Share on
INTRODUCTION
Formaldehyde, a well-known chemical, is the simplest of the aldehydes with a structural formula consisting of a carbonyl group (C=O) to which two hydrogen atoms are bonded, making the molecule highly reactive at ambient temperature. It occurs naturally as a colourless gas [1]. This substance is listed by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a pollutant of public health concern, known for its adverse effects [2]. In the environment formaldehyde is ubiquitous, both as a primary and secondary pollutant, released directly from combustion processes, including several natural sources, industrial emissions, and urban traffic, or formed in the atmosphere by photochemical reactions of other pollutants, such as volatile organic compounds [2]. It is a known respiratory and skin irritant, and can cause long-term damage, including eye irritation, allergies, and even genetic damage and cancer [1]. Exposure occurs primarily through inhalation into the respiratory tract or skin absorption. It is rapidly absorbed after inhalation and oral exposure, but it is poorly absorbed through the skin [1]. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified it as a Group 1 carcinogen to human since 2012 [3]. The carcinogenicity of formaldehyde is mainly due to its ability to cause cross-links between DNA and proteins and cellular toxicity at the point of contact [3]. There is an ongoing debate about whether its carcinogenic mechanism is threshold (non-genotoxic) or non-threshold (genotoxic), but some leading scientific institutions currently consider it a non-threshold carcinogen, meaning that even low-level exposure may pose a risk, especially for nasopharyngeal cancer and some types of leukaemia [1-3]. Formaldehyde is widely used in different industrial and professional sectors due to its properties as a preservative, disinfectant and fixative agent. It is primarily used in the manufacture of resins, preservatives, lawn fertilizers, fixatives, cosmetics, and disinfectants, and workers involved in its production or use may be exposed to dangerous levels during their work activities [1, 2]. In 2016, with the entry into force of European Union (EU) Regulation n. 605/2014, the obligation to report occupational exposure to carcinogens to the national register (Sistema Informativo Registri di Esposizione Professionale, SIREP) established by National Institute for Insurance against Accidents at Work (Istituto Nazionale per l’Assicurazione contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro, INAIL) was extended to include formaldehyde, which is now among the substances classified in Group 1B of the EU classification pursuant to the Regulation n. 1272/2008. To prevent and control exposure through inhalation, the EU regulation requires, from 2020, an 8-hour occupational exposure limit value (OELV) of 0.37 mg/m3 of formaldehyde in the workplace air. The OELV for formaldehyde has traditionally been based on both animal and human studies demonstrating its irritant properties and carcinogenic potential, highlighting significant risks at concentrations above certain levels. Given the evolving scientific evidence and new insights into genotoxicity and susceptible populations, there are compelling reasons to continue updating this limit value. However, there is no scientific evidence for the feasibility of assessing formaldehyde exposure through biological monitoring, and no biological indicators are available for this purpose.
The aim of this study is to describe the level of exposure to formaldehyde in different sectors of activity and occupational groups in Italy following the entry into force of the reporting obligation. An estimation of the number of workers potentially exposed to formaldehyde was also performed.
METHODS
Data collection
The measurement data on formaldehyde exposure were collected by SIREP and refer to the exposure period 1996-2024. SIREP is a relational database whose design and contents have been extensively described elsewhere [4]. In summary, according to Italian regulation on health surveillance in the workplace (Legislative Decree n. 81/2008), employers are required to record data on occupational exposure to carcinogens and notify them to the SIREP system every three years. Exposure levels must not exceed the OELVs established in Annex XLIII of Decree n. 81/2008 and exposure measurements must be aimed at managing exposure below this binding value (residual exposure). Exceeding these limits requires the employer to intervene immediately to reduce exposure and adopt appropriate prevention and protection measures. The reporting is mandatory for workers exposed to carcinogenic agents classified as Group 1A and 1B by the European Union (1A, substance known to be carcinogenic to humans; 1B, substances that should be considered carcinogenic to humans) under EU Regulation n. 1272/2008 on the classification, labelling and packaging of chemicals. Formaldehyde has been classified in Group 1B since 2016; prior to this year, data was notified to the system only on a voluntary basis. The management and transmission of data have to be completed exclusively electronically via a web application. The main information provided by employers includes the economic activity and size of the firm, the demographic and occupational data of the workers, and the levels of exposure in terms of intensity, frequency, and time duration. One or more exposure measurements are recorded for each worker and work period. Employers are responsible for exposure measurement procedures and air sampling methods, to be carried out in accordance with European standards which provide technical guidance on the implementation of air monitoring strategies [5].
