Giuseppe De Palma

The aim of the present review was to identify all the biomarkers used for assessing the internal dose and the related early effects determined by the occupational exposure to formaldehyde. For this purpose, a systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023416960). An electronic search of Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed to collect all the papers concerning the focus of the review and published from the inception of each database until 18 September 2023. Articles were considered eligible if they reported data from observational studies, semi-experimental, and experimental studies on adult workers who were occupationally exposed to formaldehyde, regardless of gender or age. The quality assessment was performed using the adapted Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. From 1524 articles, 52 were included. Few studies assessed the exposure to formaldehyde in occupational settings through biomarkers, especially by measuring formic acid in urine. The most common approach for evaluating the effects derived from occupational exposure to formaldehyde was the use of the cytogenetic biomarker micronucleus assay in peripheral blood lymphocytes and/or epithelial buccal cells.

Background: Several methods with which to assess the risk of biomechanical overload of the upper limb are described in the literature. Methods: We retrospectively analysed the results of the risk assessment of the biomechanical overload of the upper limb in multiple settings by comparing the application of the Washington State Standard, the threshold limit values (TLV) proposed by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), based on hand-activity levels (HAL) and normalised peak force (PF), the Occupational Repetitive Actions (OCRA) checklist, the Rapid Upper-Limb Assessment (RULA), and the Strain Index and Outil de Repérage et d’Evaluation des Gestes of INRS (Institut National de Recherche et de Sécurité). Results: Overall, 771 workstations were analysed for a total of 2509 risk assessments. The absence of risk demonstrated for the Washington CZCL, used as the screening method, was in good agreement with the other methods, with the sole exception of the OCRA CL, which showed at-risk conditions in a higher percentage of workstations. Differences in the assessment of the frequency of actions were observed among the methods, while their assessments of strength appeared to be more uniform. However, the greatest discrepancies were observed in the assessment of posture. Conclusions: The use of multiple assessment methods ensures a more adequate analysis of biomechanical risk, allowing researchers to investigate the factors and segments in which different methods show different specificities.