Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32823696›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020

Biomonitoring as an Underused Exposure Assessment Tool in Occupational Safety and Health Context-Challenges and Way Forward.

Susana Viegas, Maryam Zare Jeddi, Nancy B Hopf, Jos Bessems, Nicole Palmen, Karen S Galea, Kate Jones, Peter Kujath, Radu-Corneliu Duca, Hans Verhagen and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
–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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Metabolomics and proteomics in occupational medicine: a comprehensive systematic review.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2024
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Susana ViegasNOVA National School of Public Health, Public Health Research Centre, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, 1600-560 Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-1015-8760
Maryam Zare JeddiUnit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Cardio-Thoraco-Vascular Sciences and Public Health, 35100 Padova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9505-812X
Nancy B HopfCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, 1000 Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-4490-6109
Jos BessemsVITO-Flemish Institute for Technological Research, BE-2400 Mol, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-5718-0733
Nicole PalmenRIVM-National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, 3721 MA Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Karen S GaleaInstitute of Occupational Medicine (IOM), Edinburgh EH14 4AP, UK.
Kate JonesHealth and Safety Executive (HSE), Harpur Hill, Buxton SK17 9JN, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8923-2999
Peter KujathBAuA-Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, D-10317 Berlin, Germany.
Radu-Corneliu DucaUnit Environmental Hygiene and Human Biological Monitoring, Department of Health Protection, National Health Laboratory, Dudelange, 3555 Luxembourg, Luxembourg.ORCID 0000-0002-9350-3816
Hans VerhagenEuropean Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 43126 Parma, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7952-3530
Tiina SantonenFIOH-Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, P.O. Box 40, FI-00032 Työterveyslaitos, Finland.
Robert Pasanen-KaseState Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO), Labour Directorate Section Chemicals and Work (ABCH), 3003 Berne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-9432-5708

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent advances in analytical chemistry have allowed a greater possibility of using quantitative approaches for measuring human exposure to chemicals. One of these approaches is biomonitoring (BM), which provides unequivocal evidence that both exposure and uptake of a chemical have taken place. BM has been a longstanding practice in occupational health for several reasons. BM integrates exposure from all routes. It can help identify unintentional and unexpected exposures and assess the effectiveness of existing risk-management measures. BM also provides relevant information to support policy development by delivering better evidence of workers' exposure to chemical substances, even within the framework of the present regulations. Thus, BM can allow for both the evaluation of the impact of regulation and identification of further needs for new or improved regulation. However, despite all these well-recognized advantages, BM is currently an underused exposure assessment tool. This paper provides an overview of the key aspects to be considered when using BM in the context of occupational health interventions. Additionally, this paper describes the potential of BM as an exposure assessment tool, distinguishing the role of BM in exposure assessment and health surveillance and clarifies ethical and communication aspects to guarantee that general data protection regulations are followed. In addition, actions and research needs are identified (particularly with reference to the European situation), which aim to encourage the increased use of BM as an exposure assessment tool.

Indexed as

Biological MonitoringOccupational ExposureOccupational HealthEnvironmental ExposureEnvironmental MonitoringHumansRisk AssessmentRisk Managementbiological guidance valuebiological limit valuebiological monitoringexposure assessmentoccupational healthrisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID32823696
PMCPMC7460384

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.