Next Article in Journal
Pre-Disaster Optimal Operation Strategy for Hydrogen-Fuel-Based Isolated Power System with Disaster Uncertainties
Next Article in Special Issue
A Protocol of Prevention and Protection Measures on New Occupational Risk Factors in Green Jobs in Italian Workplaces
Previous Article in Journal
Factors Influencing Purchase Intention toward Recycled Apparel: Evidence from China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Different Shades of Green: An Analysis of the Occupational Health and Safety Risks Faced by Wind Farm Workers
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Exposure and Early Effect Biomarkers for Risk Assessment of Occupational Exposure to Formaldehyde: A Systematic Review

by
Carmela Protano
1,*,
Arianna Antonucci
1,
Andrea De Giorgi
1,
Stefano Zanni
1,
Elisa Mazzeo
1,
Vincenzo Cammalleri
1,
Leila Fabiani
2,
Riccardo Mastrantonio
2,
Mario Muselli
2,
Giada Mastrangeli
2,
Cinzia Lucia Ursini
3,
Delia Cavallo
3,
Diana Poli
3,
Giorgia Di Gennaro
1,3,
Giuseppe De Palma
4 and
Matteo Vitali
1
1
Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, P.le Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy
2
Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L’Aquila, P.le Salvatore Tommasi 1, Coppito, 67100 L’Aquila, Italy
3
Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Epidemiology and Hygiene, Italian Workers’ Compensation Authority-INAIL, Monte Porzio Catone, 00078 Rome, Italy
4
Unit of Occupational Health and Industrial Hygiene, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, University of Brescia, Piazzale Spdali Civili 1, 25123 Brescia, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(9), 3631; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093631
Submission received: 29 March 2024 / Revised: 19 April 2024 / Accepted: 24 April 2024 / Published: 26 April 2024

Abstract

:
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.

1. Introduction

Occupational exposure to formaldehyde (FA) and the related adverse effects for human health have been studied for many years and, nowadays, are still the subject of much research.
It is well known that exposure to FA is associated with a broad spectrum of negative outcomes for health, ranging from mild to severe [1]. Specifically, acute exposure to FA can lead to irritation of the eyes, nose, throat, and skin, as well as symptoms like nasal congestion, sore throat, headaches, coughing, conjunctivitis, fatigue, skin rashes, shortness of breath, nausea, and nosebleeds [2]. Besides this, FA is classified as a Group 1 human carcinogen [3], and chronic exposure to FA can lead to cancer both in humans and animals [4]. Despite this evidence, FA finds extensive use in the manufacturing of various products, including resins, adhesives, plywood binders, plastics, synthetic fibers, paints, and insulation foams. These materials serve as the fundamental components in the production of furniture, upholstery, carpets, curtains, and various other household items [5]. Thus, FA is present ubiquitously in the environment and used in a great number of processes and activities in workplaces. The main sources of occupational exposure to FA are industrial production including resins, plastics, laminates, furniture, molding compounds, chemical manufacture, fertilizer, pesticides, paper, wood products, sanitizers, scientific supply, rubber, leather tanning, iron foundries, photographic film, textiles, and cosmetics. Other occupational settings in which occupational exposure to FA occurs are healthcare settings, especially for preserving tissue and specimens and for embalming procedures, agrifood scenarios, building, transportation, and fuel [6].
Given all the possibilities of occupational exposure to FA and the related adverse effects for human health, over the years, different mitigation strategies have been implemented in occupational environments to minimize exposure [7]. However, these procedures are not standardized and not used in all the settings in which FA is used; thus, it is essential to evaluate this specific risk in the workplace and to monitor the exposed workers for their exposure and the related adverse effects, in particular those ones at an early and reversible stage. This topic is even more relevant considering that “promoting a safe and protected working environment for all workers” represents a target of the Sustainable Development Goal 8 of the UN Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development, that is the goal to promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth; full and productive employment; and decent work for all. At present, the gold standard for FA risk assessment and management in workplaces is the exposure measurement. In particular, occupational exposure to FA is actually assessed by measuring the levels of airborne FA. This measurement can be carried out through portable samplers/analyzers, equipped with photoacoustic spectroscopy detectors or electrochemical detectors, with a sensitivity of the order of a few μg/m3. More sensitive approaches are represented by active or passive environmental sampling with specific sorbent tubes containing 2,4-dinitrophenyhydrazine or 2-(hydroxymethyl) piperidine as derivatizer with a built-in ozone scrubber performed in fixed sites and/or by the use of personal samplers, then analyzed by high performance liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS) or gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS) [6]. However, the airborne FA level is just an estimation of the true individual exposure. After the inhalation of FA, owing to its water solubility and reactivity, a great part of it is inactivated from mucus and peribronchial fluid and the remaining amount is absorbed in the body [8]. Following its absorption, FA spontaneously reacts with glutathione (GSH) to generate hydroxy methyl glutathione (HMGSH). Subsequently, the enzyme formaldehyde dehydrogenase (FDH) oxidizes HMGSH into S-formylglutathione (FGSH). FGSH is then metabolized by S-formylglutathione hydrolase, resulting in the production of formate and the regeneration of reduced glutathione [9]. Moreover, FA can also undergo oxidation facilitated by aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH), in coordination with cytochrome oxidase isoenzymes including and CYP2E1 [10]. In this manner, the generated formate can be excreted in urine in the form of formic acid, interact with other biomolecules, or even be metabolized into carbon dioxide [11,12] Given the metabolism of FA, it should be very interesting to evaluate FA exposure by the use of indicators of internal dose and of early effects; however presently, official occupational health guidelines do not establish specific biomarkers for this purpose.
The aim of the present systematic review was to identify all the biomarkers used for assessing the exposure to FA in occupational environments and for evaluating the relative early adverse effects for human health.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Search Strategy

The systematic review was carried out in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [13]. PRISMA Checklist is reported as Supplementary Materials. Additionally, the review protocol was registered in PROSPERO with the reference number CRD42023416960.
The review question focuses on the occupational exposure to FA in adult workers of all genders, to identify biomarkers of exposure used for evaluating FA exposure and/or early negative effects.
The studies selection procedure used the “PICOS” methodology (P stands for patient, population or problem; I for intervention; C for control group or comparison; O for outcome; S for study design) to generate the search query, and adherence to the following eligibility criteria was required: the population was made up of adult workers of all genders who were occupationally exposed to FA; intervention was not applicable; the outcome was the identification of all the biomarkers of exposure and/or effects used for assessing FA risk of exposure in the workplace; study design included observational, semi-experimental, and experimental studies.
We queried three electronic databases to search for articles: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science.

2.2. Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria

Articles were deemed eligible if they included data from observational studies, semi-experimental, and experimental studies, on adult workers who were occupationally exposed to FA, regardless of gender or age. We only included items published in English from the beginning of each database until 18 September 2023.
Studies including data about general population were excluded. We also excluded studies on biomarkers in workers not exposed to FA and with controls who had different socio-demographic characteristics than the exposed group, as well as controls who were not workers. Other types of studies, such as reviews, meta-analysis, case studies, qualitative investigations, book chapters, editorials, commentary studies, and so on, were not considered.
The titles and abstracts obtained from the three databases were imported into the reference management software Zotero (version 6.0.27), which was used for the initial assessment of relevance. Subsequently, the next phase involved a title and abstract screening, where potentially suitable studies were independently reviewed by five authors (A.A., A.D.G., S.Z., E.M., and V.C.). Following this, the full texts of these studies were independently examined by the same five authors, and a subsequent discussion took place regarding their potential inclusion in the review. Any disagreements that arose were resolved through consensus among the authors. All the steps were supervised by two other investigators (C.P. and M.V.).
The collected data were organized into a table that presented bibliographic details (including author, year of publication, origin country), sample size, age, and gender of participants. The table also included information about employment characteristics, biomarkers of exposure and/or early effects investigated, confounding and interfering variables considered, and the key findings of the selected studies.

2.3. Study Quality and Evaluation

We conducted the quality assessment using the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale, modified for cohort and case-control studies, which enabled us to determine the overall rating. Specifically, selection, comparability, and outcome were the three evaluation categories. An overall quality rating was assigned to each eligible article according to the number of criteria met, as follows: For cross-sectional studies in the three evaluation categories of selection, comparability, and outcome: good quality (all criteria met, low risk of bias); fair quality (1 criterion not met or 2 criteria unclear, moderate risk of bias); poor quality (2 or more criteria not met, high risk of bias). For case-control and cohort studies: good quality (3 or 4 criteria in selection domain, 1 or 2 criteria in comparability domain, and 2 or 3 criteria in outcome domain); fair quality (2 criteria in selection domain, 1 or 2 criteria in comparability domain, and 2 or 3 criteria in outcome domain); poor quality (0 or 1 criterion in selection domain, 0 criteria in comparability domain, or 0 or 1 criteria in outcome domain).
Each study was individually scored by five authors (A.A., A.D.G., S.Z., E.M., and V.C.), and any discrepancies were resolved through consensus among all the authors. The ultimate rating for each article was calculated as the average of the five authors’ scores.

