Retrospective Exposure Assessment Methods Used in Occupational Human Health Risk Assessment: A Systematic Review

Our plain-English summary of Retrospective Exposure Assessment Methods Used in Occupational Human Health Risk Assessment: A Systematic Review, by F. Borghi, L.A. Mazzucchelli, D. Campagnolo, et al (International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020).

The study

• Authors: F. Borghi, L.A. Mazzucchelli, D. Campagnolo, S. Rovelli, G. Fanti, M. Keller, A. Cattaneo, A. Spinazzè, D.M. Cavallo
• Journal: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
• Published: 2020;17(17)
• Type of article: Systematic review
• Cited by: 14 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

Abstract

As part of the assessment and management of chemical risk and occupational hygiene, retrospective exposure assessment (REA) to chemical agents can be defined as the estimate of exposure associated with a person's work history. The fundamental problem underlying the reconstruction of the exposure is that of transforming this type of information in quantitative terms to obtain an accurate estimate. REA can follow various approaches, some of which are technically complicated and both time and resource consuming. The aim of this systematic review is to present the techniques mainly used for occupational REA. In order to carry out this evaluation, a systematic review of the scientific literature was conducted. Forty-four studies were identified (published from 2010 to date) and analyzed. In exposure reconstruction studies, quantitative approaches should be preferable, especially when estimates will be used in the context of health impact assessment or epidemiology, although it is important to stress how, ideally, the experimental data available for the considered scenario should be used whenever possible as the main starting information base for further processing. To date, there is no single approach capable of providing an accurate estimate of exposure for each reasonably foreseeable condition and situation and the best approach generally depends on the level of information available for the specific case. The use of a combination of different reconstruction techniques can, therefore, represent a powerful tool for weighting and integrating data obtained through qualitative and quantitative approaches, in order to obtain the best possible estimate.

In plain English

This was a systematic review of methods used to estimate workers' past exposure to chemicals and other hazards, called retrospective exposure assessment. The authors searched Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed in May 2020. PubMed results were used only for the asbestos part, because the general PubMed search returned too many articles. They included 44 original, peer-reviewed English-language articles published from 2010 onward, covering assessment in general and asbestos specifically. The review reports findings from individual studies. One Korean asbestos job-exposure matrix study estimated the highest exposure in knitting and weaving machine operators in the 1980s. A study of asbestos-containing ceiling panels found specialists had the greatest exposure, followed by maintenance workers, generalists, bystanders and DIY (do-it-yourself) users. A study of a model for estimating past asbestos exposure found it overestimated lower levels and underestimated higher levels, but its results were comparable with measured levels. Another reviewed study reported that expert raters tended to be conservative when details were lacking, overestimating the risk of exposure. The authors concluded that well-structured exposure databases are needed to assess past exposure correctly.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: systematic review following PRISMA criteria
• Who was studied: 44 original, peer-reviewed English-language articles published from 2010 to May 2020, found in Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed. PubMed was also searched for the general part, but those results were not used because there were too many.
• Exposure: methods for retrospective assessment of occupational exposure in general (many chemical agents) and of occupational exposure to asbestos fibers
• Main results:
  • A reviewed study (Mester and collaborators) found that the most important cause of disagreement between a job-exposure matrix and an expert panel was inability to assess tasks outside the production line (disagreement 80%)
  • A reviewed study (Bello et al.) reported that expert raters tended to be conservative when details about an industry or job were lacking, overestimating the risk of exposure
  • A reviewed Korean asbestos job-exposure matrix study (Choi and collaborators) estimated the highest exposure levels in the 1980s in knitting and weaving machine operators
  • A reviewed study of asbestos-containing ceiling panels found specialists had the greatest exposure, followed by maintenance workers, generalists, bystanders and DIY
  • A reviewed study (Cherrie and collaborators) found that a model for estimating past asbestos exposure overestimated lower levels and underestimated higher levels, but its results were comparable with measured exposure levels
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that well-structured exposure databases are needed to correctly assess exposure in past exposure scenarios

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Systematic Review, Work History, Exposure Reconstruction, Epidemiology, Foreseeability.

Related studies

• Cumulative Retrospective Exposure Assessment (REA) as a predictor of amphibole asbestos lung burden: validation procedures and results for industrial hygiene and pathology estimates — J.O. Rasmuson, V.L. Roggli, et al. (2014)
• Review of carbon nanotubes toxicity and exposure--appraisal of human health risk assessment based on open literature — K. Aschberger, H.J. Johnston, et al. (2010)
• Comments on the Health Effects Institute-Asbestos Research (HEI-AR) report: "Asbestos in public and commercial buildings," with emphasis on risk assessment methods used — T.D. Sterling, C.W. Collett, et al. (1993)
• Occupational exposure to rock wool and glass wool and risk of cancers of the lung and the head and neck: a systematic review and meta-analysis — L. Lipworth, C. La Vecchia, et al. (2009)
• Spatial analysis of asbestos exposure and occupational health care in Poland during the period 2004-2013 — M. Krówczyńska, E. Wilk (2018)
• Comparison of soil sampling and analytical methods for asbestos at the Sumas Mountain Asbestos Site-Working towards a toolbox for better assessment — J. Wroble, T. Frederick, et al. (2017)

Browse more research in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, or return to medical research.