Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42720218›Full record

ArticleAnnals of work exposures and health2026

Occupational exposure limits and REACH requirements in workplace risk management: perspectives of labor inspectors and OSH specialists.

Piia Taxell, Milja Koponen, Linda Schenk, Linda Paegle, Linda Matisāne, Susann Wolf, Aurora Moen, Steen Mollerup, Helge Johnsen, Davor Kontić and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of work exposures and health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Piia TaxellFinnish Institute of Occupational Health, P.O. Box 40, 00032 Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-1575-2371
Milja KoponenFinnish Institute of Occupational Health, P.O. Box 40, 00032 Helsinki, Finland.
Linda SchenkInstitute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, 17177 Stockholm, Sweden.
Linda PaegleInstitute of Occupational Safety and Environmental Health, Riga Stradiņš University, Dzirciema iela 16, 1007 Riga, Latvia.
Linda MatisāneInstitute of Occupational Safety and Environmental Health, Riga Stradiņš University, Dzirciema iela 16, 1007 Riga, Latvia.
Susann WolfNational Institute of Occupational Health, Pb 5330 Majorstuen, 0304 Oslo, Norway.
Aurora MoenNational Institute of Occupational Health, Pb 5330 Majorstuen, 0304 Oslo, Norway.
Steen MollerupNational Institute of Occupational Health, Pb 5330 Majorstuen, 0304 Oslo, Norway.
Helge JohnsenNational Institute of Occupational Health, Pb 5330 Majorstuen, 0304 Oslo, Norway.
Davor KontićDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Jožef Stefan Institute, Jamova 39, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Jenni KaistoFinnish Institute of Occupational Health, P.O. Box 40, 00032 Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0009-0008-6098-516X
Tiina SantonenFinnish Institute of Occupational Health, P.O. Box 40, 00032 Helsinki, Finland.

Funding

European Partnership for the Assessment of Risks from Chemicals (PARC)European Union's Horizon Europe 101057014
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Occupational exposure limits (OELs) under occupational safety and health (OSH) legislation, and authorisation and restriction requirements under the chemicals regulation REACH, are the key regulatory tools for managing workplace chemical exposures in the EU. The present study examines how OELs and REACH requirements are interpreted and implemented at the workplace level, and how they impact workplace chemical safety. A mixed-methods study was conducted in Finland, Latvia, Norway, and Slovenia. An online survey targeted labor inspectors (n = 85), and company OSH managers (n = 323) in 3 sectors: chemical industry, metal industry, and motor vehicle maintenance and repair. In addition, semistructured interviews were conducted with labor inspectors (n = 19) and OSH experts (n = 30), including company and organization representatives and OSH service providers. Survey data were analyzed descriptively, and inductive content analysis was used for the interview data. Awareness of OELs and REACH requirements was reported as highly variable across workplaces in all participating countries, with larger companies higher in the supply chain demonstrating greater awareness and implementation capacity. Safety data sheets and chemical suppliers were the most frequently reported information sources. OELs were recognized as reference values for exposure and risk assessment, while REACH restrictions and authorisations were more often associated with discontinuation of substance use. Reported barriers to implementation included limited financial resources, insufficient competence in smaller companies, complex legislation, and weak supply chain communication. Positive examples included mandatory training obligations (eg diisocyanate restriction) and proactive inspection practices.

Indexed as

Occupational ExposureOccupational HealthRisk ManagementHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesWorking ConditionsWorkplacechemical risklabor inspectoroccupational exposure limitOSH specialistREACHworkplace safety

Identifiers

PMID42720218
PMCPMC13559728

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.