3. Results

3.1. Article Selection

Figure 1 shows the steps of the article selection process used for the systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines [13].
On a total of 1524 articles found in all searched databases (416 from PubMed, 706 from Scopus, and 402 from Web of Science); after duplicate deletion, 991 records were screened for inclusion; of the remaining studies, 891 were deleted after analyzing the title and abstract. Then, the full texts of 100 articles were assessed for eligibility and evaluated considering the inclusion and exclusion criteria. After the evaluation, 48 articles were excluded on the basis of the exclusion criteria and specifically for the following reasons: 19 articles because they were not specific to FA, 15 articles only considered environmental monitoring, 9 did not consider original data, 3 did not assess an occupationally exposed population, 1 because it was in a different language from English, and 1 because it was not found. Finally, 52 articles met the inclusion criteria, and were included in the analysis.

3.2. Main Characteristics of the Included Studies

The included articles were grouped based on the studied occupational scenarios, as follows: healthcare and research (Table 1), industrial (Table 2), and other settings or miscellanea of settings (Table 3). These groups were chosen on the basis of the results of a recent systematic review [6], which categorized those exposed to FA according to the activities carried out in the work environment. The included articles studied different categories of workers who were grouped as miscellanea of settings.
In total, 21 articles out of a total of 52 included in the present review were focused on healthcare and research settings, 23 in industrial scenarios, and 8 in other settings.
The included articles were published between 1989 and 2023 and performed in several countries: 15 from Italy [14,15,21,22,26,28,29,36,37,38,41,45,50,51,60], 7 from Portugal [17,18,19,20,24,25,63], and 5 from China [42,43,52,53,56]. Other countries were less represented: Egypt [35,40,58], Brazil [5,11,48], and Israel [30,31,32] had three studies each; Iran [54,55], USA [33,49], Hungary [23,34], Turkey [39,47], and Bulgaria [44,57] had two studies each; only one study was conducted each in Slovakia [62], Tunisia [16], Sweden [59], Czech Republic [27], France [46], and the Netherlands [61].
Most of the studies involved both males and females, while three studies studied only females [14,23,58], five only males [38,40,45,47,51], and nine did not state the gender of the participants [26,30,33,54,57,59,60,61,62]. All the studies included subjects with a range of 17–60 years, with a sample size ranging from 16 [26,57] to 399 individuals [32] and a study period considered ranging from 3 weeks [49] to 13 years [34].
Nine articles [11,20,26,28,35,47,48,50,61] investigated the levels of biomarkers of internal dose, using the urinary concentration of formic acid [11,20,35,47,48,61] or FA [26] or FA human serum albumin conjugate [28,50]. Statistically significant increases in the concentration of biomarkers of internal dose in the exposed group with respect to the control were recovered in four studies [20,26,28,48], and higher levels of formic acid were found after the exposure in one study [11].
As regards to the biomarkers of early effects for human health, the included articles monitored one or more of these biomarkers. The most common investigated effect was the micronucleus frequency in peripheral blood lymphocytes and/or epithelial buccal cells (used in 14 [11,16,17,18,20,24,25,28,33,39,46,48,58,63] of the 49 included studies evaluating biomarkers of effect), which was statistically significantly increased in those exposed compared to controls, with the exception of Pala et al. [28], which did not find any cytogenetic effect. Nine studies analyzed structural chromosomal aberrations [19,21,23,27,28,29,34,43,62] and nine articles evaluated sister chromatide exchanges [17,18,20,22,23,28,31,33,34]; they found significantly increased effects in the exposed workers compared to controls.
Several factors extrinsic to occupational exposure can affect the FA exposure levels and the related frequency of observed early biological effects; hence, with the exception of one study [26], all the included studies considered some potential confounding and/or interfering factors on biomarkers measurements, such as age, sex, body mass index, current cigarette smoking status and alcohol consumption, recent infections, current use of medication, and duration of exposure. For this reason, in order to adjust the results related to the biomarkers of exposure or effects, these variables were included in models if they were significant at p < 0.05 or if there was evidence of confounding (e.g., greater than a 15% change in the regression coefficient). In the multiple linear regression analysis, adjustments were made for possible influence of such variables and selected biomarkers were subsequently tested using the adjusted multiple linear regression.

4. Discussion

The present systematic review was focused on the identification of biomarkers used for assessing the exposure to FA in occupational environments and the relative early negative effects for human health.
The first relevant result is related to the use of specific biomarkers of occupational exposure to FA. Indeed, just about one-sixth of the articles included have monitored an exposure biomarker using urinary concentrations of formic acid [20,35,47,48,61] or unmodified FA [26] or FA human serum albumin conjugate [28,50], and the results showed a statistically significant increase in the levels of these substances in the exposed group compared to control in only half of the studies [20,26,28,48]. In particular, the urinary concentration of formic acid was found significantly higher in FA-exposure with respect to the control by Costa et al. [20] and by Peteffi et al. [11,48], but not by the other included studies. These contrasting results can be due to the influence of other individual or external factors beyond FA-exposure on the excretion of formic acid in the urine. For example, food composition can determine inter- and intra-individual daily fluctuations of urinary formic acid concentrations [64]. Indeed, it has been reported that an excessive intake of proteins and carbohydrates seems to increase the formic acid excretion in urine [65]. Besides this, age presents a positive correlation with the urinary levels of formic acid [20]. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that a non-negligible level of formic acid can be produced by endogenous FA [8]. All these influences on the concentrations of formic acid make this substance a poor biological index for the human biomonitoring of exposure to FA. As regards urinary unmodified FA, Motta et al. [26] evidenced a potential FA weekly accumulation, but the same authors highlighted that the use of urinary FA as a biomarker of exposure poses severe limitations because of its very short half-life [26]. Regarding FA human serum albumin conjugate, Ref. [28] recovered a statistically significant increase in this biomarker; in contrast, the results found by Regazzoni et al. [50] did not confirm the association between FA exposure and the formation of the adduct. This difference can be due to several factors, such as the levels and the duration of exposure, the methods used for measuring the adducts, the exposure to other substances as well as differences in the genetic polymorphism for specifying metabolizing enzymes.
Another important finding is linked to the biomarkers of early adverse effects for human health. Except for three studies [26,50,61] evaluating only biomarkers of exposure, the other included articles monitored also one or more biomarkers of effects in workers exposed to FA. The most common studied effect was the cytogenetic one by micronucleus assay in peripheral blood lymphocytes and/or epithelial buccal cells followed by the structural chromosomal aberrations and sister chromatide exchanges. Among the other studied early effects there were oxidative stress, DNA damage, and DNA protein crosslink. The results of almost all the included articles agree in demonstrating a statistically significant increase in early effect biomarkers in FA-exposed workers with respect to controls. These results confirm that occupational FA exposure is associated with a large number of early adverse effects and these risks should be carefully evaluated and managed. Besides this, these findings evidence that there are many effects related to FA exposure that are detectable early; consequently, these can be a useful tool for assessing the risks linked to this occupational exposure and for predicting the possibility of diseases, including cancer. A research agenda in this field is represented by the choice of which early effect indicators to use. In fact, there are some critical issues that need to be considered.
All the included studies take into account several confounding and/or interfering variables on the exposure to FA or on the levels of biomarkers, such as age, sex, body mass index, current cigarette smoking status and alcohol consumption, recent infections, current use of medication, and duration of exposure. As regard to sex and gender differences, a recent review highlighted that in the last few decades, given the increasing number of women workers, the difference between male and female populations in terms of occupational health has become evident and the effect of risk factors and work-related exposures is intrinsically different in male and female workers. However, further research in this field is needed in order to study in depth the extent of sex and gender differences in the context of occupational health [66]. Besides this, for the interpretation of biomarkers of exposure and effects, the issue of confounding factors such as age, sex, and gender differences; genetic make-up; and other exogenous confounding factors including lifestyle habits such as smoking habit, alcohol consumption, and others should have been addressed and discussed in previous research, and they should be carefully taken into account in future studies [67].
In addition to the aforementioned interfering and confounding factors that can influence the levels of biological indices of effects, it must be considered that the indicators studied by the articles included in the present review are not only determined by exogenous FA, but also by endogenous FA and, therefore, it is necessary to find appropriate ways to exclude this quota produced within the organism. Furthermore, the identified indicators of early effect are not specific to the exposure to FA, but they can also form following exposure to other toxic and/or carcinogenic substances in workplaces. Several studies demonstrated that DNA damage and other early adverse effects can be determined by the occupational exposure to a large number of inorganic and organic compounds, such as cadmium [68], cytostatic/antineoplastic drugs [69], benzene and other polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [70], organochlorides [71], and others.
Regarding the setting groups, we found no differences in the results of the studies involving healthcare and research or industrial or other scenarios. This result is in line with the findings of a previous review [6], reporting that airborne FA was found at concentrations higher than outdoors in almost all the studied scenarios/activities.
The results of this systematic review add some scientific evidence on the use of the biomarkers for evaluating the exposure and the related early effects related to occupational exposure to FA. This evidence can support appropriate choices in the risk assessment and management process, necessary for helping to achieve the target of “promoting a safe and protected working environment for all workers” in the Sustainable Development Goal 8 of the UN Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development.
This systematic review has some limitations. First of all, only studies published in the English language were considered, excluding articles published in other languages a priori. Besides this, a formal meta-analysis was not carried out because the results of the articles included in the review were different in term of populations, number of participants (from 16 to 399), study period (ranging from 3 weeks to 13 years), working context, study design, methodological approach for estimating exposure and effects, confounding and/or interfering factors considered, and kinds of biomarkers of exposure or effects investigated. Thus, publication bias and statistical heterogeneity were not assessed. This choice is supported by Cochrane, who recently declared that meta-analysis should be considered only when the studies are adequately homogeneous for participants, interventions, and outcomes [72]. However, in our knowledge, this is the first systematic review of the scientific literature that gives a complete picture of biomarkers of exposure and early effects used in the assessment of FA exposure in occupational settings.