Data selection and classification
A total of 26,216 measurements that refer to 19,242 exposure situations to formaldehyde were selected; 4,446 exposures of which were measured repeatedly over time. The term “exposure” refers to a specific job task of a worker that involves exposure to formaldehyde. Measurements (n=1,826) provided in parts per million (ppm) were converted to mg/m3 using the standard conversion factor derived at 25 °C and 1 atmosphere of pressure (1 ppm=1.23 mg/m3). The sample typology (personal or environmental) and the analytical method performed to collect the measurements were not always available (available percentage: 78% and 89% of cases respectively), while the sampling period was a typical 8-h working day (time-weighted average, TWA-8). The exposure-related variables selected for the descriptive analysis were the activity sector, the occupational group, the size and geographical location of the firms. The level of exposure was grouped into six value classes, according to the quantile distribution, to provide better readability of the data (<0.01, 0.01-0.025, 0.025-0.05, 0.05-0.1, 0.1-0.25, >0.25, unit in mg/m3). The size of the firms was expressed in terms of workforce and divided into five classes based on the number of workers: <10, 10-20, 20-50, 50-100, >100. International standard classifications were used to code economic sectors (Nomenclature statistique des Activités économiques dans la Communauté Européenne, NACE, revision 2) and occupational groups (International standard classification of occupations, ISCO-08). Descriptive statistical analyses were carried out to estimate the geometric mean (GM) of exposure levels, the geometric standard deviation (GSD) and the 25th-75th interquartile range (IQR). A temporal trend analysis of the mean level (GM) of exposure was performed. A sample size of 50 measurements was selected as the minimum number required to perform reliable descriptive statistics. Statistical analysis was performed using R software v. 4.1.3 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).
Estimating potential exposed workers
The SIREP system does not include all firms where workers may be exposed to formaldehyde, as its coverage depends largely on each firm’s risk assessment procedures and other factors that may affect the representativeness of the data. Nevertheless, firms that notify the register to SIREP are also required to declare the total number of employees (both exposed and not exposed). This allowed to determine the percentage of exposed workers within each firm. As a result, it was possible to estimate the number of workers potentially exposed to formaldehyde in each economic sector, including those who were not recorded in SIREP but were likely at risk based on the nature of their firm’s economic activities. For this purpose, only the best-characterized sectors in the database were included to ensure greater reliability of the estimates, given that representativeness across sectors in SIREP was not uniform. The activity sectors best-characterized in the database were those where the percentage of reported workforce (exposed plus non-exposed) was more or equal than 1% of the total sector workforce resulting from national statistics on industry of the Italian Institute for Statistics (ISTAT) (RWi/Wi>=1%, where RWi represents the reported workforce in SIREP, Wi represents the ISTAT total workforce, and i is the i-th activity sector) [6]. Moreover, only those sectors with a minimum of three firms reporting formaldehyde exposure in the SIREP database were included in the estimation. For the selected activity sectors, the number of workers potentially exposed to formaldehyde was reconstructed using the percentage of exposed workers in relation to both the workforce size of firms recorded in the SIREP database and the national statistics on workforce (i.e., PEi=Wi(Ei/RWi), where PEi=potentially exposed workers, Wi=ISTAT total workforce, Ei=SIREP exposed workers and RWi=SIREP reported workforce). SIREP exposed workers (Ei) was the total number of workers having formaldehyde exposure measurements recorded for the i-th activity sector.
