Personal protective equipment for preventing asbestos exposure in workers.

BACKGROUND: Asbestos exposure can lead to asbestos-related diseases. The European Union (EU) has adopted regulations for workplaces where asbestos is present. The EU occupational exposure limit (OEL) for asbestos is 0.1 fibres per cubic centimetre of air (f/cm3) as an eight-hour average. Different types of personal protective equipment (PPE) are available to provide protection and minimise exposure; however, their effectiveness is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of personal protective equipment (PPE), including donning and doffing procedures and individual hygienic behaviour, compared to no availability and use of such equipment or alternative equipment, on asbestos exposure in workers in asbestos demolition and repair work. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and Scopus (September 2022), and we checked the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that measured asbestos concentration outside and inside PPE (considering outside concentration a surrogate for no PPE), exposure to asbestos after doffing PPE, donning and doffing errors, nonadherence to regulations, and adverse effects of PPE. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using ROBINS-I. We categorised PPE as full-face filtering masks, supplied air respirators (SARs), and powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs). Values for asbestos outside and inside PPE were transformed to logarithmic values for random-effects meta-analysis. Pooled logarithmic mean differences (MDs) were exponentiated to obtain the ratio of means (RoM) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). The RoM shows the degree of protection provided by the respirators (workplace protection factor). Since the RoM is likely to be much higher at higher outside concentrations, we presented separate results according to the outside asbestos concentration, as follows. • Below 0.01 f/cm3 (band 1) • 0.01 f/cm3 to below 0.1 f/cm3 (band 2) • 0.1 f/cm3 to below 1 f/cm3 (band 3) • 1 f/cm3 to below 10 f/cm3 (band 4) • 10 f/cm3 to below 100 f/cm3 (band 5) • 100 f/cm3 to below 1000 f/cm3 (band 6) Additionally, we determined whether the inside concentrations per respirator and concentration band complied with the current EU OEL (0.1 f/cm3) and proposed EU OEL (0.01 f/cm3). MAIN RESULTS: We identified six studies that measured asbestos concentrations outside and inside respiratory protective equipment (RPE) and one cross-over study that compared the effect of two different coveralls on body temperature. No studies evaluated the remaining predefined outcomes. Most studies were at overall moderate risk of bias due to insufficient reporting. The cross-over study was at high risk of bias. Full-face filtering masks Two studies evaluated full-face filtering masks. They provided insufficient data for band 1 and band 6. The results for the remaining bands were as follows. • Band 2: RoM 19 (95% CI 17.6 to 20.1; 1 study, 3 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 3: RoM 69 (95% CI 26.6 to 175.9; 2 studies, 17 measurements; very low certainty) • Band 4: RoM 455 (95% CI 270.4 to 765.1; 1 study, 16 measurements; low certainty) • Band 5: RoM 2752 (95% CI 1236.5 to 6063.2;1 study, 3 measurements; low certainty) The inside measurements in band 5 did not comply with the EU OEL of 0.1 f/cm3, and no inside measurements complied with the proposed EU OEL of 0.01 f/cm3. Supplied air respirators Two studies evaluated supplied air respirators. They provided no data for band 6. The results for the remaining bands were as follows. • Band 1: RoM 11 (95% CI 7.6 to 14.9; 1 study, 134 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 2: RoM 63 (95% CI 43.8 to 90.9; 1 study, 17 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 3: RoM 528 (95% CI 368.7 to 757.5; 1 study, 38 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 4: RoM 4638 (95% CI 3071.7 to 7044.5; 1 study, 49 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 5: RoM 26,134 (16,647.2 to 41,357.1; 1 study, 22 measurements; moderate certainty) All inside measurements complied with the current OEL of 0.1 f/cm3 and the proposed OEL of 0.01 f/cm3. Powered air-purifying respirators Three studies evaluated PAPRs. The results per band were as follows. • Band 1: RoM 8 (95% CI 3.7 to 19.1; 1 study, 23 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 2: RoM 90 (95% CI 64.7 to 126.5; 1 study, 17 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 3: RoM 104 (95% CI 23.1 to 464.1; 3 studies, 14 measurements; very low certainty) • Band 4: RoM 706 (95% CI 219.2 to 2253.0; 2 studies, 43 measurements; very low certainty) • Band 5: RoM 1366 (544.6 to 3428.9; 2 studies, 8 measurements; low certainty) • Band 6: RoM 18,958 (95% CI 4023.9 to 90,219.4; 2 studies, 13 measurements; very low certainty) All inside measurements complied with the 0.1 f/cm3 OEL when the outside concentration was below 10 f/cm3 (band 1 to band 4). From band 3, no measurements complied with the proposed OEL of 0.01 f/cm3. Different types of coveralls One study reported the adverse effects of coveralls. A polyethylene suit may increase the body temperature more than a ventilated impermeable polyvinyl (PVC) coverall, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD 0.17 °C, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.42; 1 study, 11 participants; very low certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Where the outside asbestos concentration is below 0.1 f/cm3, SARS and PAPRs likely reduce exposure to below the proposed OEL of 0.01 f/cm3. For outside concentrations up to 10 f/cm3, all respirators may reduce exposure below the current OEL, but only SAR also below the proposed OEL. In band 5 (10 to < 100 f/cm3), full-face filtering masks may not reduce asbestos exposure below either OEL, SARs likely reduce exposure below both OELs, and there were no data for PAPRs. In band 6 (100 f/cm3 to < 1000 f/cm3), PAPRs may not reduce exposure below either OEL, and there were no data for full-face filtering masks or SARs. Some coveralls may increase body temperature more than others. Randomised studies are needed to directly compare PAPRs and SARs at higher asbestos concentrations and to assess adverse effects. Future studies should assess the effects of doffing procedures.

Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure on male fertility: A systematic review of experimental studies on non-human mammals and human sperm in vitro.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization is coordinating an international project aimed at systematically reviewing the evidence regarding the association between radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure and adverse health effects. Reproductive health outcomes have been identified among the priority topics to be addressed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of RF-EMF exposure on male fertility of experimental mammals and on human sperm exposed in vitro. METHODS: Three electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus and EMF Portal) were last searched on September 17, 2022. Two independent reviewers screened the studies, which were considered eligible if met the following criteria: 1) Peer-reviewed publications of sham controlled experimental studies, 2) Non-human male mammals exposed at any stage of development or human sperm exposed in vitro, 3) RF-EMF exposure within the frequency range of 100 kHz-300 GHz, including electromagnetic pulses (EMP), 4) one of the following indicators of reproductive system impairment:Two reviewers extracted study characteristics and outcome data. We assessed risk of bias (RoB) using the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) guidelines. We categorized studies into 3 levels of overall RoB: low, some or high concern. We pooled study results in a random effects meta-analysis comparing average exposure to no-exposure and in a dose-response meta-analysis using all exposure doses. For experimental animal studies, we conducted subgroup analyses for species, Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) and temperature increase. We grouped studies on human sperm exposed in vitro by the fertility status of sample donors and SAR. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach after excluding studies that were rated as "high concern" for RoB. RESULTS: One-hundred and seventeen papers on animal studies and 10 papers on human sperm exposed in vitro were included in this review. Only few studies were rated as "low concern" because most studies were at RoB for exposure and/or outcome assessment. Subgrouping the experimental animal studies by species, SAR, and temperature increase partly accounted for the heterogeneity of individual studies in about one third of the meta-analyses. In no case was it possible to conduct a subgroup analysis of the few human sperm in vitro studies because there were always 1 or more groups including less than 3 studies. Among all the considered endpoints, the meta-analyses of animal studies provided evidence of adverse effects of RF-EMF exposure in all cases but the rate of infertile males and the size of the sired litters. The assessment of certainty according to the GRADE methodology assigned a moderate certainty to the reduction of pregnancy rate and to the evidence of no-effect on litter size, a low certainty to the reduction of sperm count, and a very low certainty to all the other meta-analysis results. Studies on human sperm exposed in vitro indicated a small detrimental effect of RF-EMF exposure on vitality and no-effect on DNA/chromatin alterations. According to GRADE, a very low certainty was attributed to these results. The few studies that used EMP exposure did not show effects on the outcomes. A low to very low certainty was attributed to these results. DISCUSSION: Many of the studies examined suffered of severe limitations that led to the attribution of uncertainty to the results of the meta-analyses and did not allow to draw firm conclusions on most of the endpoints. Nevertheless, the associations between RF-EMF exposure and decrease of pregnancy rate and sperm count, to which moderate and low certainty were attributed, are not negligible, also in view of the indications that in Western countries human male fertility potential seems to be progressively declining. It was beyond the scope of our systematic review to determine the shape of the dose-response relationship or to identify a minimum effective exposure level. The subgroup and the dose-response fitting analyses did not show a consistent relationship between the exposure levels and the observed effects. Notably, most studies evaluated RF-EMF exposure levels that were higher than the levels to which human populations are typically exposed, and the limits set in international guidelines. For these reasons we cannot provide suggestions to confirm or reconsider current human exposure limits. Considering the outcomes of this systematic review and taking into account the limitations found in several of the studies, we suggest that further investigations with better characterization of exposure and dosimetry including several exposure levels and blinded outcome assessment were conducted. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: Protocols for the systematic reviews of animal studies and of human sperm in vitro studies were published in Pacchierotti et al., 2021. The former was also registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021227729 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID = 227729) and the latter in Open Science Framework (OSF Registration DOI https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/7MUS3).

Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field (RF-EMF) exposure on pregnancy and birth outcomes: A systematic review of experimental studies on non-human mammals.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization is coordinating an international project aimed at systematically reviewing the evidence regarding the association between radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure and adverse health effects. Within the project, 6 topics have been prioritized by an expert group, which include reproductive health outcomes. OBJECTIVES: According to the protocol published in 2021, a systematic review and meta-analyses on the adverse effects of RF-EMF exposure during pregnancy in offspring of experimental animals were conducted. METHODS: Three electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus and EMF Portal) were last searched on September 8 or 17, 2022. Based on predefined selection criteria, the obtained references were screened by two independent reviewers. Studies were included if they met the following criteria: 1) original, sham controlled experimental study on non-human mammals exposed in utero, published in peer-reviewed journals, 2) the experimental RF-EMF exposure was within the frequency range 100 kHz-300 GHz, 3) the effects of RF-EMF exposure on fecundity (litter size, embryonic/fetal losses), on the offspring health at birth (decrease of weight or length, congenital malformations, changes of sex ratio) or on delayed effects (neurocognitive alterations, female infertility or early-onset cancer) were studied. Study characteristics and outcome data were extracted by two reviewers. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) guidelines. Study results were pooled in a random effects meta-analysis comparing average exposure to no-exposure and in a dose-response meta-analysis using all exposure doses, after exclusion of studies that were rated at "high concern" for RoB. Subgroup analyses were conducted for species, Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) and temperature increase. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Eighty-eight papers could be included in this review. Effects on fecundity. The meta-analysis of studies on litter size, conducted at a whole-body average SAR of 4.92 W/kg, did not show an effect of RF-EMF exposure (MD 0.05; 95% CI -0.21 to 0.30). The meta-analysis of studies on resorbed and dead fetuses, conducted at a whole-body average SAR of 20.26 W/kg, showed a significant increase of the incidence in RF-EMF exposed animals (OR 1.84; 95% CI 1.27 to 2.66). The results were similar in the dose-response analysis. Effects on the offspring health at birth. The meta-analysis of studies on fetal weight, conducted at a whole-body average SAR of 9.83 W/kg, showed a small decrease in RF-EMF exposed animals (SMD 0.31; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.48). The meta-analysis of studies on fetal length, conducted at a whole-body average SAR of 4.55 W/kg, showed a moderate decrease in length at birth (SMD 0.45; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.83). The meta-analysis of studies on the percentage of fetuses with malformations, conducted at a whole-body average SAR of 6.75 W/kg, showed a moderate increase in RF-EMF exposed animals (SMD -0.45; 95% CI -0.68 to -0.23). The meta-analysis of studies on the incidence of litters with malformed fetuses, conducted at a whole-body average SAR of 16.63 W/kg, showed a statistically significant detrimental RF-EMF effect (OR 3.22; 95% CI 1.9 to 5.46). The results were similar in the dose-response analyses. Delayed effects on the offspring health. RF-EMF exposure was not associated with detrimental effects on brain weight (SMD 0.10; 95% CI -0.09 to 0.29) and on learning and memory functions (SMD -0.54; 95% CI -1.24 to 0.17). RF-EMF exposure was associated with a large detrimental effect on motor activity functions (SMD 0.79; 95% CI 0.21 to 1.38) and a moderate detrimental effect on motor and sensory functions (SMD -0.66; 95% CI -1.18 to -0.14). RF-EMF exposure was not associated with a decrease of the size of litters conceived by F2 female offspring (SMD 0.08; 95% CI -0.39 to 0.55). Notably, meta-analyses of neurobehavioural effects were based on few studies, which suffered of lack of independent replication deriving from only few laboratories. DISCUSSION: There was high certainty in the evidence for a lack of association of RF-EMF exposure with litter size. We attributed a moderate certainty to the evidence of a small detrimental effect on fetal weight. We also attributed a moderate certainty to the evidence of a lack of delayed effects on the offspring brain weight. For most of the other endpoints assessed by the meta-analyses, detrimental RF-EMF effects were shown, however the evidence was attributed a low or very low certainty. The body of evidence had limitations that did not allow an assessment of whether RF-EMF may affect pregnancy outcomes at exposure levels below those eliciting a well-known adverse heating impact. In conclusion, in utero RF-EMF exposure does not have a detrimental effect on fecundity and likely affects offspring health at birth, based on the meta-analysis of studies in experimental mammals on litter size and fetal weight, respectively. Regarding possible delayed effects of in utero exposure, RF-EMF probably does not affect offspring brain weight and may not decrease female offspring fertility; on the other hand, RF-EMF may have a detrimental impact on neurobehavioural functions, varying in magnitude for different endpoints, but these last findings are very uncertain. Further research is needed on the effects at birth and delayed effects with sample sizes adequate for detecting a small effect. Future studies should use standardized endpoints for testing prenatal developmental toxicity and developmental neurotoxicity (OECD TG 414 and 426), improve the description of the exposure system design and exposure conditions, conduct appropriate dosimetry characterization, blind endpoint analysis and include several exposure levels to better enable the assessment of a dose-response relationship. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION AND PUBLICATION: The protocol was published in Pacchierotti et al., 2021 and registered in PROSPERO CRD42021227746 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=227746).