5. Conclusions

The results of the included articles evidenced that the use of biomarkers of exposure for assessing occupational exposure to FA is under debate. Further studies are needed to find suitable biological indicators of FA exposure.
Almost all the studies show a statistically significant increase in early effect biomarkers (particularly cytogenetic assays) in FA-exposed workers with respect to controls demonstrating their usefulness for biomonitoring studies of exposed workers. FA exposure in working contexts should be eliminated or reduced as much as possible thanks to the use of individual and collective protective equipment and mitigation strategies. Besides this, biomarkers of early effect can be used for evaluating the health hazards to human health in a very early and reversible phase. In particular, micronucleus assays on buccal cells are interesting and promising for their sensitivity and also because of their non-invasiveness, which makes them easily usable and acceptable to workers.
Additional efforts must be made to eliminate the effect due to simultaneous exposure to other toxic and carcinogenic substances and the influence of confounding and interfering factors.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su16093631/s1, PRISMA Checklist.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.P., L.F., C.L.U., G.D.P. and M.V.; methodology, A.A., A.D.G., S.Z., E.M. and V.C.; software, A.A., A.D.G., S.Z., E.M., V.C., R.M., M.M., G.D.G. and G.M.; validation, C.P., D.C., D.P. and M.V.; investigation, A.A., A.D.G., S.Z., E.M., V.C., R.M., M.M., G.D.G. and G.M.; resources, C.P., L.F., C.L.U., G.D.P. and M.V.; data curation, A.A., A.D.G., S.Z., E.M., V.C., R.M., M.M., G.D.G. and G.M.; writing—original draft preparation, A.A., A.D.G., S.Z., E.M., V.C., R.M., M.M., G.D.G. and G.M.; writing—review and editing, C.P., L.F., C.L.U., D.C., D.P., G.D.P. and M.V.; supervision, C.P. and M.V.; project administration, C.P., L.F., C.L.U., G.D.P. and M.V.; funding acquisition, C.P., L.F., C.L.U., G.D.P. and M.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by INAIL, BRiC-2022, project number ID51/2022.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are provided as tables and figures directly within the manuscript, and raw data are available via e-mail upon request to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Hulin, M.; Simoni, M.; Viegi, G.; Annesi-Maesano, I. Respiratory health and indoor air pollutants based on quantitative exposure assessments. Eur. Respir. J. 2012, 40, 1033–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Arts, J.H.; Rennen, M.A.; de Heer, C. Inhaled formaldehyde: Evaluation of sensory irritation in relation to carcinogenicity. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2006, 44, 144–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans: Formaldehyde, 2-Butoxyethanol and 1-Tert-Butoxypropan-2-ol. 88; International Agency for Research on Cancer: Lyon, France, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  4. Protano, C.; Buomprisco, G.; Cammalleri, V.; Pocino, R.N.; Marotta, D.; Simonazzi, S.; Cardoni, F.; Petyx, M.; Iavicoli, S.; Vitali, M. The Carcinogenic Effects of Formaldehyde Occupational Exposure: A Systematic Review. Cancers 2021, 14, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Barbosa, E.; Dos Santos, A.L.A.; Peteffi, G.P.; Schneider, A.; Müller, D.; Rovaris, D.; Bau, C.H.D.; Linden, R.; Antunes, M.V.; Charão, M.F. Increase of global DNA methylation patterns in beauty salon workers exposed to low levels of formaldehyde. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2019, 26, 1304–1314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Cammalleri, V.; Pocino, R.N.; Marotta, D.; Protano, C.; Sinibaldi, F.; Simonazzi, S.; Petyx, M.; Iavicoli, S.; Vitali, M. Occupational scenarios and exposure assessment to formaldehyde: A systematic review. Indoor Air 2022, 32, e12949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Castellani, F.; Vitali, M.; Antonucci, A.; Cofone, L.; D’Ancona, G.; Pindinello, I.; Buomprisco, G.; Petyx, M.; Ursini, C.L.; Protano, C. Effective mitigation strategies for reducing workers’ exposure to formaldehyde: A systematic review. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Leng, J.; Liu, C.W.; Hartwell, H.J.; Yu, R.; Lai, Y.; Bodnar, W.M.; Lu, K.; Swenberg, J.A. Evaluation of inhaled low-dose formaldehyde-induced DNA adducts and DNA-protein cross-links by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Arch. Toxicol. 2019, 93, 763–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Reingruber, H.; Pontel, L.B. Formaldehyde metabolism and its impact on human health. Curr. Opin. Toxicol. 2018, 9, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dorokhov, Y.L.; Sheshukova, E.V.; Bialik, T.E.; Komarova, T.V. Human Endogenous Formaldehyde as an Anticancer Metabolite: Its Oxidation Downregulation May Be a Means of Improving Therapy. Bioessays 2018, 40, e1800136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Peteffi, G.P.; Antunes, M.V.; Carrer, C.; Valandro, E.T.; Santos, S.; Glaeser, J.; Mattos, L.; da Silva, L.B.; Linden, R. Environmental and biological monitoring of occupational formaldehyde exposure resulting from the use of products for hair straightening. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2016, 23, 908–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxicological Profile for Formaldehyde; Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease: Atlanta, GA, USA, 1999.
  13. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Bellisario, V.; Mengozzi, G.; Grignani, E.; Bugiani, M.; Sapino, A.; Bussolati, G.; Bono, R. Towards a formalin-free hospital. Levels of 15-F2t-isoprostane and malondialdehyde to monitor exposure to formaldehyde in nurses from operating theatres. Toxicol. Res. 2016, 5, 1122–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Bono, R.; Romanazzi, V.; Munnia, A.; Piro, S.; Allione, A.; Ricceri, F.; Guarrera, S.; Pignata, C.; Matullo, G.; Wang, P.; et al. Malondialdehyde−deoxyguanosine adduct formation in workers of pathology wards: The role of air formaldehyde exposure. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2010, 23, 1342–1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Bouraoui, S.; Mougou, S.; Brahem, A.; Tabka, F.; Ben Khelifa, H.; Harrabi, I.; Mrizek, N.; Elghezal, H.; Saad, A. A combination of micronucleus assay and fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis to evaluate the genotoxicity of formaldehyde. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2013, 64, 337–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Costa, S.; Coelho, P.; Costa, C.; Silva, S.; Mayan, O.; Santos, L.S.; Gaspar, J.; Teixeira, J.P. Genotoxic damage in pathology anatomy laboratory workers exposed to formaldehyde. Toxicology 2008, 252, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Costa, S.; García-Lestón, J.; Coelho, M.; Coelho, P.; Costa, C.; Silva, S.; Porto, B.; Laffon, B.; Teixeira, J.P. Cytogenetic and immunological effects associated with occupational formaldehyde exposure. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health A 2013, 76, 217–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Costa, S.; Carvalho, S.; Costa, C.; Coelho, P.; Silva, S.; Santos, L.S.; Gaspar, J.F.; Porto, B.; Laffon, B.; Teixeira, J.P. Increased levels of chromosomal aberrations and DNA damage in a group of workers exposed to formaldehyde. Mutagenesis 2015, 30, 463–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Costa, S.; Costa, C.; Madureira, J.; Valdiglesias, V.; Teixeira-Gomes, A.; Guedes de Pinho, P.; Laffon, B.; Teixeira, J.P. Occupational exposure to formaldehyde and early biomarkers of cancer risk, immunotoxicity and susceptibility. Environ. Res. 2019, 179 Pt A, 108740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ghelli, F.; Cocchi, E.; Buglisi, M.; Squillacioti, G.; Bellisario, V.; Bono, R.; Santovito, A. The role of phase I, phase II, and DNA-repair gene polymorphisms in the damage induced by formaldehyde in pathologists. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 10507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Ghelli, F.; Cocchi, E.; Bellisario, V.; Buglisi, M.; Squillacioti, G.; Santovito, A.; Bono, R. The formation of SCEs as an effect of occupational exposure to formaldehyde. Arch. Toxicol. 2022, 96, 1101–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Jakab, M.G.; Klupp, T.; Besenyei, K.; Biró, A.; Major, J.; Tompa, A. Formaldehyde-induced chromosomal aberrations and apoptosis in peripheral blood lymphocytes of personnel working in pathology departments. Mutat. Res. Genet. Toxicol. Environ. Mutagen. 2010, 698, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Ladeira, C.; Viegas, S.; Carolino, E.; Prista, J.; Gomes, M.C.; Brito, M. Genotoxicity biomarkers in occupational exposure to formaldehyde—The case of histopathology laboratories. Mutat. Res. 2011, 721, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Ladeira, C.; Viegas, S.; Carolino, E.; Gomes, M.C.; Brito, M. The influence of genetic polymorphisms in XRCC3 and ADH5 genes on the frequency of genotoxicity biomarkers in workers exposed to formaldehyde. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 2013, 54, 213–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Motta, O.; Charlier, B.; De Caro, F.; Coglianese, A.; De Rosa, F.; Moccia, G.; Pironti, C.; Capunzo, M.; Borrelli, A.; Filippelli, A.; et al. Environmental and biological monitoring of formaldehyde inside a hospital setting: A combined approach to manage chemical risk in workplaces. J. Public Health Res. 2021, 10, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Musak, L.; Smerhovsky, Z.; Halasova, E.; Osina, O.; Letkova, L.; Vodickova, L.; Polakova, V.; Buchancova, J.; Hemminki, K.; Vodicka, P. Chromosomal damage among medical staff occupationally exposed to volatile anesthetics, antineoplastic drugs, and formaldehyde. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 2013, 39, 618–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Pala, M.; Ugolini, D.; Ceppi, M.; Rizzo, F.; Maiorana, L.; Bolognesi, C.; Schilirò, T.; Gilli, G.; Bigatti, P.; Bono, R.; et al. Occupational exposure to formaldehyde and biological monitoring of Research Institute workers. Cancer Detect. Prev. 2008, 32, 121–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Santovito, A.; Schilirò, T.; Castellano, S.; Cervella, P.; Bigatti, M.P.; Gilli, G.; Bono, R.; DelPero, M. Combined analysis of chromosomal aberrations and glutathione S-transferase M1 and T1 polymorphisms in pathologists occupationally exposed to formaldehyde. Arch. Toxicol. 2011, 85, 1295–1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Shaham, J.; Bomstein, Y.; Meltzer, A.; Kaufman, Z.; Palma, E.; Ribak, J. DNA-protein crosslinks, a biomarker of exposure to formaldehyde—In vitro and in vivo studies. Carcinogenesis 1996, 17, 121–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Shaham, J.; Bomstein, Y.; Melzer, A.; Ribak, J. DNA-Protein Crosslinks and Sister Chromatid Exchanges as Biomarkers of Exposure to Formaldehyde. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 1997, 3, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Shaham, J.; Bomstein, Y.; Gurvich, R.; Rashkovsky, M.; Kaufman, Z. DNA-protein crosslinks and p53 protein expression in relation to occupational exposure to formaldehyde. Occup. Environ. Med. 2003, 60, 403–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Suruda, A.; Schulte, P.; Boeniger, M.; Hayes, R.B.; Livingston, G.K.; Steenland, K.; Stewart, P.; Herrick, R.; Douthit, D.; Fingerhut, M.A. Cytogenetic effects of formaldehyde exposure in students of mortuary science. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 1993, 2, 453–460. [Google Scholar]