RESULTS
Overall, the GM of exposure to formaldehyde was 0.028 mg/m3, and was slightly higher in men (0.029 mg/m3) than in women (0.024 mg/m3). The distribution of exposure levels by activity sector (NACE codes), broken down by gender, is shown in Table 1. Considering men and women together, the wood, chemical and plastic industries accounted for about 50% of the total measurements. However, a different pattern for each gender is clear. The majority of exposures in men was found in the wood (20% of male exposure measurements), chemical industries (18%), and plastic (14%), while in women it was more concentrated in the healthcare sector (32% of female exposure measurements). The main analytical method used for sampling the exposure level was the one proposed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, (n. 2016) performed in 33% of the measurements, while the sample typology was personal in 49% of the cases. Among key industries (i.e., with a consistent number of exposure measurements), the sectors at highest risk were manufacture of wood and of products of wood for women (GM=0.057 mg/m3), and manufacture of rubber and plastic products (GM=0.040 mg/m3) for men. The distribution by occupational group reflects that by activity sector, showing the highest prevalence of exposures for woodworking-machine tool setters and operators in men (12% of male exposure measurements), and for medical and pathology laboratory technicians in women (13% of female exposure measurements). However, the occupational group with the highest level of formaldehyde exposure was manufacturing labourers (GM=0.083 mg/m3) in women, and pulp and papermaking plant operators in men (GM=0.120 mg/m3), even if the latter with a low number of measurements (n=147, 1% of male exposure measurements). Exposure levels by occupations are reported in Table 2, and in Table 3 exposure measurements are described by firm size and Italian macro area. Figure 1 shows the temporal trend of exposure levels (GM) by year of measurement. Levels of exposure to formaldehyde are significantly decreasing over time, showing a consistent increase in notifications since 2016, the year the obligation came into force. Over the past few years (2019-2024) the number of formaldehyde measurements reported to SIREP has become rather constant, averaging around 2,500 per year. Almost 21% of measurements exceeded the value of 0.1 mg/m3, but this percentage varied widely among activity sectors. The distribution of exposure measurements by value classes, for the most common activity sectors, is described in Figure 2. Workers in the wood industry had a prevalence (in percentage terms) of elevated exposure levels (>0.25 mg/m3) approximately twice as high as those in the furniture industry, while the lowest value was reported in the metalworking industry (3%). The highest percentage of elevated exposure level (>0.25 mg/m3) was found in the healthcare sector representing over 17% of the class total. About one-third of the exposure measurements in the rubber and plastic industry were >0.1 mg/m3, while in the wood industry almost half of the measurements were >0.05 mg/m3. Overall, 2.3% was found to be above the official OELV established by legislation over time. Regarding firm size, the highest GM (0.032 mg/m3) was found in the largest firms (i.e., with more than 100 workers), which also represent the highest number of measurements recorded (n=12,821, see Table 3). Most of the notifications on exposure levels came from firms located in the North-West and North-East regions of Italy (43% each), but the highest average levels were reported by firms located in the North-West area (GM=0.041 mg/m3, see Table 3). As regards the estimate of potentially exposed workers based on ISTAT census data, approximately one hundred thousand workers in the selected activity sectors (see methods) were found to be potentially at risk of exposure to formaldehyde, most of whom were employed in the furniture manufacturing sector (NACE rev. 2 code: 31, 33,227 exposed workers, 33% of total workers potentially exposed). The sector of health activities, however, was found to have the highest percentage of female workers potentially exposed to formaldehyde (63%). Detailed data for the selected activity sectors are shown in Table 4.
DISCUSSION
This study presents data on occupational exposure to formaldehyde recorded in the Italian national register (SIREP) from 1996 to 2024. Formaldehyde exposure was found to be widespread across various economic sectors, including the wood, plastic, and chemical industries. However, its presence was also remarkable in the healthcare sector, as well as in metallurgy and in the manufacturing of metal products. A similar study has already been carried out in the past on the same database, but before the obligation to report occupational exposures to the national register came into force [7]. The differences between this study and the previous one, conducted when reporting of occupational exposure to formaldehyde was voluntary, are clear. Only one sector appears to be regularly reporting exposures even before 2016: the healthcare sector. The distribution of measurements by exposure levels (e.g., <0.1 mg/m3) from the previous study is quite confirmed [7], in analogy also to that performed within the CARcinogen Exposure (CAREX) Canada study [8]. Furthermore, a significant increase in notifications can be noted in 2016 (Figure 1), going from just over 150 in 2014 to more than 3,700 measurements recorded in 2016. In terms of prevalence of exposure, our results are also in line with those of the CAREX Canada study, which identified 2% of high exposure, 28% of moderate exposure, and 70% of low exposure in 2016 [9].
