ArticleScientific reports2025
Beauty salon technicians' exposure to formaldehyde, benzene and acetaldehyde in Gonabad City.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Beauty salons are places where the technicians/staff personnel and clients may be exposed to high levels of various types of air pollutants. In this study, levels of formaldehyde, benzene and acetaldehyde and their associated potential health risks on beauty salon technicians in Gonabad city were investigated. Indoor levels of formaldehyde, benzene and acetaldehyde were measured in 22 randomly selected beauty salons. Formaldehyde, benzene and acetaldehyde air levels found in beauty salons ranged from 1.02 to 41.4, 1.96 to 43.66, and 41.71 to 79.41[Formula: see text], respectively. Formaldehyde in indoor air of all the salons were within the WHO guideline of 100 [Formula: see text]. Levels of benzene were within the NIOSH recommended exposure limit (320 [Formula: see text]), but higher than Korean limit (30 [Formula: see text]) in 40% of the investigated salons. For acetaldehyde, levels of acetaldehyde in 68% of the salons surpassed the WHO guideline of 50 [Formula: see text]. Non-carcinogenic risks of formaldehyde, benzene and acetaldehyde were below the threshold limit (HQ = 1), indicating no risks, however, carcinogenic risks over the 30-year period were not acceptable (>[Formula: see text]), indicating cancer risk in long term exposure of beauty salon technicians to these chemicals. The results confirm that formaldehyde, benzene and acetaldehyde indoor levels are a matter of health concern, which must be taken into account by health professionals, policymakers and regulatory bodies. The findings of the current study can be used as a basis for reducing technicians' exposure to toxic aldehydes in beauty salons.
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.