Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36639638›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2023

Effects of cleaning spray use on eyes, airways, and ergonomic load.

Karin Lovén, Anders Gudmundsson, Eva Assarsson, Monica Kåredal, Aneta Wierzbicka, Camilla Dahlqvist, Catarina Nordander, Yiyi Xu, Christina Isaxon

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2023. 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
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Karin LovénErgonomics and Aerosol Technology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Anders GudmundssonErgonomics and Aerosol Technology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Eva AssarssonOccupational and Environmental Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Monica KåredalOccupational and Environmental Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Aneta WierzbickaErgonomics and Aerosol Technology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Camilla DahlqvistOccupational and Environmental Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Catarina NordanderOccupational and Environmental Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Yiyi XuOccupational and Environmental Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Christina IsaxonErgonomics and Aerosol Technology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. christina.isaxon@design.lth.se.
Lund University · SEDesign Science (United Kingdom) · GBUniversity of Gothenburg · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCleaning workers are exposed to chemicals and high physical workload, commonly resulting in airway problems and pain. In this study the response in the upper airways and the physical workload following airborne and ergonomic exposure of cleaning spray was investigated.

methodsA survey was answered by professional cleaning workers to investigate their use of cleaning sprays and the perceived effects on eyes, airways and musculoskeletal pain. A human chamber exposure study was then conducted with 11 professional cleaning workers and 8 non-professional cleaning workers to investigate the airborne exposure, acute effects on eyes and airways, and physical load during cleaning with sprays, foam application and microfiber cloths premoistened with water. All cleaning products used were bleach, chlorine, and ammonia free. The medical assessment included eye and airway parameters, inflammatory markers in blood and nasal lavage, as well as technical recordings of the physical workload.

resultsA high frequency of spray use (77%) was found among the 225 professional cleaning workers that answered the survey. Based on the survey, there was an eight times higher risk (p < 0.001) of self-experienced symptoms (including symptoms in the nose, eyes and throat, coughing or difficulty breathing) when they used sprays compared to when they cleaned with other methods. During the chamber study, when switching from spray to foam, the airborne particle and volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations showed a decrease by 7 and 2.5 times, respectively. For the whole group, the peak nasal inspiratory flow decreased (-10.9 L/min, p = 0.01) during spray use compared to using only water-premoistened microfiber cloths. These effects were lower during foam use (-4.7 L/min, p = 0.19). The technical recordings showed a high physical workload regardless of cleaning with spray or with water.

conclusionSwitching from a spraying to a foaming nozzle decreases the exposure of both airborne particles and VOCs, and thereby reduces eye and airway effects, and does not increase the ergonomic load. If the use of cleaning products tested in this study, i.e. bleach, chlorine, and ammonia free, cannot be avoided, foam application is preferable to spray application to improve the occupational environment.

Indexed as

Occupational ExposureChlorineHumansChlorineAerosolBUTOccupational exposurePhysical workloadPNIFSurveySymptoms

Identifiers

PMID36639638
PMCPMC9840290
OpenAlexW4316011994

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.