The exposure levels presented here, as well as the distribution by sector of activity and occupation, are consistent with those found in other similar studies, as reported in a recent broad review study [10]. In the plastics industry, formaldehyde is used in various contexts, such as in the production of thermosetting phenolic resins and amino resins [3]. A formaldehyde-induced toxicity study found significantly higher levels of exposure for workers in a plastic laminate industry compared to controls [11]. In the wood industry, formaldehyde finds wide application in the use of urea resins to produce particleboard, medium density fibreboard, and plywood [3]. In a cohort analysis of Finnish men exposed to wood dust and formaldehyde, workers exposed to formaldehyde had a relative risk of 1.18 (CI 95%=1.12-1.25) for lung cancer [12]. Woodworkers were exposed to significantly higher amounts of wood dust and formaldehyde than controls in an oxidative stress induction study [13]. In the healthcare, formalin is used for its important preservative and cell-fixing properties, finding wide application in pathological anatomy [3]. However, our results showed lower mean (GM) values in this sector than in the other most affected industrial sectors (i.e., chemical, plastic and wood industries), in line with a health risk assessment study [14], probably due to a wider use of local exhaust ventilation [15]. A recent study on historical occupational exposure to formaldehyde in China found that most measurements came from the wood industry (e.g., production of veneer sheets and wood-based panels), and several occupational groups had elevated mean concentrations, including life sciences professionals, wood processing plant operators, and rubber and plastic-products machine operators [16]. A decreasing trend in mean exposure levels over time was also noted, and all of these findings are consistent with the main results of our study. The simultaneous increase in notifications and decrease in average exposure levels to formaldehyde observed in this study (Figure 1) could be attributed to several factors. Firstly, a reporting effect may be at play, where increased awareness and regulatory requirements encourage more frequent reporting of exposures, even as overall exposure levels decrease due to improved workplace practices. Methodological diversity in exposure measurement, including variations in sampling techniques and analytical methods over time, further complicates the interpretation of trends. Women represent a small but appreciable percentage of workers exposed to formaldehyde (about 16%), confirming the presence of a heavily gender segregation in the EU labor market across activity sectors and occupations [17]. In the healthcare sector, a prevalence of female workers was found (about 70% of total sector exposure measurements), while in other sectors a predominance of male workers was noted (a range between 80% and 95% of total sector exposure measurements). Noteworthy is the lack of data in the sector of other personal service activities (e.g., hairdressing and other beauty treatments), which is likely due to the ban on the direct use of formaldehyde in cosmetic products in the EU since 2019 [18]. Differences in distribution by geographical area of Italy may reflect the different distribution of industry types among Italian regions. The higher GM value for the North-West could be due to the high level of industrialization in that area of economic sectors at high risk for formaldehyde exposure resulting from our study, particularly in the industrial district between Milan, Turin, and Genoa [19]. The sectors identified as at high risk in this study may be the subject of information and training campaigns on prevention and protection measures aimed at raising awareness among workers and employers.
The estimated number of potentially exposed workers (about 100,000) is in line with the latest assessment under the CAREX Canada project (about 117,000 Canadians estimated to be exposed to formaldehyde at work in 2016), taking due account of the size and structure of the target population [9]. The difference between the estimate of this study and that of CAREX for Italy (about 115,000) could be due to the smaller number of sectors considered here and to the difference in the collection and estimation methods [20]. In the near future, the information collected in SIREP will help us understand how the implementation of new EU regulations on the protection of workers’ health from carcinogenic risks influences the application of primary prevention in the workplace, both in terms of reducing exposure levels and the number of exposed individuals.