  34. Tompa, A.; Jakab, M.; Biró, A.; Magyar, B.; Fodor, Z.; Klupp, T.; Major, J. Chemical safety and health conditions among Hungarian hospital nurses. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2006, 1076, 635–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Attia, D.; Mansour, N.; Taha, F.; Seif El Dein, A. Assessment of lipid peroxidation and p53 as a biomarker of carcinogenesis among workers exposed to formaldehyde in the cosmetic industry. Toxicol. Ind. Health 2016, 32, 1097–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Bono, R.; Vincenti, M.; Schiliro’, T.; Scursatone, E.; Pignata, C.; Gilli, G. N-Methylenvaline in a group of subjects occupationally exposed to formaldehyde. Toxicol. Lett. 2006, 161, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Bono, R.; Romanazzi, V.; Pirro, V.; Degan, R.; Pignata, C.; Suppo, E.; Pazzi, M.; Vincenti, M. Formaldehyde and tobacco smoke as alkylating agents: The formation of N-methylenvaline in pathologists and in plastic laminate workers. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 414, 701–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Bono, R.; Munnia, A.; Romanazzi, V.; Bellisario, V.; Cellai, F.; Peluso, M.E.M. Formaldehyde-induced toxicity in the nasal epithelia of workers of a plastic laminate plant. Toxicol. Res. 2016, 5, 752–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Burgaz, S.; Erdem, O.; Cakmak, G.; Erdem, N.; Karakaya, A.; Karakaya, A.E. Cytogenetic analysis of buccal cells from shoe-workers and pathology and anatomy laboratory workers exposed to n-hexane, toluene, methyl ethyl ketone and formaldehyde. Biomarkers 2002, 7, 151–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. El Far, M.; El Naggar, M.; Elkhawaga, O.A.; Yahya, R.; Allam, A.; Khalifa, A. Carcinoembryonic antigen, alpha-fetoprotein, and prostate-specific antigen in the sera of industrial workers exposed to phenol, formaldehyde, urea, and mixed vapors. Inhal. Toxicol. 2006, 18, 1041–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Ghelli, F.; Bellisario, V.; Squillacioti, G.; Grignani, E.; Garzaro, G.; Buglisi, M.; Bergamaschi, E.; Bono, R. Oxidative stress induction in woodworkers occupationally exposed to wood dust and formaldehyde. J. Occup. Med. Toxicol. 2021, 16, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Hosgood, H.D., 3rd; Zhang, L.; Tang, X.; Vermeulen, R.; Hao, Z.; Shen, M.; Qiu, C.; Ge, Y.; Hua, M.; Ji, Z.; et al. Occupational exposure to formaldehyde and alterations in lymphocyte subsets. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2013, 56, 252–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Lan, Q.; Smith, M.T.; Tang, X.; Guo, W.; Vermeulen, R.; Ji, Z.; Hu, W.; Hubbard, A.E.; Shen, M.; McHale, C.M.; et al. Chromosome-wide aneuploidy study of cultured circulating myeloid progenitor cells from workers occupationally exposed to formaldehyde. Carcinogenesis 2015, 36, 160–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Lyapina, M.; Zhelezova, G.; Petrova, E.; Boev, M. Flow cytometric determination of neutrophil respiratory burst activity in workers exposed to formaldehyde. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2004, 77, 335–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Maniscalco, M.; Paris, D.; Melck, D.; Chiariello, N.; Di Napoli, F.; Manno, M.; Iavicoli, I.; Motta, A. Biomonitoring of workers using nuclear magnetic resonance-based metabolomics of exhaled breath condensate: A pilot study. Toxicol. Lett. 2018, 298, 4–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Orsière, T.; Sari-Minodier, I.; Iarmarcovai, G.; Botta, A. Genotoxic risk assessment of pathology and anatomy laboratory workers exposed to formaldehyde by use of personal air sampling and analysis of DNA damage in peripheral lymphocytes. Mutat. Res. 2006, 605, 30–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Oztan, O.; Tutkun, L.; Turksoy, V.A.; Deniz, S.; Dip, A.; Iritas, S.B.; Eravci, D.B.; Alaguney, M.E. The relationship between impaired lung functions and cytokine levels in formaldehyde exposure. Arch. Environ. Occup. Health 2020, 76, 248–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Peteffi, G.P.; da Silva, L.B.; Antunes, M.V.; Wilhelm, C.; Valandro, E.T.; Glaeser, J.; Kaefer, D.; Linden, R. Evaluation of genotoxicity in workers exposed to low levels of formaldehyde in a furniture manufacturing facility. Toxicol. Ind. Health 2016, 32, 1763–1773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Phillips, R.V.; Wei, L.; Cardenas, A.; Hubbard, A.E.; McHale, C.M.; Vermeulen, R.; Wei, H.; Smith, M.T.; Zhang, L.; Lan, Q.; et al. Epigenome-wide association studies of occupational exposure to benzene and formaldehyde. Epigenetics 2022, 17, 2259–2277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Regazzoni, L.G.; Grigoryan, H.; Ji, Z.; Chen, X.; Daniels, S.I.; Huang, D.; Sanchez, S.; Tang, N.; Sillé, F.C.; Iavarone, A.T.; et al. Using lysine adducts of human serum albumin to investigate the disposition of exogenous formaldehyde in human blood. Toxicol. Lett. 2017, 268, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Romanazzi, V.; Pirro, V.; Bellisario, V.; Mengozzi, G.; Peluso, M.; Pazzi, M.; Bugiani, M.; Verlato, G.; Bono, R. 15-F₂t isoprostane as biomarker of oxidative stress induced by tobacco smoke and occupational exposure to formaldehyde in workers of plastic laminates. Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 442, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Seow, W.J.; Zhang, L.; Vermeulen, R.; Tang, X.; Hu, W.; Bassig, B.A.; Ji, Z.; Shiels, M.S.; Kemp, T.J.; Shen, M.; et al. Circulating immune/inflammation markers in Chinese workers occupationally exposed to formaldehyde. Carcinogenesis 2015, 36, 852–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Van der Laan, L.; Cardenas, A.; Vermeulen, R.; Fadadu, R.P.; Hubbard, A.E.; Phillips, R.V.; Zhang, L.; Breeze, C.; Hu, W.; Wen, C.; et al. Epigenetic aging biomarkers and occupational exposure to benzene, trichloroethylene and formaldehyde. Environ. Int. 2022, 158, 106871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Zendehdel, R.; Fazli, Z.; Mazinani, M. Neurotoxicity effect of formaldehyde on occupational exposure and influence of individual susceptibility to some metabolism parameters. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2016, 188, 648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Zendehdel, R.; Vahabi, M.; Sedghi, R. Estimation of formaldehyde occupational exposure limit based on genetic damage in some Iranian exposed workers using benchmark dose method. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2018, 25, 31183–31189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Zhang, L.; Tang, X.; Rothman, N.; Vermeulen, R.; Ji, Z.; Shen, M.; Qiu, C.; Guo, W.; Liu, S.; Reiss, B.; et al. Occupational exposure to formaldehyde, hematotoxicity, and leukemia-specific chromosome changes in cultured myeloid progenitor cells. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2010, 19, 80–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Zhitkovich, A.; Lukanova, A.; Popov, T.; Taioli, E.; Cohen, H.; Costa, M.; Toniolo, P. DNA-protein crosslinks in peripheral lymphocytes of individuals exposed to hexavalent chromium compounds. Biomarkers 1996, 1, 86–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Aglan, M.A.; Mansour, G.N. Hair straightening products and the risk of occupational formaldehyde exposure in hairstylists. Drug Chem. Toxicol. 2020, 43, 488–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Norbäck, D.; Wålinder, R.; Wieslander, G.; Smedje, G.; Erwall, C.; Venge, P. Indoor air pollutants in schools: Nasal patency and biomarkers in nasal lavage. Allergy 2000, 55, 163–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Squillacioti, G.; Bellisario, V.; Grosso, A.; Ghelli, F.; Piccioni, P.; Grignani, E.; Corsico, A.; Bono, R. Formaldehyde, Oxidative Stress, and FeNO in Traffic Police Officers Working in Two Cities of Northern Italy. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Triebig, G.; Schaller, K.H.; Beyer, B.; Müller, J.; Valentin, H. Formaldehyde exposure at various workplaces. Sci. Total Environ. 1989, 79, 191–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Vargová, M.; Janota, S.; Karelová, J.; Baranèokova, M.; Sulcová, M. The evaluation of possible health risk associated with occupational exposure to formaldehyde. SPIE 1993, 1716, 447–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Viegas, S.; Ladeira, C.; Nunes, C.; Malta-Vacas, J.; Gomes, M.; Brito, M.; Mendonca, P.; Prista, J. Genotoxic effects in occupational exposure to formaldehyde: A study in anatomy and pathology laboratories and formaldehyde-resins production. J. Occup. Med. Toxicol. 2010, 5, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Schmid, K.; Schaller, K.H.; Angerer, J.; Lehnert, G. The Importance of formic acid Excretion in the urine for environmental and occupational medicine questions. Zentralblatt Hyg. Umweltmed. 1994, 196, 139–152. [Google Scholar]
  65. Boeniger, M.F. Formate in urine as a biological indicator of formaldehyde exposure: A review. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 1987, 48, 900–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Santoro, P.M.; Borrelli, I.; Gualano, M.R.; Amantea, C.; Tumminello, A.; Daniele, A.; Rossi, M.F.; Moscato, U. Occupational hazards and gender differences: A narrative review. Ital. J. Gend.-Specif. Med. 2022, 8, 154–162. [Google Scholar]
  67. Anderson, D. Factors contributing to biomarker responses in exposed workers. Mutat. Res.-Fund. Mech. Mutagen. 1999, 428, 197–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Nagaraju, R.; Kalahasthi, R.; Balachandar, R.; Bagepally, B.S. Cadmium exposure and DNA damage (genotoxicity): A systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 2022, 52, 786–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Villarini, M.; Gianfredi, V.; Levorato, S.; Vannini, S.; Salvatori, T.; Moretti, M. Occupational exposure to cytostatic/antineoplastic drugs and cytogenetic damage measured using the lymphocyte cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay: A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Mutat. Res. Rev. Mutat. Res. 2016, 770 Pt A, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zhou, Y.; Wang, K.; Wang, B.; Pu, Y.; Zhang, J. Occupational benzene exposure and the risk of genetic damage: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health 2020, 20, 1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. da Silva Augusto, L.G.; Lieber, S.R.; Ruiz, M.A.; de Souza, C.A. Micronucleus monitoring to assess human occupational exposure to organochlorides. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 1997, 29, 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Deeks, J.J.; Higgins, J.P.T.; Altman, D.G. Chapter 10: Analysing Data and Undertaking Meta-Analyses. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions; Version 6.2 (updated February 2021); Higgins, J.P.T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M.J., Welch, V.A., Eds.; Cochrane: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Flow diagram of study selection.
Figure 1. Flow diagram of study selection.
Sustainability 16 03631 g001
Table 1. Main characteristics of studies (n = 21) involving healthcare and research settings included in the systematic review.
Table 1. Main characteristics of studies (n = 21) involving healthcare and research settings included in the systematic review.
Reference
Country
Working Context
Sample Size
Age (Mean Value ± SD and/or Range)
Gender (%)
Biomarkers of Internal Dose and/or Early EffectConfounding and Interfering FactorsMain ResultsQuality Evaluation According to NOS Scale
Bellisario et al., 2016 [14]
Italy
Hospital operating theatre
94; 30 exposed and 64 controls; 45 ± 8 years; 0 males (0%) and 94 females (100%)Biomarkers of effect: levels of 15-F2t-isoprostane and malondialdehyde in urine samplesSmoking habits, log-FA, UVS, urinary cotinine, age, body mass indexStatistically significant increases in urinary levels of 15-F2t-isoprostane and malondialdehyde in nurses using FA, in particular in those workers using liquid FAFair
Bono et al., 2010 [15]
Italy
Pathology wards
76; 44 exposed and 32 controls; 32% <30 years, 31% 30–39 years, 37% >39 years; 22 males (29%) and 53 females (71%)Biomarkers of effect: levels of leukocyte malondialdehyde-deoxyguanosine adductsGender, age, smoking habits, exposure status, air-FA measurementsStatistically significant increases in malondialdehyde-deoxyguanosine adducts in exposed with respect to controls. The effect becomes stronger when the evaluation of air-FA exposure was based on personal samplersFair
Bouraoui et al., 2012 [16]
Tunisia
Hospital pathology anatomy laboratory
62; 31 exposed and 31 controls; 43 ± 9 years; 21 males (40%) and 41 females (60%)Biomarkers of effect: micronucleus frequencies in peripheral lymphocytesGender, age, smoking habits, use of individual protection, professional class, presence of respiratory and ocular effectsStatistically significant increases in micronucleus frequency in the exposed group compared to controlsFair
Costa et al., 2008 [17]
Portugal
Hospital pathology anatomy laboratory
60; 30 exposed and 30 controls; 38 ± 9 years; 20 males (33%) and 40 females (67%)Biomarkers of effect: micronucleus frequencies, sister chromatid exchanges, comet tail length in peripheral lymphocytesAge, gender, smoking habits, years of employmentStatistically significant increases in micronucleus frequency, sister chromatid exchanges, and comet tail length in the exposed group compared to controlsFair
Costa et al., 2013 [18]
Portugal
Hospital pathology anatomy laboratory
70; 35 exposed and 35 controls; 40 ± 10 years; 11 males (16%) and 59 females (84%)Biomarkers of effect: micronucleus frequencies and sister chromatid exchanges in peripheral lymphocytes, T-cell receptor mutations in mononuclear leukocytesAge, gender, smoking habits, years of employmentStatistically significant increases in micronucleus frequency and sister chromatid exchanges in the exposed group compared to controls. No significant differences were found for T-cells receptor mutationsFair
Costa et al., 2015 [19]
Portugal
Hospital pathology anatomy laboratory
171; 84 exposed and 87 controls; 39 ± 10 years; 39 males (23%) and 132 females (77%)Biomarkers of effect: chromosomal aberrations in peripheral lymphocytes and percentage of DNA in the comet tail in peripheral mononuclear cellsHealth conditions, general medical history, medication, diagnostic tests (X-rays, etc), age, gender, smoking habits, alcohol consumption, dietary habitsStatistically significant increases in chromosomal aberrations and percentage of DNA in the comet tail in the exposed group compared to controlsFair
Costa et al., 2019 [20]
Portugal
Hospital pathology anatomy laboratory
172; 85 exposed and 87 controls; 40 ± 10 years; 138 males (80%) and 34 females (20%)Biomarkers of internal dose: urinary formic acid concentrations

