Correction: Dermal Exposure Assessment to Pesticides in Farming Systems in Developing Countries: Comparison of Models. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 4670–4696

Abstract

We wish to make the following changes to the published article [1], agreed upon by all authors. Claudia R. Binder has withdrawn her co-authorship. The corrected author list should therefore read: Camilo Lesmes-Fabian.[...]

Qualitative and quantitative differences between common occupational health risk assessment models in typical industries

“…A multi-criteria qualitative analysis was subsequently established based on this analysis of key information 32) and included the following steps: determination of evaluation indicators, assignment of indicator values and weights, expert consultation, interview with key informants, and comprehensive analysis. The evaluation indicators were determined based on the literature review and expert consultation, in which 30 experts in the field of health management or occupational health were asked for advice on evaluating indicators in two rounds.…”

“…Based on these considerations, the two risk levels (< 1 or !1) of the hazardous quotient (HQ) for the non-carcinogenic evaluation in the EPA model were re-categorized into five maximum risk ranks (e.g., < 0.1, 0.1-0.5, 0.5-1.0, 1.0-2.0, and !2). The four risk control levels of the COSHH model were converted into five maximum risk ranks based on a comparative study 19,32) which assessed a parallel between the risk control levels obtained from the COSHH and the Singaporean models, in which the control strategy (CS) levels of 2, 3, and 4 were equivalent to risk levels of 3, 4, and 5.…”

Qualitative and quantitative differences between common control banding tools for nanomaterials in workplaces

“…A multi-criteria qualitative analysis was subsequently established based on this analysis of key information 11,32 and included the following steps: determination of evaluation indicators, assignment of indicator values and weights, expert consultation, interview with key informants, and comprehensive analysis. The evaluation indicators were determined based on the literature review and expert consultation, in which 20 experts in the eld of health management or occupational health were asked for advice on evaluating the indicators in two rounds.…”

Variability and predictors of weekly pesticide exposure in applicators from organic, sustainable and conventional smallholder farms in Costa Rica

“…In addition, exposure-modifying factors included in these algorithms (eg, use of specialised PPE, frequency of PPE change, use of enclosed tanks) are frequently different for workers from small-sized and medium-sized farms, as these workers often apply pesticide using uncalibrated, basic spraying equipment, and use no or little PPE 17–19. Although some observation-based pesticide exposure algorithms such as the Dermal Exposure Assessment Method (DREAM) and the Determinants of Dermal Exposure Ranking Method have been used in LMICs,9 20–22 these may not be logistically feasible when studying large populations, when populations are scattered over a large area or when exposures are assessed repeatedly 22…”