ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Application and comparison of five risk assessment methods in ferrous metal foundry enterprises with silica dust concentration exceeding the limit posts.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Explore methods to accurately reflect the risk level of ferrous metal foundry workplaces when the silica dust concentration exceeds the limit, and provide a basis for the application of risk assessment techniques in key industries with occupational exposure to silica dust. Methods: The survey was conducted in 25 ferrous metal casting industries in Henan Province, China. Five occupational health risk assessment (OHRA) methods, including Risk index method, Hazard grading method, International Council on Mining and Metals model, The synthesis index method, and The exposure ratio method, were used to assess the occupational health risk of the workplaces that produced silica dust and the concentration of silica dust exceeded the occupational exposure limits (OELs), and to compare the results of the different methods. Results: The risk index assessment method yielded one job of mild hazard, seven job of moderate hazard, fifteen jobs of high hazard, and forty-four jobs of extreme hazard. The hazard classification method resulted in two jobs of mild hazard, six jobs of moderate hazard, and fifty-nine jobs of high hazard. The ICMM qualitative method identified fifteen jobs of moderate risk and fifty-two jobs of high risk. The synthesis index method revealed nine jobs of moderate risk and fifty-eight jobs of high risk. The exposure ratio method identified ten jobs of high risk and fifty-seven jobs of extremely high risk. The results obtained from the synthesis index method showed relatively lower levels, except for the index method, there was a certain correlation ( Conclusion: This study shows that although there are some differences in the results of different OHRA methods, there is also some correlation between them, which can corroborate each other and enhance the reliability of the assessment results. In practical application, appropriate assessment methods should be selected according to specific situations and the results of multiple methods should be combined and analyzed comprehensively to ensure accurate identification and assessment of occupational hazards and provide a scientific basis for improving occupational safety and health management.
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.