Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36691532›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2023

Comparison of the chemical health risk assessment of exposure to metal fumes for the furnace operator of a foundry industry using quantitative and semi-quantitative methods.

Sara Karimi Zeverdegani, Zahra Ordudari, Azim Karimi, Reza Esmaeili, Mohammad Kazem Khorvash

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sara Karimi ZeverdeganiDepartment of Occupational Health and Safety Engineering, School of Health, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Zahra OrdudariStudent Research Committee, Department of Occupational Health and Safety Engineering, School of Health, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Azim KarimiStudent Research Committee, Department of Occupational Health and Safety Engineering, School of Health, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Reza EsmaeiliStudent Research Committee, Department of Occupational Health and Safety Engineering, School of Health, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Mohammad Kazem KhorvashFaculty of Health, Safety and Environmental Engineering, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Iran.
Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · IRIslamic Azad University of Najafabad · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Heavy metals have several adverse effects on the workers' bodies due to their accumulation in the vital organs. Besides that, the current study aimed to assess the health risk of exposure to metal fumes for furnace operators working in a foundry industry based on the three different methods. The current sectional descriptive-analytical research conducted on a foundry industry in Isfahan (Iran) in 2022. Three common methods currently available, including the Semi-Quantitative Risk Assessment Method (SQRCA) and two methods provided based on the US-EPA provided technique, were used in this study. At first, the extent of people's exposure to metal fumes of Fe, Ni, Cr, and Mn was measured. Then, the chemical risk assessment of exposure to these metals' fumes was done using the three methods, and their results were compared. The SPSS Ver.25 has been used for data analysis and comparison in the current study. Results indicated that the furnace operator's exposure to all four metals was above the allowed limit of occupational exposure. The chemical risk assessment results also showed that in the first method (US-EPA-based), the risk of exposure for all workers was acceptable, while in the second method (SQCRA), the risk level of a majority of workers was medium, and in the third method (US-EPA-based), the risk level of a majority of workers was not acceptable. Comparing the methods showed that average risk scores in the first and second methods were significant compared to the exposure to fumes with equivalent concentration (P

Indexed as

FoundryMetal fumeRisk assessmentSQCRAUS-EPA

Identifiers

PMID36691532
PMCPMC9860271
OpenAlexW4315471235

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.