MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310778200 · doi:10.1080/15459624.2022.2150768

Effectiveness of dermal cleaning interventions for reducing firefighters’ exposures to PAHs and genotoxins

2022· article· en· W4310778200 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Keir, Tracy L Kirkham, Rocio Aranda‐Rodriguez, Paul A. White, Jules M. Blais

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Performance
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoHealth CanadaOccupational Cancer Research CentreUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental healthEnvironmental sciencePsychological interventionOccupational exposureToxicologyWaste managementMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Firefighters are exposed to carcinogenic and mutagenic combustion emissions, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Fire service and firefighter cancer advocacy groups recommend skin cleaning using wipes or washing with detergent and water after exposure to smoke, although these strategies have not been proven to reduce exposures to harmful combustion products such as PAHs. This study assessed dermal decontamination methods to reduce PAH exposures by firefighters participating in live fire training scenarios. Study participants (n = 88) were randomly assigned to an intervention group (i.e., two types of commercial skin wipes, detergent and water, or a control group who did not use any skin decontamination). PAHs were measured in personal air (during the fire) and dermal wipe samples (before and after fire suppression and after dermal decontamination). PAH metabolites and mutagenicity were measured in urine samples before and after fire suppression. Airborne PAH concentrations during the fire ranged between 200 and 3,970 μg/m3 (mean = 759 μg/m3, SD = 685 μg/m3). Firefighters had higher total PAHs and high-molecular-weight PAHs on their skin after the fire compared to before (1.3- and 2.2-fold, respectively, p < 0.01). Urinary PAH metabolites increased significantly following exposure to the training fires by 1.7 to 2.2-fold (depending on the metabolite, p < 0.001). Urinary mutagenicity did not differ significantly between pre- and post-fire for any of the decontamination methods. Detergent and water was the only intervention that removed a significant amount of total PAHs from the skin (0.72 ng/cm2 preintervention vs. 0.38 ng/cm2 postintervention, p < 0.01). However, fold changes in urinary PAH metabolites (i.e., pre- vs. post-exposure levels) did not differ among any of the dermal decontamination methods or the control group. These data suggest that despite on-site attempts to remove PAHs from firefighters’ skin, the examined interventions did not reduce the internal dose of PAHs. Future work should investigate preventing initial exposure using other interventions, such as improved personal protective equipment.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational and Environmental HygieneSame topicOccupational Health and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207