The relevance of oral exposure in the workplace: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Autor:	Dietz M; Unit 4.I.4 Exposure Assessment, Exposure Science, Division 4 Hazardous Substances and Biological Agents, Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA), Dortmund, Germany.; America Chair of Occupational Safety, School of Mechanical Engineering and Safety Engineering, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany., Schnieder WE; Unit 4.I.4 Exposure Assessment, Exposure Science, Division 4 Hazardous Substances and Biological Agents, Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA), Dortmund, Germany.; Environmental Monitoring and Forensic Chemistry, Hamm-Lippstadt University of Applied Sciences, Hamm, Germany., Schlüter U; Unit 4.I.4 Exposure Assessment, Exposure Science, Division 4 Hazardous Substances and Biological Agents, Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA), Dortmund, Germany., Kahl A; America Chair of Occupational Safety, School of Mechanical Engineering and Safety Engineering, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Frontiers in public health [Front Public Health] 2023 Nov 30; Vol. 11, pp. 1298744. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Nov 30 (Print Publication: 2023).
DOI:	10.3389/fpubh.2023.1298744
Abstrakt:	Introduction: The inclusion of all relevant exposure routes in the exposure assessment is essential for the protection of workers. However, under European chemical regulations but also for workplace risk assessments according to occupational safety and health (OSH) requirements, the quantitative assessment of oral exposure is usually neglected assuming good occupational hygiene. In contrast, several studies point to the importance of unintentional ingestion in the workplace. To our knowledge, there is no systematic analysis of the extent of this exposure route. Methods: Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess systematically the current knowledge on the relevance of occupational oral exposure using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) method. Five electronic databases and nine institutional websites were searched for all publications on the relevance. The data were extracted into a concept matrix. In the subsequent meta-analysis, the identified conclusions on the relevance were analyzed. In addition, the measurement methods or modeling approaches that were described for occupational oral exposure were determined as well as the potentially relevant workplaces and substances. Results: In total, 147 studies were included in this analysis that contain a general or several, differentiated assessments of the relevance of occupational oral exposure. Nine of these studies assessed this exposure route as irrelevant. However, 123 studies considered oral exposure as potentially contributing and 80 studies explicitly identified it as relevant. 78 and 94 of the publications described modeling and measurement approaches, respectively. The workplaces frequently identified as potentially or explicitly relevant were other indoor, other industrial or recycling workplaces. Analogously, metals, dust and powders or pesticides were the most frequently investigated substance groups. Discussion: As several studies assessed occupational oral exposure as relevant in the context of different workplaces and substances, further investigation of this exposure route is needed. This systematic review and meta-analysis serve as a basis for further development of feasible assessment methods for this route of exposure. Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. (Copyright © 2023 Dietz, Schnieder, Schlüter and Kahl.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu