Back to Search Start Over

Methods to assess dermal exposures in occupational settings: a scoping review.

Authors :
Therkorn, Jennifer H
Mathewson, Brittany A
Laursen, Christopher J
Maberti, Silvia
Aizenberg, Vitaly
Dinkelacker, Brian T
Rege, Saumitra
Source :
Annals of Work Exposures & Health. May2024, Vol. 68 Issue 4, p351-365. 15p.
Publication Year :
2024

Abstract

Objectives The dermal exposure route is expected to become increasingly significant relative to total worker exposure as inhalational exposure limits continue to decrease. However, standardization of occupational exposure assessment methods and scientific consensus are needed. This is the first scoping review mapping the literature across all dermal exposure assessment methods and their targeted substances/chemicals in occupational settings. Methods Eligibility criteria broadly included studies reporting any noninvasive dermal exposure assessment method in an occupational setting. The literature search (Web of Science and MEDLINE) was restricted to peer-reviewed, primary literature published in the last 20 years (2002–2022). Titles/abstracts were dual independently screened. Data charting was performed by a single reviewer using standard template. All stages were pilot tested. The JBI (formerly, the Joanna Briggs Institute) scoping review methods and PRISMA-ScR checklist (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) were used. Results In total, 493 articles were data charted and categorized by 4 study types: methods development (22%), exposure assessment (51%), health outcomes (21%), and controls assessment (6%). Fourteen types of dermal exposure assessment methods were charted with biomarkers (51%), dosimeters (21%), and qualitative assessments such as questionnaires or surveys (17%) most common. Seventeen different chemicals/substances were charted; pesticides (28%) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (22%) associated with crude oil products and combustion were most common. Mapping between substances and exposure assessment method categories, pesticide dosimeters (11%), and PAH biomarker studies (14%) were most reported. Literature gaps were identified for cleaning agents, hair dyes, glycol ether, N , N -dimethylformamide/ N -methyl-2-pyrrolidone, dioxins, and bisphenol A. Conclusions To foster scientific consensus, standardization across study reporting is needed for describing: (i) exposure assessment methods used, (ii) worker tasking/conditions, (iii) targeted substances and substance state, and (iv) targeted exposure routes. Overall, this review categorizes, maps, and defines the scope of literature for occupational dermal exposure assessment methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
23987308
Volume :
68
Issue :
4
Database :
Academic Search Index
Journal :
Annals of Work Exposures & Health
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
177085077
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1093/annweh/wxae015