A Comprehensive Health Effects Assessment of the Use of Sanitizers and Disinfectants during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Global Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract COVID-19 has affected all aspects of human life so far. From the outset of the pandemic, preventing the spread of COVID-19 through the observance of health protocols, especially the use of sanitizers and disinfectants was given more attention. Despite the effectiveness of disinfection chemicals in controlling and preventing COVID-19, there are critical concerns about their adverse effects on human health. This study aims to assess the health effects of sanitizers and disinfectants on a global scale. A total of 91056 participants from 154 countries participated in this cross-sectional study through an electronic questionnaire. Results implied that detergents (67%), alcohol-based materials (56%), and chlorinated compounds (32%) were the most commonly used types of sanitizers and disinfectants. Most frequently reported health issues include skin complications 48.8% and respiratory complications 29.8%. The Chi-square test showed a significant association between chlorinated compounds with all possible health complications under investigation (p-value < 0.001). Examination of risk factors based on multivariate regression analysis showed that alcohols-based materials were associated with skin complications (OR, 1.98; 95%CI, 1.87–2.09), per-chlorine was associated with eye complications (OR, 1.83; 95%CI, 1.74–1.93), and highly likely with itching and throat irritation (OR, 2.00; 95%CI, 1.90–2.11). Furthermore, formaldehyde was associated with a higher prevalence of neurological complications (OR, 2.17; 95%CI, 1.92–2.44). The findings of the current study suggest that health authorities need to implement more awareness programs about the side effects of using sanitizers and disinfectants during viral epidemics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".