Impacts of Health and Safety Concerns on E-Commerce and Service Reconfiguration during COVID-19 Pandemic: Insights from an Emerging Economy

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Nguyen ◽  
Quan Le ◽  
Jasmine Trang Ha
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannah M. Curtis ◽  
Hendrika Meischke ◽  
Nancy Simcox ◽  
Sarah Laslett ◽  
Noah Seixas

Safety ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 44
Author(s):  
J. L. Gibbs ◽  
K. Walls ◽  
C. Sheridan ◽  
D. Sullivan ◽  
M. Cheyney ◽  
...  

Young adults enrolled in collegiate agricultural programs are a critical audience for agricultural health and safety training. Understanding the farm tasks that young adults engage in is necessary for tailoring health and safety education. The project analyzed evaluation survey responses from the Gear Up for Ag Health and Safety™ program, including reported agricultural tasks, safety concerns, frequency of discussing health and safety concerns with healthcare providers, safety behaviors, and future career plans. The most common tasks reported included operation of machinery and grain-handling. Most participants intended to work on a family-owned agricultural operation or for an agribusiness/cooperative following graduation. Reported safety behaviors (hearing protection, eye protection, and sunscreen use when performing outdoor tasks) differed by gender and education type. Male community college and university participants reported higher rates of “near-misses” and crashes when operating equipment on the roadway. One-third of participants reported discussing agricultural health and safety issues with their medical provider, while 72% were concerned about the health and safety of their family and co-workers in agriculture. These findings provide guidance for better development of agricultural health and safety programs addressing this population—future trainings should be uniquely tailored, accounting for gender and educational differences.


2011 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 1821-1828 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuguo Song ◽  
Shichuan Tang

Accumulating studies in animals have shown that nanoparticles could cause unusual rapid lung injury and extrapulmonary toxicity. Whether exposure of workers to nanoparticles may result in some unexpected damage as seen in animals is still a big concern. We previously reported findings regarding a group of patients exposed to nanoparticles and presenting with an unusual disease. The reported disease was characterized by bilateral chest fluid, pulmonary fibrosis, pleural granuloma, and multiorgan damage and was highly associated with the nanoparticle exposure. To strengthen this association, further information on exposure and the disease was collected and discussed. Our studies show that some kinds of nanomaterials, such as silica nanoparticles and nanosilicates, may be very toxic and even fatal to occupational workers exposed to them without any effective personal protective equipment. More research and collaborative efforts on nanosafety are required in order to prevent and minimize the potential hazards of nanomaterials to humans and the environment.


2020 ◽  
pp. 761-776
Author(s):  
Monona Rossol ◽  
Mary McGinn ◽  
Joyce H. Townsend

2016 ◽  
Vol 53 (5) ◽  
pp. NP1-NP1

White, Katherine, Lily Lin, Darren W. Dahl, and Robin J. B. Ritchie (2016), “When Do Consumers Avoid Imperfections? Superficial Packaging Damage as a Contamination Cue,” Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (February), 110–23. (Original DOI: 10.1509/jmr.12.0388 ) The following reporting errors have been noted in this article. These errors were clerical only, and the changes do not affect the data patterns or significance of the results in any way. Study 1, page 113 The numerator degrees of freedom for the interaction should be 2. At the end of the last full paragraph, the text should read: “The interaction qualified a significant main effect for type of package damage (F(2, 139) = 4.90, p < .05) and a marginal main effect for cognitive load (F(1, 139) = 3.36, p < .07).” Study 2, page 115 The degrees of freedom should be 130. The text should read: “Results revealed a main effect for packaging damage (t(130) = 5.49, p < .001; b = −.561) and the anticipated three-way interaction (t(130) = 2.24, p < .03; b = −.286; see Figure 2).” Study 4, page 116 The numerator degrees of freedom was omitted in one sentence. The text should read: “As we predicted, packaging appearance predicted both contamination perceptions (F(2, 150) = 4.17, p < .05) and health and safety concerns (F(2, 150) = 3.41, p < .05; see Table 1).” Study 5, page 118 The initial sample size is 200 participants. The text should say: “Those who failed to properly complete the cognitive load task were removed from the analyses (9.5% of the sample, leaving 181 participants).”


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document