ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparative health risk assessment of occupational dust exposure in industrial sectors using multiple models and monte carlo simulation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dust, a common pollutant resulting from industrial activities, poses significant risks to workers across various sectors, including agriculture, mining, and manufacturing. Dust risk assessments are vital for implementing preventive measures and improving air quality in workplaces. This study aims to identify the most suitable technique for evaluating dust exposure risk among workers in the wood, textile, food, and livestock industries. A cross-sectional descriptive-analytical study was conducted to assess dust exposure risks in the wood, textile, food, and livestock industries using three risk assessment approaches: qualitative, quantitative, and semi-quantitative methods. These methods were compared, and the Monte Carlo Simulation was used to model non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic risks. The highest dust concentration was in the food industry, while the textile sector had the lowest. Dust levels in the textile and food industries exceeded safe limits. US-EPA assessment showed adverse health effects in all industries, with significant carcinogenic risks in the wood, food, and livestock sectors. The SQRA method categorized risks as very high in textile, low in food, and negligible in wood and livestock, while the ICMM method classified risks as intolerable in all industries. A significant correlation was found between risk scores and dust concentrations (P < 0.05). Chemical exposure risks in the studied industries were found to be intolerable, with adverse health effects. The results highlight the critical need for interventions to control dust exposure and mitigate health risks in these sectors.
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.