Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34864829›Full record

ArticleAnnals of work exposures and health2022

Is the New EN689 a Better Standard to Test Compliance With Occupational Exposure Limits in the Workplace?

Antonio D'Errico, Remko Houba, Hans Kromhout

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of work exposures and health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Antonio D'ErricoInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences (IRAS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9805-600X
Remko HoubaInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences (IRAS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Hans KromhoutInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences (IRAS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4233-1890

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the performance of three measurement strategies to test compliance with occupational exposure limits of similarly exposed groups (SEGs): the old and new versions of EN689, and the BOHS-NVvA guidance on measuring compliance.

methodsRespirable dust exposures concentrations (n = 1383) measured within the member companies of IMA-Europe were used to compare compliance decisions between the three measurement strategies. A total of 210 SEGs of which 158 with repeated measurements were analysed. An R studio OHcomplianceStrategies package was created for the purpose.

resultsThe old EN689 strategy resulted in the highest number of compliant SEGs in the preliminary tests and statistical test (49-52% and 83%) with lower percentages of compliance with the new EN689 standard (32-44% and 71%). The percentage of non-compliant SEGs was relatively similar between the old and new EN689 for the preliminary tests (1-12% versus 6-11%). However, the new EN689 declared almost twofold more SEGs non-compliant when applying the statistical test (29% versus 17%). The BOHS-NVvA individual test showed results in between the 26% non-compliant SEGs.

conclusionThis study showed differences in compliance decisions between the old and new EN689, with the new EN689 being considerably more stringent and resulting in more non-compliant SEGs.

Indexed as

Air Pollutants, OccupationalOccupational ExposureEuropeHumansWorkplaceAir Pollutants, OccupationalBOHS-NVvAcomplianceEN689measurement strategyoccupational exposure limitspreliminary testsimilar exposure groupstatistical test

Identifiers

PMID34864829
PMCPMC8922169

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.