Occupational exposure to environmental hazardous chemicals poses health risks, yet nationwide evidence across diverse occupational groups remains limited. This study aimed to assess exposure levels to environmental hazardous chemicals across occupational groups among Korean adults and to identify chemicals and occupations potentially overlooked in current management systems. Data were obtained from 2974 adults in the Fourth Korean National Environmental Health Survey (2018-2020). Occupations were classified into 21 groups based on the Korean Standard Classification of Occupations. Thirty-two chemicals, including heavy metals, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), phthalate metabolites, environmental phenols, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) metabolites, and volatile organic compound (VOC) metabolites, were analyzed. Survey-weighted one-way analysis of variance was used to compare chemical concentrations across occupational groups. All 32 chemicals had detection rates above 60%. Wood and furniture manufacturing workers showed the highest proportion of chemicals exceeding the general population mean (84.4%), followed by sales workers, metal and material manufacturing workers, and driving and transportation workers (71.9% each). Mean concentrations of all chemicals differed significantly across occupational groups. PFAS were higher in tour, accommodation, leisure service, and food-related occupations. Phthalates and environmental phenols were elevated in service and wood/furniture manufacturing workers. PAH metabolites were higher in metal/material and wood/furniture manufacturing workers, while VOC metabolites were elevated in machinery/manufacturing and caregiving/health service workers. Chemical exposure patterns differed by occupation, suggesting the need to improve management of chemicals and occupational groups that may be insufficiently addressed by current policies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: