing protection devices