Biomarkers of effect: micronucleus frequencies in peripheral lymphocytes and in exfoliated buccal cells, sister chromatid exchanges in peripheral lymphocytes, T-cell receptor mutations in mononuclear leukocytes, percentages of different lymphocyte subpopulations
Health conditions, general medical history, medication, diagnostic tests (X-rays, etc), age, gender, smoking habits, alcohol consumption, dietary habitsStatistically significant increases in urinary formic acid, micronucleus frequency and sister chromatid exchanges in the exposed group compared to controls. Statistically significant alteration of percentages of different lymphocyte subpopulations in the exposed group compared to controls. No significant differences were found for T-cells receptor mutationsFair
Ghelli et al., 2021 [21]
Italy
Hospital pathology laboratory
105; 57 exposed and 48 controls; 41.4 ± 9.3 years; 54 males (52%) and 51 females (48%) Biomarkers of effect: formation of chromosomal aberrations on peripheral blood lymphocytesSex, age, personal habits (smoking) during the last year, work characteristics (length in years of service working and type of work)Statistically significant increases in chromosomal aberrations in the exposed group compared to controls.
Significant positive correlations were found between chromosomal aberrations frequency and air-FA concentration
Fair
Ghelli et al., 2022 [22]
Italy
Hospital pathology laboratory
105; 57 exposed and 48 controls; 41.4 ± 9.3 years; 54 males (52%) and 51 females (48%) Biomarkers of effect: formation of sister-chromatid exchanges in peripheral blood lymphocytesSex, age, smoking habits referring to the last year, working characteristics (working years and task and personal protective equipment use).Statistically significant increases of sister-chromatid exchanges in the exposed group compared to controlsGood
Jakab et al., 2010 [23]
Hungary
Hospital pathology laboratory
74; 37 exposed and 37 controls; 43.2 ± 2.0 years; 0 males (0%) and 74 females (100%)Biomarkers of effect: formation of chromosomal aberrations, sister-chromatid exchange, HPRT mutations, UV-induced unscheduled DNA-repair synthesis, premature centromere division and of cells with a high frequency of SCE in peripheral blood lymphocytesAge, medication, lifestyle (smoking and drinking habits), medical and work histories in relation to known or suspected chemical mutagens and/or to exposure to ionizing radiation, use of protective devices during workStatistically significant increases in the apoptotic activity and chromosomal aberrations levels in the exposed group compared to controlsFair
Ladeira et al., 2011 [24]
Portugal
Hospital-associated histopathology laboratories
141; 56 exposed and 85 controls; 35.9 ± 9.8 years; 50 males (35%) and 91 females (65%)Biomarkers of effect: micronuclei in peripheral blood lymphocytes and exfoliated cells from the buccal mucosa, nucleoplasmic bridges, common poor repair and/or telomere fusion and nuclear buds in peripheral blood lymphocytesAge, gender, smoking habits and alcohol consumption, use of protective devices during workStatistically significant increases in the investigated biomarkers in the exposed group compared to controlsGood
Ladeira et al., 2013 [25]
Portugal
Hospital-associated histopathology laboratories
136; 54 exposed and 82 controls; 36.3 ± 9.8 years; 48 males (35%) and 88 females (65%)Biomarkers of effect: micronuclei in peripheral blood lymphocytes and exfoliated cells from the buccal mucosa, nucleoplasmic bridges and nuclear buds in peripheral blood lymphocytesAge, gender, smoking habits, alcohol consumptionStatistically significant increases in the investigated biomarkers in the exposed group compared to controlsGood
Motta et al., 2021 [26]
Italy
Anatomic pathology unit
16 exposedBiomarkers of internal dose: urinary formaldehyde concentrations-Workers’ urinary formaldehyde levels were minimal, but the statistical analysis highlighted a slight weekly accumulationPoor
Musak et al., 2013 [27]
Czech Republic
Hospital laboratories
355; 105 exposed and 250 controls; 39 ± 10 years; 50 males (14%) and 305 females (86%)Biomarkers of effect: structural chromosomal aberrations in peripheral blood lymphocytesAge, gender, job category, smoking habitsStatistically significant increases in the chromosomal aberrations levels in the exposed group compared to controlsGood
Pala et al., 2008 [28]
Italy
Cancer research institute laboratories
36; 27 low exposed and 9 high exposed; 40.14 (range 27–52) years; 12 males (33%) and 24 females (67%) Biomarkers of internal dose: formaldehyde human serum albumin conjugate

