Risk assessment methods in occupational health and hygiene: a scoping review
- PMID: 39705502
- PMCID: PMC11858558
- DOI: 10.1093/annweh/wxae095
Risk assessment methods in occupational health and hygiene: a scoping review
Abstract
Background: There are a variety of risk assessment methods to evaluate occupational hazards in the field of industrial hygiene. With the development of emerging technologies in the workforce, the previously established risk assessment methods may need to be adapted or new methods developed to address the risk of new hazards.
Methods: A scoping review was conducted consistent with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data was extracted and analyzed using a matrix method before undergoing a narrative synthesis. Risk assessment methods were classified as traditional and nontraditional.
Results: Seventy-nine articles were included in this scoping review, with 81% using traditional risk assessment methods and 19% using nontraditional methods.
Discussion: Among the nontraditional methods was control banding, with the most recent applications focused on nanomaterials. This approach, which was borne out of the need for a systematic approach for identifying potential health risks that required the use of engineering controls to be used safely, may have an important role in the area of emerging technologies, where the pace of technological innovation outstrips the rate at which health risks can be assessed and characterized. Risk assessment methods with the capacity to look at groups of similar chemicals and chemical mixtures are needed to address emerging hazards associated with emerging technologies.
Keywords: control banding; hazard quotient; slope factor.
© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Occupational Hygiene Society. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
References
-
- ABET. 2022. Criteria for accrediting applied and natural science programs. ABET. https://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-a.... [accessed 2024 July 6].
-
- ABET. 2023. Proposed program criteria for industrial hygiene and similarly named programs. ABET; [accessed 2024 June 4]. https://abet.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_ey6vqO2UJf24jno.
-
- ACGIH. 2020. 2020 TLVs® and BEIs® based on the documentation of the threshold limit values for chemical substances and physical agents and biological exposure indices. Cincinnati (OH): ACGIH.
-
- Akdeniz N, Jacobson LD, Hetchler BP.. 2013. Health risk assessment of occupational exposure to hazardous volatile organic compounds in swine gestation, farrowing and nursery barns. Environ Sci Process Impacts. 15:563–572. https://doi.org/10.1039/c2em30722g. - DOI - PubMed
-
- Ali N, Ismail IMI, Khoder M, Shamy M, Alghamdi M, Al Khalaf A, Costa M.. 2017. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the settled dust of automobile workshops, health and carcinogenic risk evaluation. Sci Total Environ. 601–602:478–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.110. - DOI - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Medical