ABSTRACT
Objective In the context of filovirus outbreaks, chlorine spraying has been the standard for infection prevention and control. Due to potential occupational health risks, public health institutions now recommend wiping, which is labor-intensive and may increase the risk of heat stress for healthcare workers wearing personal protective equipment. This systematic review and meta-analysis quantified the health effects of occupational exposure to chlorine-based products compared to other disinfectants, and the effects of spraying compared to general disinfection tasks (GDTs) like wiping and mopping, in healthcare settings.
Data sources, design and eligibility criteria MEDLINE, Scopus, and ScienceDirect were searched for studies addressing the association between exposure to disinfectants applied by different application methods and occupational diseases in healthcare settings. Risk of bias was assessed by two independent reviewers using a validated tool.
Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers independently screened and performed data extraction and synthesis. A third reviewer resolved disagreements. Meta-analyses were conducted using fixed- and random-effects models based on the Higgins I² statistic.
Results 30 studies investigating chlorine-based products (7,123 participants), glutaraldehyde (6,256 participants), peracetic acid, acetic acid and hydrogen peroxide (4,728 participants), quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs) (9,270 participants), use of spray (4,568 participants) and GDTs (3,480 participants) were included. Most had a cross-sectional design and high risk of bias. Meta-analysis indicates a significant association between respiratory conditions and exposure to chlorine-based products (OR 1.71, 95%CI 1.41- 2.08), glutaraldehyde (OR 1.44, 95%CI 1.14-1.81), QACs (OR 1.30, 95%CI 1.06-1.60), use of spray (OR 25, 95%CI 1.61-3.14) and GDTs (OR 2.20, 95%CI 1.66-2.90). The relative odds ratio (ROR) of respiratory conditions for chlorine-based products compared to QACs was 0.76 (95%CI 0.62-0.94). The ROR for the use of spray compared to GDTs was 0.98 (95%CI 0.74-1.29). Strengths include evaluating respiratory health risks of disinfectants, applying a validated tool, using both fixed- and random-effects models, and comparing pooled effect sizes. Limitations include high risk of bias for the majority of included articles, varying confounder adjustments, underreported non-respiratory outcomes, and unspecified disinfectants and PPE use for spray and GDTs articles.
Conclusion Chlorine-based disinfectants significantly increase respiratory risk compared to QACs. Sprays and general disinfection tasks present similar risks. Our findings advocate for using less hazardous products like QACs, rather than banning sprays in filovirus outbreak responses to enhance disinfection safety.
Prospero registration number CRD42023479363
Article summary Strengths and limitations of this study
The systematic review and meta-analysis provide a comprehensive comparison of the health effects of occupational exposure to various disinfectants and application methods in healthcare settings.
The study includes a broad range of disinfectants and application methods, offering a detailed assessment that extends beyond filovirus treatment centers.
The inclusion of both fixed- and random-effects models in the meta-analysis ensures a robust evaluation of the data, accounting for potential variability among studies.
While this study focused on respiratory conditions, other outcomes such as skin and ocular conditions were underreported, limiting the comprehensiveness of the assessment.
Variations in exposure assessment methods and the lack of information on specific disinfectant products, PPE use, and ventilation further complicate comparisons and limit the ability to attribute health effects to specific factors.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study received no financial support from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. AC was supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the James B. Pendleton Charitable Trust, and grants from the National Institutes of Health (DA055491, P01 AI169609, P30 AI036214, R01DK131532)
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