Biomarkers of effect: chromosome aberrations, micronuclei, sister chromatid exchanges in peripheral blood lymphocytes
Age, gender, smoking habits, exposure to other chemicalsStatistically significant increase in the biomarker of exposure in subjects with high exposure, but not of the biomarkers of effectPoor
Santovito et al., 2011 [29]
Italy
Pathology wards
36; 20 exposed and 16 controls; 43.9 ± 2.34 years; 13 males (36%) and 23 females (64%)Biomarkers of effect: frequency of chromosomal aberrations in peripheral blood lymphocytesAge, years of employmentStatistically significant increase in the frequency of chromosomal aberrations per cell and in the percentage of cells with aberrations in peripheral lymphocytes in the exposed group compared to controlsPoor
Shaham et al., 1996 [30]
Israel
Anatomy and pathology laboratories
20; 12 exposed and 8 controls; 42.5 ± 10.1 yearsBiomarker of effect: amount of DNA–protein crosslinks in white blood cellsAge, smoking habits, medical history, hygiene habitsStatistically significant increase in the levels of DNA–protein crosslinks in peripheral white blood cells in the exposed group comapred to controls. Linear positive relationship between years of exposure and the amount of DNA–protein crosslinksPoor
Shaham et al., 1997 [31]
Israel
Anatomy and pathology department
33; 13 exposed and 20 controls; 40.5 ± 12 yearsBiomarker of effect: sister chromatid exchanges in peripheral blood lymphocytesAge, gender, smoking habits, years of FA exposure, occupational and medical histories, hygiene habitsStatistically significant increase in the mean numbers of sister chromatid exchanges in the exposed group compared to controlsPoor
Shaham et al., 2003 [32]
Israel
Pathology wards
399; 186 exposed and 213 controls; 43.9 ± 10.3 years; 186 males (47%) and 213 females (53%)Biomarkers of effect: DNA–protein crosslinks and p53 “wild type” and mutant (pantropic p53) in peripheral lymphocytesAge, gender, smoking habits, years of education, originStatistically significant higher level of pantropic p53 in the exposed group compared to controlsFair
Suruda et al., 1993 [33]
USA
Anatomy laboratory
29; 23.6 years; 22 males (76%) and 7 females (24%)Biomarkers of effect: micronuclei in buccal cells, nasal cells, and peripheral blood lymphocyte; lymphocyte sister chromatid exchangeAge, gender, smoking status, performed embalming in 90 days prior to studyStatistically significant increase in micronucleus frequency during the study period compared to pre-exposure levels in epithelial cells from the buccal area, nasal cells, and blood cells in the low exposed group, and a decrease in lymphocyte sister chromatid exchangePoor
Tompa et al., 2006 [34]
Hungary
Hospital operating theater
180; 86 exposed and 94 controls; 42.4 ± 1.7 years; 14 males (7.8%) and 166 females (92.2%)Biomarkers of effect: chromosome aberrations, sister chromatid exchange, ratio of lymphocyte subpopulations, lymphocyte activation markers and leukocyte oxidative burstAge, smoking, drinking, exposure to known or suspected mutagens, occupational history, use of protective devices during workStatistically significant increase in the mean sister chromatid exchange frequency was observed in the exposed group compared to controlsFair
Table 2. Main characteristics of studies (n = 23) involving industrial settings included in the systematic review.
Table 2. Main characteristics of studies (n = 23) involving industrial settings included in the systematic review.
Reference
Country
Working Context
Sample Size
Age (Mean Value ± SD and/or Range)
Gender (%)
Biomarkers of Internal Dose and/or Early EffectConfounding and Interfering FactorsMain ResultsQuality Evaluation According to NOS Scale
Attia et al., 2016 [35]
Egypt
Cosmetic industry
60; 40 exposed and 20 controls; 29 ± 11 years; 12 males (20%) and 48 females (80%)Biomarkers of internal dose: urinary formic acid concentration

