Scientific Division, Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST).
505 Boulevard de Maisonneuve O, Montréal, QC, Canada, H3A 3C2 Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, School of Public Health, University of Montreal, chemin de la Côte Ste-Catherine, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Ann Work Expo Health. 2019 Apr 19;63(4):386-406. doi: 10.1093/annweh/wxz012.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
阻燃剂（FRs）广泛存在于常见商品中，某些行业的工人可能会接触到高浓度的 FRs。许多研究都描述了职业接触 FRs 的情况，但由于方法和报告结果的多样性，研究人员、职业卫生学家和决策者难以理解这些结果。
本文的目的是收集和总结有关 FRs 职业接触的科学知识，确定研究空白，并提出建议。
我们对五个数据库进行了系统文献综述（Embase、Medline [Pubmed]、Global health、Web of Science 和 Google Scholar），使用了与职业暴露和 FRs 相关的术语。选定的研究报告了工作场所中有机 FRs 在空气中、粉尘中和工人生物体液中的定量测量结果。我们遵循了系统评价和荟萃分析报告的首选报告项目声明指南。
搜索共产生了 1540 篇已发表的文章，其中 58 篇被保留。采样最频繁的 FRs 是多溴二苯醚和新型溴化 FRs。办公室和电子废物回收设施是研究最多的职业场所，而在电子废物回收设施、印刷电路板制造、飞机和消防员中报告的暴露量最高。存在反复出现的方法学问题，例如空气和粉尘采样未标准化且描述不当，以及统计分析不足。
本综述提出了一些建议。电子废物回收或电子产品制造等工作场所，以及消防员和飞机人员，应得到研究人员和工业卫生学家的更多关注。应采用方法学和标准化的职业暴露评估方法，数据分析和报告应更加系统。最后，需要对新的 FRs 化学类别、职业暴露途径以及空气中 FRs 颗粒分布进行更多的研究。
