Introduction: Enteroaggregative Escherichia coli (EAEC) is an important agent of acute and persistent diarrhea worldwide. Few cases have been reported in healthy children. EAEC strains are characterized by aggregative adherence (AA) to HEp-2 cells, wherein bacteria are seen in “stacked brick” aggregates attaching to HEp-2 cells and usually to the glass surface between cells. Goal: To identify Enteroaggregative Escherihia coli using multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and HEp-2 adherence assay in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia Materials and Methods: A total of 329 E. coli strains were isolated from stool with diarrhea in National Center for Communicable Diseases from July 2012 through September 2014. All specimens were processed by routine microbiological and biochemical tests in the bacteriological laboratories to identify Salmonella spp., Shigella spp. All specimens in our study were negative for these bacterial and parasitic pathogens. The biofilm formation was evaluated by the growth rate of E.coli on plastic surface. PCR assays were used to detect genes of five types of diarrheagenic E.coli (DEC). All of the DEC strains showed mannose-resistant adherence to HEp-2 cells, and aggregative adherence was predominant in these isolates. Bacterial susceptibility to antimicrobial agents determined by the Kirby Bauer disk diffusion method on Muller Hinton agar. Results: EAEC (31.9%) was the most prevalent by PCR and HEp-2 assay comparing with others. EAEC by multiplex PCR in samples (11, 3.3%), followed by enteropathogenic E.coli (EPEC) seen in 2.1%. Enterohemorrhagic E.coli (EHEC) and enteroinvasive E.coli (EIEC) were found in 7 (2.1%) and 1 (0.3%) of the samples. Enterotoxigenic E.coli (ETEC) and diffusely adhering E.coli were detected in 2 (0.6%), respectively. The evaluation of bacterial biofilm formation using 96 well plates showed 309 negative (93%), 15 weak biofilm (4.6%) and 8 moderate biofilm (2.4%) formation for E.coli and no strong biofilm forming strain was detected. Above 50% of antibiotic resistance was observed for ampicillin, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, cefuroxime and cephalotin. Also, 95.4% of isolates were resistant to at least three different classes of antimicrobial agents and considered as multidrug resistance. Conclusion: EAEC is most prevalent pathogen among DEC in our samples. It is necessary to implement EAEC identifying method on Hep-2 assay in our laboratory practice.

This study investigated adverse effect of ergonomics risk factor among office staffs. Total of 224 workers participated in the study from 780 workers of Oyu Tolgoi Company, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. The study participants had signs of red numbness and fatigue (77%), back pain and discomforts (55%), discomforts of wrist, palm (25%), and shoulder and elbow (42%) for last 6 months. Moreover, they participants had signs of red numbness and fatigue (62%), back pain and discomforts (41%), discomforts of wrist, palm (18%), and shoulder and elbow (37%) for last oneweek.

IntroductionThe workplace is an important site which can influence physical, mental, economic and social aspects of people’s wellbeing. In the globalized market a vital condition for success is healthy, professional and motivated human resources. With the increasing awareness of this factor in the public and private enterprises, the concept of health promoting workplace is gaining a growing significance.GoalTo study health promoting activities in the workplace and assess knowledge and attitude of employers on health promotion.Materials and MethodsA cross-sectional study design was used and the data was collected using quantitative and qualitative methods. A thermal power plant, beverage manufacture, construction company and a mining company were selected for the study.ResultsIn terms of measurements of parameters of the working conditions, the average temperature was higher than required in the occupational hygiene standard (26.60C) and the air humidity was within standard level (30-70%). The workers of the thermal power plant, construction company and mining company are exposed to hand-arm and whole-body vibrations. The highest noise level was 96 dB(A) in the mechanical and repair shops of the mining company which exceeds the occupational hygiene standard. All companies had staff members who responsible for occupational safety, but only 3 had health care service providers for workers. Each company has its own policies to control and prevent workplace hazards and to promote workers health, but these activities were not implemented adequately. Conclusion:Employers, managers and employees have reasonable understanding of workplace health promotion. However, systematic training and counseling are required to improve the activities aimed at protection and promotion of the health of the employees. There is an acute need for systematic and comprehensive implementation of healthy workplace programs. Among others, improvement of the physical environment and ergonomics of every workstation, and availability of health services are also necessary. Environment for promotion and sustenance of healthy behavior in the employees need to be developed for the employees.