Biomarkers of effect: levels of p53 mutations and malondialdehyde in serum samples
Gender, age, smoking habits, alcohol consumptionStatistically significant increase in serum malondialdehyde in exposed workers compared to controlsFair
Bono et al., 2006 [36]
Italy
Plywood and laminate factory
51; 21 exposed and 30 controls; 35 ± 8 years; 37 males (73%) and 14 females (27%)Biomarkers of effect: alkylation of hemoglobin to form a terminal N-methylenvaline residueAge, gender, residence, smoking habits, professional activityStatistically significant higher prevalence of N-methylenvaline in the exposed group compared to controlsFair
Bono et al., 2012 [37]
Italy
Laboratory and plastic laminate plant
173; 95 exposed and 78 controls; 40 years; 89 males (51%) and 84 females (49%)Biomarkers of effect: alkylation of hemoglobin to form a terminal N-methylenvaline residueAge, gender, smoking habits, place of residence, hobbies, therapies, smoking habits, profession, environmental and personal protective equipmentStatistically significant higher concentration of N-methylenvaline in the exposed group compared to controlsFair
Bono et al., 2016 [38]
Italy
Plastic laminate plant
95; 50 exposed and 45 controls; 44 ± 10 years; 95 males (100%) and 0 females (0%)Biomarkers of effect: frequency of 3 (2-deoxy-β-D-erythro-pentafuranosyl) pyrimido [1,2-α] purin-10 (3H)-one deoxyguanosine adductsAge and smoking habits, jobs, personal formaldehyde exposureStatistically significant increase in frequency of deoxyguanosine adduct in the exposed group compared to controls.Good
Burgaz et al., 2002 [39]
Turkey
Shoes factory and anatomy and pathology laboratory
68; 50 exposed and 18 controls; 30 ± 8 years; 55 males (81%) and 13 females (19%)Biomarkers of effect: micronucleus frequencies in epithelial buccal cellsGender, age and smoking habits, duration of exposureStatistically significant increases in micronucleus frequency in the exposed group compared to controlsFair
El Far et al., 2006 [40]
Egypt
Chemical industries
80; 65 exposed and 15 controls; 26–60 years; 80 males (100%) and 0 females (0%)Biomarkers of effect: levels of carcinoembryonic antigen, alpha-fetoproteins, prostate-specific antigen-Statistically significant higher serum concentration of carcinoembryonic antigen, alpha-fetoproteins, and prostate-specific antigen in the exposed group compared to controlsFair
Ghelli et al., 2021 [41]
Italy
Wood industry plants
238; 127 exposed and 111 controls; 42 ± 16 years; 161 males (68%) and 77 females (32%)Biomarkers of effect: levels of oxidative stress markers as 15-F2t-IsoP and 8-oxo-dGuo in urine samplesAge, gender, body mass index, smoking habits, residence, working years, wheezing, asthma-like symptoms, allergies, eczema, personal protective equipment useStatistically significant higher concentrations of 15-F2t-IsoP and 8-oxo-dGuo in the exposed group compared to controlsGood
Hosgood et al., 2012 [42]
China
Melamine resins and plastic utensils factories
94; 43 exposed and 51 controls; 30.5 ± 6.5 years; 81 males (86%) and 13 females (14%)Biomarkers of effect: major lymphocyte subsetsAge, gender, smoking habits, alcohol consumption, recent infections (flu or respiratory infections in the previous month), body mass indexStatistically significant decrease in counts of NK cells, regulatory T cells, and CD8+ effector memory T cells in the exposed group compared to controlsFair
Lan et al., 2015 [43]
China
Melamine resins plant
52; 29 exposed and 23 controls; 31 ± 5 years; 47 males (90%) and 5 females (10%)Biomarkers of effect: chromosomal aneuploidy and structural chromosome aberrations in myeloid progenitor cellsAge, gender, smoking habits, alcohol consumption, recent infections (flu or respiratory infections in the previous week), use of medication, body mass indexStatistically significant increase in the frequencies of monosomy, trisomy, tetrasomy, and structural chromosome aberrations of multiple chromosomes in exposed group compared to controlsGood
Lyapina et. al. 2004 [44]
Bulgaria
Carbamide FA glue employees
50; 29 exposed and 21 controls; 38.5 ± 12.5 years; Exposed: 13 males (26%) and 16 females (32%)Biomarkers of effect: neutrophil respiratory burst activity; haematologic alterationsAge, gender, smoking habitsStatistically significant negative correlation between the duration of exposure to formaldeyde and erythrocyte count and haematocrit level, and lower neutrophil respiratory burst activity in the exposed group with upper respiratory tract findings and frequent and long-lasting infectious inflammatory relapsesPoor
Maniscalco et al., 2018 [45]
Italy
Friction system manufacturing plant
30; 20 exposed and 10 controls; 36.5 ± 6.5 years; 30 males (100%) and 0 females (0%)Biomarkers of effect: changes in metabolic profiles in exhaled breath condensate Smoking habitsStatistically significant increase in the concentration of propionate, isopropanol, lactate, acetoin, methanol, 1,2-propanediol, ethylene glycol, 3-hydroxyisobutyrate, and phenylalanine in the exposed group compared to controlsGood
Orsiere et al., 2006 [46]
France
Anatomy laboratory
96; 59 exposed and 37 controls; 44.3 ± 8.3 years; 20 males (20.9%) and 76 females (79.1%)Biomarkers of effect: DNA damage by chemiluminescence microplate assay and cytokinesis-blocked micronucleus assay in peripheral lymphocytesAge, gender, smoking habits, alcohol consumption, recent X-ray diagnostic or radiotherapy history, use of mutagenic or reprotoxic drugsStatistically significant higher frequency of micronuclei in the exposed group compared to controlsFair
Oztan et al., 2020 [47]
Turkey
Fiber manufacturing company
198; 116 exposed and 82 controls; 35.3 ± 6.68 years; 198 males (100%) and 0 females (0%)Biomarkers of internal dose: urinary formic acid concentration

Biomarkers of effect: proinflammatory cytokines, pulmonary function tests, serum AST, ALT, GGT, and creatinine
Chronic disease, medications, smoking statusStatistically significant increase in mean level of FA, TNF-α, and IL-6; significant decrease in FEV1 and FVC in the exposed group compared to controlsFair
Peteffi et al., 2016 [48]
Brazil
Furniture manufacturing facility
91; 46 exposed and 45 controls; 35 ± 11.4 years; 41 males (45%) and 50 females (55%)Biomarkers of internal dose: urinary formic acid concentration

