Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35674666›Full record

ArticleAnnals of work exposures and health2022

Characterization of Exposure to Cleaning Agents Among Health Workers in Two Southern African Tertiary Hospitals.

H H Mwanga, R Baatjies, M F Jeebhay

Open access · greenAbstract 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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 39% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Contact Dermatitis among Hospital Cleaners in Dar es Salaam: Prevalence and Associated Factors.Malawi medical journal : the journal of Medical Association of Malawi · 2025
    Article
  2. 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

H H MwangaDivision of Occupational Medicine and Centre for Environmental & Occupational Health Research, School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Room 4. 45, Fourth Level, Falmouth Building Anzio Road, Observatory, 7925, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-2002-9700
R BaatjiesDivision of Occupational Medicine and Centre for Environmental & Occupational Health Research, School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Room 4. 45, Fourth Level, Falmouth Building Anzio Road, Observatory, 7925, Cape Town, South Africa.
M F JeebhayDivision of Occupational Medicine and Centre for Environmental & Occupational Health Research, School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Room 4. 45, Fourth Level, Falmouth Building Anzio Road, Observatory, 7925, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-6656-9193
University of Cape Town · ZAMuhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences · TZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhilst cleaning agents are commonly used in workplaces and homes, health workers (HWs) are at increased risk of exposure to significantly higher concentrations used to prevent healthcare-associated infections. Exposure assessment has been challenging partly because many are used simultaneously resulting in complex airborne exposures with various chemicals requiring different sampling techniques. The main objective of this study was to characterize exposures of HWs to various cleaning agents in two tertiary academic hospitals in Southern Africa.

methodsA cross-sectional study of HWs was conducted in two tertiary hospitals in South Africa (SAH) and Tanzania (TAH). Exposure assessment involved systematic workplace observations, interviews with key personnel, passive personal environmental sampling for aldehydes (ortho-phthalaldehyde-OPA, glutaraldehyde and formaldehyde), and biomonitoring for chlorhexidine.

resultsOverall, 269 samples were collected from SAH, with 62 (23%) collected from HWs that used OPA on the day of monitoring. OPA was detectable in 6 (2%) of all samples analysed, all of which were collected in the gastrointestinal unit of the SAH. Overall, department, job title, individual HW use of OPA and duration of OPA use were the important predictors of OPA exposure. Formaldehyde was detectable in 103 (38%) samples (GM = 0.0025 ppm; range: <0.0030 to 0.0270). Formaldehyde levels were below the ACGIH TLV-TWA (0.1 ppm). While individual HW use and duration of formaldehyde use were not associated with formaldehyde exposure, working in an ear, nose, and throat ward was positively associated with detectable exposures (P-value = 0.002). Glutaraldehyde was not detected in samples from the SAH. In the preliminary sampling conducted in the TAH, glutaraldehyde was detectable in 8 (73%) of the 11 samples collected (GM = 0.003 ppm; range: <0.002 to 0.028). Glutaraldehyde levels were lower than the ACGIH's TLV-Ceiling Limit of 0.05 ppm. p-chloroaniline was detectable in 13 (4%) of the 336 urine samples (GM = 0.02 ng/ml range: <1.00 to 25.80).

conclusionThe study concluded that detectable exposures to OPA were isolated to certain departments and were dependent on the dedicated use of OPA by the HW being monitored. In contrast, low-level formaldehyde exposures were present throughout the hospital. There is a need for more sensitive exposure assessment techniques for chlorhexidine given its widespread use in the health sector.

Indexed as

Occupational Exposureo-PhthalaldehydeChlorhexidineCross-Sectional StudiesFormaldehydeGlutaralHumansRespiratory HypersensitivityTertiary Care CentersChlorhexidineFormaldehydeGlutaralo-Phthalaldehydealdehydeschlorhexidinecleaning agentsdisinfectantsglutaraldehydeortho-phthalaldehyde

Identifiers

PMID35674666
PMCPMC9551323
OpenAlexW4225877518

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.