ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2024
From Engineered Stone Slab to Silicosis: A Synthesis of Exposure Science and Medical Evidence.
Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emission rates of respirable crystalline silica and dust from engineered stone fabrication.Annals of work exposures and health · 2026Article
- The Combined Role of Silanols and Oxidative Stress in Determining Engineered Stone Dust Toxicity.ACS organic & inorganic Au · 2026Article
- Analysis of silica dust monitoring results and prevention implications in industrial and mining enterprises of Sichuan Province, China (2021-2025).Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Characterization of engineered stone dust-induced reactive oxygen species generation and cytotoxicityJournal of toxicology and environmental health. Part A · 2026Article
- Physico-chemical features and membranolytic activity of dust from low or no crystalline silica engineered stone with implications for toxicological assessment.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Respirable dust and respirable crystalline silica exposures among workers at stone countertop fabrication shops in Georgia from 2017 through 2023.Annals of work exposures and health · 2025Article
- Burden of silicosis based on the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021: trend analysis of incidence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life years, and projections for the next 30 years.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Engineered stone (ES) is a popular building product, due to its architectural versatility and generally lower cost. However, the fabrication of organic resin-based ES kitchen benchtops from slabs has been associated with alarming rates of silicosis among workers. In 2024, fifteen years after the first reported ES-related cases in the world, Australia became the first country to ban the use and importation of ES. A range of interacting factors are relevant for ES-associated silicosis, including ES material composition, characteristics of dust exposure and lung cell-particle response. In turn, these are influenced by consumer demand, work practices, particle size and chemistry, dust control measures, industry regulation and worker-related characteristics. This literature review provides an evidence synthesis using a narrative approach, with the themes of product, exposure and host. Exposure pathways and pathogenesis are explored. Apart from crystalline silica content, consideration is given to non-siliceous ES components such as resins and metals that may modify chemical interactions and disease risk. Preventive effort can be aligned with each theme and associated evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.