Biomarkers of effect: micronucleus test in exfoliated buccal cells and comet assay in peripheral lymphocytes
Age, gender, smoking habits, alcohol consumptionStatistically significant increase in damage frequency and damage index in the comet assay, frequency of micronuclei, and formic acid concentration in urine in the exposed group compared to controlsPoor
Phillips et al., 2022 [49]
USA
Factories
71; 31 exposed and 40 controls; 30.6 ± 6.7 years; 59 males (83%) and 12 females (17%)Biomarkers of effect: DNA methylation in peripherical blood cellsAge, gender, occupational and medical history, environmental exposures, smoking habits, alcohol consumptionStatistically significant decrease in methylation variability in the DUSP22 gene promoter and hypomethylation of the HOXA5 promoter region in the exposed group compared to controlsFair
Regazzoni et al., 2017 [50]
Italy
FA production factory
30; 15 exposed and 15 controls; 9 males (30%) and 21 females (70%)Biomarkers of internal dose: formaldeyde human serum albumin conjugateSmoking habitsNo increase of formyl adducts in exposed subjects compared to controlsFair
Romanazzi et al., 2013 [51]
Italy
Decorative laminates industry
105; 51 exposed and 54 controls; 40 ± 10 years; 105 males (100%) and 0 females (0%)Biomarkers of effect: levels of 15-F2t-isoprostane in urine samplesAge, place of residence, hobbies, therapies, smoking habits, professional
use of environmental and personal protective devices
Statistically significant increase in 15-F2t-isoprostane in exposed group compared to controlsPoor
Seow et al., 2015 [52]
China
Resins and plastic factories
94; 43 exposed and 51 controls; 30.5 ± 6.5 years; 43 males (46%) and 51 females (54%)Biomarkers of effect: circulating immune/inflammation markersAge, gender, smoking habits, alcohol consumption, recent infections or medication use, body mass indexStatistically significant decrease in immunomodulating markers in the exposed workers compared to controlsGood
Van der Laan et al., 2022 [53]
China
Resins and plastic factories
70; 31 exposed and 39 controls; 30.7 ± 6.7 years; 12 males (17%) and 58 females (83%)Biomarkers of effect: DNA methylation in peripheral blood cellsbody mass index, smoking habits, alcohol consumption, self-reported
recent infection
No statistically significant differences in methylation in peripheral blood cells were observed in the exposed group compared to controlsFair
Zendehdel et al., 2016 [54]
Iran
Melamine dish preparation plant
67; 35 exposed and 32 controls; 17–59 yearsBiomarkers of effect: erythrocyte acetylcholinesterase activityAge, gender, smoking habits, socioeconomic status, genotype of acetylcholinesteraseStatistically significant increase in the acetylcholinesterase activity in the exposed group compared to controlsFair
Zendehdel et al., 2018 [55]
Iran
Melamine tableware plant
87; 53 exposed and 34 controls; 28.8 ± 7.9 years; 80 males (92%) and 7 females (8%)Biomarkers of effect: DNA damage by comet assayAge, gender, smoking habits, alcohol consumption, work experienceStatistically significant increase in DNA tail lengths at comet assay in the exposed groupGood
Zhang et al., 2010 [56]
China
Melamine resins plant
94; 43 exposed and 51 controls; 30.5 ± 6.5 years; 81 males (86%) and 13 females (14%)Biomarkers of effect: hematopoietic function disruption and leukemia-related chromosome changes by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)Smoking habits, alcohol consumption, age, gender, flu or respiratory infections in the previousmonth, body mass indexStatistically significant decrease in total white blood cell counts in the exposed groupFair
Zhitkovich et al., 1996 [57]
Bulgaria
Chrome-platers factory
16; 10 exposed and 6 controls; 37.8 ± 6.8 yearsBiomarkers of effect: DNA-protein crosslinks in peripheral blood lymphocytesSmoking habits, age, gender, weight, alcohol consumption, occupational exposure to chromiumNo statistically significant differences of levels of DNA-protein crosslinks in peripheral lymphocytes in the exposed groupPoor
Table 3. Main characteristics of studies (n = 8) involving other settings or miscellanea of settings included in the systematic review.
Table 3. Main characteristics of studies (n = 8) involving other settings or miscellanea of settings included in the systematic review.
Reference
Country
Working Context
Sample Size
Age (Mean Value ± SD and/or Range)
Gender (%)
Biomarkers of Internal Dose and/or Early EffectConfounding and Interfering FactorsMain ResultsQuality Evaluation According to NOS Scale
Aglan and Mansour 2020 [58]
Egypt
Hairdressing salon
120; 60 exposed and 60 controls; 20–36 years; 0 males (0%) and 120 females (100%)Biomarkers of effect: micronucleus frequencies in epithelial buccal cells and peripheral blood lymphocytesAge, residency, nutritional habits, socio-economic standardStatistically significant increase in micronucleus frequency in hairstylists involved in hair straightening procedure for >5 years with respect to the controlsFair
Barbosa et al., 2019 [5]
Brazil
Hairdressing salon
49; 8 males (16%) and 41 females (84%)Biomarkers of effect: global DNA methylation in whole bloodAge, gender, alcohol consumption, smoking habitsStatistically significant increase in global DNA methylation in higher-exposed group.Fair
Norbak et al., 2000 [59]
Sweden
School buildings
234Biomarkers of effect: acoustic rhinometry and eosinophil cationic protein, myeloperoxidase, lysozyme, albumin in nasal lavageAge, gender, smoking habits, atopy and mean classroom temperature in the schoolStatistically significant increase in eosinophil cationic protein and of lysozyme in the exposed group. A lower degree of nasal patency was found at higher concentrations of respirable dust, nitrogen dioxide, and formaldehydeFair
Peteffi et al., 2016 [11]
Brazil
Hairdressing salon
50Biomarkers of internal dose: urinary formic acid concentration

Biomarkers of effect: micronucleus test in exfoliated buccal cells and comet assay in peripheral lymphocytes
Age, gender, weight, smoking, smoking-related habits, allergic symptoms, whether they wear personal protection equipmentStatistically significant variation in damage frequency and damage index in the comet assay, frequency of micronuclei, and formic acid concentration in urine before and after the exposure, respectivelyFair
Squillacioti et al., 2020 [60]
Italy
Traffic police officers
154; 85 outdoor workers and 69 indoor workers; 45.8 ± 7.7 years; 88 males (57%) and 66 females (43%)Biomarkers of effect: urinary F2t-isoprostane; FeNO as a marker of airway eosinophils inflammationAge, gender, smoking habits, body mass index, sampling location, job duties, citiesStatistically significant positive correlation between the air concentration of formaldehyde and 15-F2t-isoprostaneFair
Triebig et al., 1989 [61]
Netherlands
Anatomic theatres, pathological laboratories, chipboard manufacturers
153Biomarkers of internal dose: urinary formic acid concentrationWorkplacesNo significant relationship between FA exposure and formic acid excretion in urinePoor
Vargova et al., 1993 [62]
Slovakia
Woodsplinter materials plant
39; 20 exposed and 19 controls; 42.3 yearsBiomarkers of effect: structural chromosome aberrations in peripheral blood lymphocytesAge, lifestyle factors, social status, health conditionsStatistically significant higher percent of aberrant cells and breaks per cell in the exposed group compared to controlPoor
Viegas et al., 2010 [63]
Portugal
Resin production plant, pathology and anatomy laboratories
165; 80 exposed and 85 controls; 34.8 ± 8.9 years; 79 males (48%) and 86 females (52%)Biomarkers of effect: micronucleus test in exfoliated epithelial cells from buccal mucosa and peripheral blood lymphocytesAge, gender, smoking habits, health conditions, medical history, medication, lifestyle factorsStatistically significant higher frequency of micronuclei in the exposed group, both in peripheral blood lymphocytes and in epithelial buccal cells in the exposed group compared to control. Moderate positive correlation between years of exposure and frequency of micronuclei in peripheral blood lymphocytes and in epithelial cellsGood
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Protano, C.; Antonucci, A.; De Giorgi, A.; Zanni, S.; Mazzeo, E.; Cammalleri, V.; Fabiani, L.; Mastrantonio, R.; Muselli, M.; Mastrangeli, G.; et al. Exposure and Early Effect Biomarkers for Risk Assessment of Occupational Exposure to Formaldehyde: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3631. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093631

AMA Style

Protano C, Antonucci A, De Giorgi A, Zanni S, Mazzeo E, Cammalleri V, Fabiani L, Mastrantonio R, Muselli M, Mastrangeli G, et al. Exposure and Early Effect Biomarkers for Risk Assessment of Occupational Exposure to Formaldehyde: A Systematic Review. Sustainability. 2024; 16(9):3631. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093631

Chicago/Turabian Style

Protano, Carmela, Arianna Antonucci, Andrea De Giorgi, Stefano Zanni, Elisa Mazzeo, Vincenzo Cammalleri, Leila Fabiani, Riccardo Mastrantonio, Mario Muselli, Giada Mastrangeli, and et al. 2024. "Exposure and Early Effect Biomarkers for Risk Assessment of Occupational Exposure to Formaldehyde: A Systematic Review" Sustainability 16, no. 9: 3631. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093631

APA Style

Protano, C., Antonucci, A., De Giorgi, A., Zanni, S., Mazzeo, E., Cammalleri, V., Fabiani, L., Mastrantonio, R., Muselli, M., Mastrangeli, G., Ursini, C. L., Cavallo, D., Poli, D., Gennaro, G. D., De Palma, G., & Vitali, M. (2024). Exposure and Early Effect Biomarkers for Risk Assessment of Occupational Exposure to Formaldehyde: A Systematic Review. Sustainability, 16(9), 3631. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093631

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop