Assessment of Occupational Exposure to Organic Flame Retardants: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Flame retardants (FRs) are widespread in common goods, and workers in some industries can be exposed to high concentrations. Numerous studies describe occupational exposure to FRs, but the diversity of methods and of reported results renders their interpretation difficult for researchers, occupational hygienists, and decision makers. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this paper are to compile and summarize the scientific knowledge on occupational exposure to FRs as well as to identify research gaps and to formulate recommendations. METHODS: Five databases were consulted for this systematic literature review (Embase, Medline [Pubmed], Global health, Web of Science, and Google Scholar), with terms related to occupational exposure and to FRs. Selected studies report quantitative measurements of exposure to organic FRs in a workplace, either in air, dust, or in workers' biological fluids. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines were followed. RESULTS: The search yielded 1540 published articles, of which 58 were retained. The most frequently sampled FRs were polybrominated diphenyl ethers and novel brominated FRs. Offices and electronic waste recycling facilities were the most studied occupational settings, and the highest reported exposures were found in the latter, as well as in manufacturing of printed circuit boards, in aircrafts, and in firefighters. There were recurrent methodological issues, such as unstandardized and ill-described air and dust sampling, as well as deficient statistical analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This review offers several recommendations. Workplaces such as electronic waste recycling or manufacturing of electronics as well as firefighters and aircraft personnel should be granted more attention from researchers and industrial hygienists. Methodical and standardized occupational exposure assessment approaches should be employed, and data analysis and reporting should be more systematic. Finally, more research is needed on newer chemical classes of FRs, on occupational exposure pathways, and on airborne FR particle distribution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".