Limitations and strengths
The heterogeneous territorial coverage and the limited representativeness in some economic activities are the two main limitations of the SIREP database, as already underlined in the previous study [7]. Activity sectors and workers occupations are represented differently within the SIREP database. Exposure measurements in some sectors and/or occupations, known to be at risk of formaldehyde exposure, appear to be poorly represented (e.g., construction where it is used in form of resins or adhesives, manufacture of textiles where it is used as a fixing and anti-creasing agent) [3]. Moreover, potential underreporting in less regulated sectors and in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) could also have an impact, as these settings often lack systematic monitoring and may not report exposures as rigorously as larger, more controlled industries. The possibility that firms that do not record or report exposure data have higher exposure levels may have influenced our estimates. Uncertainty may also have been introduced due to differences in air sampling, analytical procedures, sample collection methods (personal or stationary) and data classification. For these reasons, to increase the precision of estimates, only sectors and occupations having more than 50 measurements recorded were included in the statistical analysis. Finally, only the sectors better characterized in SIREP were considered to estimate the number of workers potentially exposed. As a consequence of this selection, certain activity sectors were excluded due to limited information on the size of the reported workforce (e.g., manufacture of textile). The robustness of the estimate for each selected sector depends on how many firms and workers registered in SIREP match those recorded in the ISTAT national census. Higher percentages of firms (column three of Table 4) and workers (column five of Table 4) in SIREP indicate greater reliability of the estimate. Lastly, the number of exposed workers in each sector was calculated assuming the same ratio of exposed to non-exposed workers in firms reporting and not reporting exposure data to SIREP, which could lead to a possible over- or under-rating of the estimated percentage of potentially exposed workers. The main challenges in accurately assessing formaldehyde exposure and risk arise from insufficient sector-specific data, particularly in textiles and construction, where widespread exposure is expected but systematic monitoring appears to be lacking. Inadequate reporting and inconsistent monitoring protocols further hinder reliable assessment of exposure risk. The uncertainties identified in this study are likely to contribute to a moderate or severe underestimation of actual exposure. Insufficient sector-specific data and incomplete reporting/notification are the most severe, while lack of standardized monitoring protocols and workplace practice variability have a moderate impact on the possible underestimation. To refine the evaluation of the data presented in this study, corrective actions could include harmonising measurement methodologies and increasing the frequency and coverage of monitoring, particularly in SMEs and sectors with historically lower oversight. It is also recommended to standardize reporting systems and provide targeted training for both employers and workers on exposure recognition and reporting procedures.
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, this study confirms that formaldehyde exposure remains a key occupational health issue in Italy, particularly in healthcare, laboratory, and manufacturing sectors. The results underscore the need for stronger preventive measures, improved monitoring and reporting, and consistent regulation. Addressing uncertainties, such as exposure variability and data underreporting, will require more detailed risk assessments and focused research to better safeguard workers’ health and guide policy. The estimates here realized can be useful for conducting sector- and occupation-specific surveys, confirming the SIREP information system on occupational exposure as a precious source of data. The inclusion of formaldehyde under the Directive n. 2004/37/EC, on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens, as expected, has significantly improved the reporting system, allowing for better mapping and identification of work situations most at risk of exposure.
Other Information
Conflict of interest statement
The Authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Funding
This work was supported by the Italian National Institute for Insurance against Accidents at Work (Istituto Nazionale per l’Assicurazione contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro, INAIL).
Address for correspondence: Alberto Scarselli, Dipartimento di Medicina, Epidemiologia, Igiene del lavoro ed Ambientale, Istituto Nazionale per l’Assicurazione contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro, Viale Stefano Gradi 55, 00143 Rome, Italy. E-mail: a.scarselli@inail.it
Figures and tables
Figure 1. Temporal trend of formaldehyde exposure level and number of measurements by calendar year in Italy (Sistema Informativo Registri di Esposizione Professionale, SIREP 1996-2024); y: geometric mean; R2: coefficient of determination.
