Correction: Acute occupational exposures reported to the Dutch Poisons Information Center: a prospective study on the root causes of incidents at the workplace
Anja P. G. Wijnands, Irma de Vries, Tim Verbruggen, Maxim P. Carlier, Dylan W. de Lange, Saskia J. Rietjens
Abstract
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsChemical Safety and Risk Management · Risk and Safety Analysis
Correction: J Occup Med Toxicol 17, 19 (2022)
10.1186/s12995-022-00360-4
In the original version of this article [1], inhalation was mentioned as the most common route of occupational exposure (62%), followed by ocular (40%) and dermal contact (33%). Due to a calculation error, the percentage for inhalation was incorrect. The correct percentage is 34%, i.e. in 34% of patients, occupational exposure occurred via inhalation.
Because of this error, the text of the abstract, results (exposure characteristics) and discussion, should be amended as follows:
Abstract: Patients were often exposed via multiple routes (ocular contact 40%, inhalation 34% and dermal contact 33%).
Results: Patients were often exposed via multiple routes, most commonly involving ocular contact (40.0%), followed by inhalation (33.9%), dermal contact (32.6%) and oral exposures (9.4%).
Discussion: Patients were often exposed via multiple routes (ocular contact 40%, inhalation 34% and dermal contact 33%). A comparable exposure pattern was found in a previous Poison Control Center (PCC) study [7].
The original article has been corrected.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.