Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26099071›Full record

ArticleJournal of occupational and environmental hygiene2015

The Global Landscape of Occupational Exposure Limits--Implementation of Harmonization Principles to Guide Limit Selection.

M Deveau, C-P Chen, G Johanson, D Krewski, A Maier, K J Niven, S Ripple, P A Schulte, J Silk, J H Urbanus and 2 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Comparative review of human health reference values of the United States.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Effect of COMicrobial ecology · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

M Deveaua McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment, University of Ottawa , Ottawa , Ontario , Canada.
C-P Chenc Department of Occupational Safety and Health, College of Public Health, China Medical University , Taichung , Taiwan.
G Johansond Work Environment Toxicology, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet , Stockholm , Sweden.
D Krewskia McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment, University of Ottawa , Ottawa , Ontario , Canada.
A Maiere Department of Environmental Health, College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati , Cincinnati , Ohio.
K J Nivenf Shell Health, Shell International B.V. , The Hague , The Netherlands.
S Rippleg Global Industrial Hygiene Expertise Center, The Dow Chemical Company , Midland , Michigan.
P A Schulteh Education and Information Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health , Cincinnati , Ohio.
J Silki Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Occupational Safety and Health Administration , Washington, DC (Retired).
J H Urbanusf Shell Health, Shell International B.V. , The Hague , The Netherlands.
D M Zalkj ES&H Directorate, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory , Livermore , California.
R W Niemeierk Education and Information Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health , Cincinnati , Ohio.

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Occupational exposure limits (OELs) serve as health-based benchmarks against which measured or estimated workplace exposures can be compared. In the years since the introduction of OELs to public health practice, both developed and developing countries have established processes for deriving, setting, and using OELs to protect workers exposed to hazardous chemicals. These processes vary widely, however, and have thus resulted in a confusing international landscape for identifying and applying such limits in workplaces. The occupational hygienist will encounter significant overlap in coverage among organizations for many chemicals, while other important chemicals have OELs developed by few, if any, organizations. Where multiple organizations have published an OEL, the derived value often varies considerably-reflecting differences in both risk policy and risk assessment methodology as well as access to available pertinent data. This article explores the underlying reasons for variability in OELs, and recommends the harmonization of risk-based methods used by OEL-deriving organizations. A framework is also proposed for the identification and systematic evaluation of OEL resources, which occupational hygienists can use to support risk characterization and risk management decisions in situations where multiple potentially relevant OELs exist.

Indexed as

Threshold Limit ValuesHazardous SubstancesHumansInternational CooperationOccupational ExposureOccupational HealthRisk AssessmentRisk ManagementHazardous Substancesharmonizationoccupational exposure limitrisk policyrisk science

Identifiers

PMID26099071
PMCPMC4654639

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.