Figure 2. Distribution (%) of formaldehyde exposure measurements by value classes for the main activity sectors (Sistema Informativo Registri di Esposizione Professionale, SIREP 1996-2024).
| Activity sector (NACE rev. 2 code) | N | GM | GSD | IQR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 26,216 | 0.028 | 7.05 | 0.013-0.091 |
| Women | 4,169 | 0.024 | 12.42 | 0.011-0.100 |
| Human health activities (86) | 1,344 | 0.024 | 14.32 | 0.010-0.100 |
| Manufacture of rubber and plastic products (22) | 742 | 0.044 | 3.27 | 0.020-0.100 |
| Manufacture of wood and of products of wood and cork, except furniture (16) | 478 | 0.057 | 6.37 | 0.014-0.187 |
| Manufacture of furniture (31) | 288 | 0.012 | 6.90 | 0.005-0.038 |
| Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products (20) | 218 | 0.026 | 7.76 | 0.008-0.070 |
| Scientific research and development (72) | 179 | 0.032 | 3.67 | 0.010-0.120 |
| Other manufacturing (32) | 170 | 0.022 | 1.79 | 0.014-0.027 |
| Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment (25) | 109 | 0.023 | 13.54 | 0.012-0.100 |
| Men | 22,047 | 0.029 | 6.20 | 0.013-0.090 |
| Manufacture of wood and of products of wood and cork, except furniture (16) | 4,434 | 0.035 | 5.65 | 0.018-0.089 |
| Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products (20) | 3,872 | 0.031 | 5.09 | 0.015-0.080 |
| Manufacture of furniture (31) | 3,296 | 0.015 | 7.74 | 0.010-0.040 |
| Manufacture of rubber and plastic products (22) | 3,183 | 0.039 | 5.41 | 0.015-0.111 |
| Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment (25) | 1,019 | 0.021 | 5.90 | 0.008-0.050 |
| Manufacture of basic metals (24) | 870 | 0.042 | 4.43 | 0.022-0.114 |
| Retail trade, except motor vehicles, motorcycles (47) | 745 | 0.050 | 4.43 | 0.020-0.370 |
| Human health activities (86) | 549 | 0.031 | 10.57 | 0.010-0.105 |
| Manufacture of paper and paper products (17) | 481 | 0.050 | 6.00 | 0.010-0.200 |
| Manufacture of textiles (13) | 447 | 0.025 | 4.20 | 0.015-0.050 |
| Manufacture of machinery and equipment nec (28) | 382 | 0.029 | 4.49 | 0.010-0.120 |
| Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products (23) | 236 | 0.049 | 4.85 | 0.020-0.086 |
| Land transport and transport via pipelines (49) | 229 | 0.062 | 4.26 | 0.034-0.034 |
| Other manufacturing (32) | 216 | 0.032 | 3.23 | 0.011-0.071 |
| Manufacture of other transport equipment (30) | 209 | 0.013 | 2.87 | 0.008-0.016 |
| Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers, semi-trailers (29) | 206 | 0.026 | 3.45 | 0.010-0.094 |
| Printing and reproduction of recorded media (18) | 194 | 0.024 | 2.36 | 0.016-0.024 |
| Waste collection, treatment and disposal activities; materials recovery (38) | 175 | 0.007 | 16.46 | 0.005-0.033 |
| Wholesale trade, except motor vehicles, motorcycles (46) | 156 | 0.022 | 4.28 | 0.010-0.050 |
| Scientific research and development (72) | 151 | 0.022 | 3.94 | 0.009-0.064 |
| Manufacture of electrical equipment (27) | 135 | 0.036 | 3.60 | 0.011-0.111 |
| Manufacture of basic pharmaceutical (21) | 125 | 0.030 | 4.96 | 0.010-0.120 |
| Warehousing and support activities for transportation (52) | 104 | 0.033 | 24.79 | 0.001-0.220 |
| SIREP: Sistema Informativo Registri di Esposizione Professionale; N: number of 8-h time-weighted average (TWA-8) exposure measurements (mg/m3); NACE: Nomenclature statistique des Activités économiques dans la Communauté Européenne; GM: geometric mean; GSD: geometric standard deviation; IQR: interquartile range, 25th-75th percentile; nec: not elsewhere classified. | ||||
| Occupational group (ISCO-08 code) | N | GM | GSD | IQR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Women | ||||
| Medical and pathology laboratory technicians (3212) | 542 | 0.027 | 16.67 | 0.010-0.133 |
| Specialist medical practitioners (2212) | 451 | 0.035 | 6.78 | 0.012-0.120 |
| Woodworking-machine tool setters and operators (7523) | 295 | 0.031 | 5.88 | 0.010-0.165 |
| Plastic products machine operators (8142) | 291 | 0.041 | 5.69 | 0.013-0.100 |
| Life science technicians (excluding medical) (3141) | 248 | 0.011 | 24.74 | 0.007-0.073 |
| Manufacturing labourers nec (9329) | 221 | 0.084 | 2.12 | 0.050-0.143 |
| Wood processing plant operators (8172) | 220 | 0.064 | 4.30 | 0.028-0.150 |
| Cabinet-makers and related workers (7522) | 205 | 0.011 | 15.53 | 0.002-0.074 |
| Chemical and physical science technicians (3111) | 171 | 0.016 | 5.49 | 0.007-0.065 |
| Precision-instrument makers and repairers (7311) | 163 | 0.020 | 1.48 | 0.014-0.027 |
| Nursing associate professionals (3221) | 127 | 0.019 | 3.35 | 0.007-0.046 |
| Metal moulders and coremakers (7211) | 101 | 0.061 | 2.82 | 0.050-0.100 |
| Men | ||||
| Woodworking-machine tool setters and operators (7523) | 2,952 | 0.017 | 9.49 | 0.010-0.049 |
| Chemical products plant and machine operators (8131) | 2,669 | 0.029 | 5.26 | 0.015-0.075 |
| Plastic products machine operators (8142) | 1,959 | 0.030 | 7.10 | 0.015-0.100 |
| Cabinet-makers and related workers (7522) | 1,905 | 0.017 | 8.20 | 0.007-0.057 |
| Wood processing plant operators (8172) | 1,447 | 0.051 | 3.06 | 0.038-0.092 |
| Toolmakers and related workers (7222) | 1,229 | 0.071 | 2.69 | 0.062-0.129 |
| Metal moulders and coremakers (7211) | 818 | 0.048 | 3.69 | 0.029-0.116 |
| Agricultural/industrial machinery mechanic/repairer (7233) | 750 | 0.037 | 3.98 | 0.020-0.120 |
| Shop sales assistants (5223) | 712 | 0.050 | 4.20 | 0.020-0.370 |
| Assemblers nec (8219) | 661 | 0.017 | 2.47 | 0.010-0.017 |
| Metal finishing, plating, coating machine operators (8122) | 553 | 0.011 | 5.60 | 0.004-0.036 |
| Manufacturing labourers not elsewhere classified (9329) | 437 | 0.066 | 3.85 | 0.040-0.148 |
| Lifting truck operators (8344) | 400 | 0.037 | 1.92 | 0.040-0.050 |
| Painters and related workers (7131) | 375 | 0.028 | 4.02 | 0.020-0.050 |
| Chemical and physical science technicians (3111) | 351 | 0.016 | 4.61 | 0.007-0.070 |
| Bleaching/dyeing/fabric cleaning machine operators (8154) | 299 | 0.027 | 2.99 | 0.015-0.050 |
| Specialist medical practitioners (2212) | 298 | 0.037 | 6.76 | 0.010-0.122 |
| Printers (7322) | 274 | 0.084 | 3.27 | 0.019-0.200 |
| Heavy truck and lorry drivers (8332) | 233 | 0.060 | 4.24 | 0.034-0.034 |
| Electrical line installers and repairers (7413) | 233 | 0.043 | 2.55 | 0.027-0.090 |
| Medical and pathology laboratory technicians (3212) | 193 | 0.032 | 12.25 | 0.010-0.150 |
| Freight handlers (9333) | 182 | 0.045 | 8.10 | 0.020-0.162 |
| Metal processing plant operators (8121) | 160 | 0.051 | 2.83 | 0.019-0.110 |
| Pulp and papermaking plant operators (8171) | 147 | 0.120 | 1.70 | 0.108-0.200 |
| Stock clerks (4321) | 144 | 0.032 | 5.92 | 0.015-0.100 |
| Incinerator and water treatment plant operators (3132) | 136 | 0.010 | 2.53 | 0.005-0.031 |
| Precision-instrument makers and repairers (7311) | 122 | 0.015 | 1.68 | 0.011-0.025 |
| Manufacturing supervisors (3122) | 115 | 0.037 | 4.02 | 0.015-0.089 |
| Process control technicians nec (3139) | 105 | 0.052 | 3.08 | 0.020-0.116 |
| Chemists (2113) | 104 | 0.002 | 129.9 | 0.003-0.050 |
| SIREP: Sistema Informativo Registri di Esposizione Professionale ISCO: International standard classification of occupations; N: number of 8-h time-weighted average (TWA-8) exposure measurements (mg/m3); GM: geometric mean; GSD: geometric standard deviation; IQR: interquartile range, 25th-75th percentile; nec: not elsewhere classified. | ||||
| Firm size/Macro area | N | GM | GSD | IQR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Firm size | ||||
| <10 workers | 1,492 | 0.029 | 8.32 | 0.010-0.095 |
| 10-20 workers | 2,474 | 0.018 | 10.47 | 0.007-0.060 |
| 20-50 workers | 4,258 | 0.024 | 7.66 | 0.012-0.060 |
| 50-100 workers | 5,171 | 0.029 | 6.96 | 0.011-0.092 |
| >100 workers | 12,821 | 0.032 | 6.07 | 0.016-0.100 |
| Macro area of Italy | ||||
| North-West | 11,186 | 0.041 | 5.26 | 0.020-0.106 |
| North-East | 11,170 | 0.021 | 8.62 | 0.010-0.063 |
| Centre | 2,480 | 0.026 | 4.58 | 0.010-0.064 |
| South and Islands | 1,380 | 0.023 | 12.75 | 0.014-0.091 |
| SIREP: Sistema Informativo Registri di Esposizione Professionale.; N: number of 8-h time-weighted average (TWA-8) exposure measurements (mg/m3); GM: geometric mean; GSD: geometric standard deviation; IQR: interquartile range, 25th-75th percentile. | ||||
| Sector of economic activity (NACE rev. 2 code) | N. of firmsa | % of firmsb | N. of workersc | % of workersd | % of exposede | N. of exposedf | % of men |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wood industry (16) | 66 | 0.8 | 2,549 | 7.2 | 34.3 | 13,080 | 82.5 |
| Chemical industry (20) | 46 | 1.7 | 3,140 | 6.0 | 27.1 | 15,823 | 81.4 |
| Rubber, plastic industry (22) | 27 | 0.3 | 1,154 | 1.2 | 25.6 | 25,367 | 71.6 |
| Metallurgical industry (24) | 8 | 3.0 | 827 | 20.9 | 8.7 | 337 | 95.5 |
| Metalworking industry (25) | 34 | 0.8 | 1,108 | 3.1 | 28.1 | 10,161 | 77.0 |
| Furniture industry (31) | 85 | 0.6 | 3,507 | 3.1 | 29.8 | 33,227 | 73.5 |
| Hospital services (86) | 44 | 0.4 | 37,029 | 34.7 | 2.9 | 2,957 | 36.9 |
| SIREP: Sistema Informativo Registri di Esposizione Professionale; NACE: Nomenclature statistique des activités économiques dans la Communauté européenne; anumber of firms in SIREP; bpercentage of firms in SIREP with respect to the latest industry census data; cnumber of workers reported by firms (exposed+non-exposed) in SIREP; dpercentage of workers reported by firms in SIREP with respect to the latest industry census data; epercentage of exposed workers with respect to non-exposed workers reported by firms in SIREP; festimated number of potentially exposed workers. | |||||||
pdf
