Skip to main content
Browse Subject Areas

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Association between Occupational Exposure to Wood Dust and Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis



To perform a systematic review to analyze the association between occupational exposure to wood dust and cancer.


A systematic literature search of entries made in the MEDLINE-PubMed database between 1957 and 2013 was conducted to identify studies that had assessed the relationship between occupational exposure to wood dust and different types of cancer. A meta-analysis of selected case-control and cohort studies was subsequently performed.


A total of 114 studies were identified and 70 were selected for review. Of these, 42 studies focused on the relationship between wood dust and nasal cancer (n = 22), lung cancer (n = 11), and other types of cancer (n = 9). Low-to-moderate quality evidence that wood dust acts as a carcinogen was obtained, and a stronger association between wood dust and nasal adenocarcinoma was observed. A lesser association between wood dust exposure and lung cancer was also observed. Several studies suggested that there is a relationship between wood dust and the onset of other cancers, although there was no evidence to establish an association. A meta-analysis that included four case-controls studies showed that workers exposed to wood dust exhibited higher rates of nasal adenocarcinoma than other workers (odds ratio = 10.28; 95% confidence interval: 5.92 and 17.85; P<0,0001), although a large degree of heterogeneity was found.


Low-to-moderate quality evidence supports a causal association between cancer and occupational exposure to wood dust, and this association was stronger for nasal adenocarcinoma than for lung cancer. There was no evidence of an association between wood dust exposure and the other cancers examined.


Dust generated in wood processing is one of the most common occupational and carcinogenic agents identified to date. The manipulation of wood can create fine and abundant dust with sanding, and thicker dust with milling or cutting [1,2,3]. The location and accumulation of particles has been found to depend on the size, shape, and density of the air flow available. Dust accumulates in the nose or the respiratory tract when the particles are larger or smaller than 5 microns, respectively [4,5].

Exposure to wood dust has been associated with several health problems, including pulmonary pathologies and other conditions [6,7]. In particular, cancer is a pathology that has been associated with wood dust [813]. Consequently, in 1995, the International Agency for Research of Cancer defined wood dust as a group I human carcinogenic substance [14].

Exposure to wood dust can vary considerably among populations, and it has not been found to be specific for a single sector or professional group, or for a single cancer. However, exposure to wood dust has been specifically linked to adenocarcinoma (ADCN). Currently, exposure to wood dust has a large impact on occupational health, and its occupational prevalence ranges from 10% to 15%. While occupational exposure to wood dust potentially contributes to an increased mortality rate for certain workers, it can also affect the mortality rate of the general population. Therefore, based on the health and social impacts of wood exposure, it is important to recognize this risk and to provide adequate professional and occupational protection.

Systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses represent useful methodological tools for assessing published data, and they also provide valid and reliable evidence for hypotheses [15,16]. Over the last few years, a consensus has been established to facilitate an assessment of the different primary studies that have been conducted, and to improve the quality and homogeneity of the systematic reviews that are conducted. With this in mind, it is appropriate and necessary to perform a systematic review that offers evidence on the relationship between different kinds of cancer and occupational exposure to wood dust.

Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to analyze the data of previously published studies in relation to work exposure to wood dust and the onset of cancer.

Materials and Methods

Study design and selection criteria

A systematic review of the literature was conducted in order to identify studies that assessed the relationship and association between occupational exposure to wood dust and cancer. Selected articles (published in English or Spanish) that were available on Medline and included primary data collected between 1975 and September 2013 were selected. The exclusion criteria for this study ruled out works which consisted of opinions and/or recommendations from experts, as well as observational and experimental research studies.

Search strategy

To perform the initial bibliographic search of the MEDLINE database, the following MeSH descriptors and keywords were used to ensure a comprehensive recovery of entries: ((Cancer* [tw] OR tumour* [tw] OR neoplas* [tw] OR malignan* [tw] OR carcinoma* [tw] OR metasta* [tw]) OR (“Neoplasms” [Majr] OR “neoplasms/etiology” [Mesh])) AND (("wood dust" [tw] OR "Wood dust exposure" [tw]) OR (("Wood"[Majr]) AND "Dust"[Majr:NoExp])) AND "humans"[MeSH Terms]. The Etiology/Broad filter was applied through the Clinical Queries tool. Related articles were also identified following a review of the references listed for most of the relevant works identified.

Information selection and extraction

After the relevant studies were identified and selected, a standardized set of information was collected from each article including: the name of the authors, the year of publication, the journal of publication, the characteristics of the sample, the study design, and the result variables and their measures of association and/or impact. This procedure was carried out according to the recommendations of the PRISMA Statement [17,18].

The literature search was performed by an experienced documentalist and data extraction was performed independently by two of the authors. All discrepancies were solved by consensus.

Scientific evidence

All selected studies were classified according to their design type, based on the classification proposed by the US Task Force and the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (CEBM) of Oxford [19,20]. The categories included: I) Evidence obtained from a single randomized controlled trial or a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials; IIa) Evidence obtained from at least one well-designed controlled study without randomization; IIb) Evidence obtained from at least one well-designed quasi-experimental study; III) Evidence obtained from well-designed non-experimental descriptive studies, such as comparative studies, correlation studies, and case-control studies; and IV) Evidence obtained from expert committee reports or opinions and/or clinical experience of respected authorities. The levels according to CEBM include: level 1 (systematic review of randomized control trials), level 2 (observational study with dramatic effect), level 3 (cohort study), level 4 (case-series or case-control studies), and level 5 (mechanism-based reasoning). To improve the scientific rigor of the present systematic review, all of the published articles that were classified by each of the two reviewers as level 5 were excluded.


Case-control studies that analyzed the relationship between wood dust exposure and sinonasal ADCN were included in our meta-analysis. The following inclusion criteria were used: a) case-control studies published in peer-reviewed journals, b) description of occupational exposure to wood dust among cases and controls; and c) diagnosis of sinonasal ADCN by biopsy. The main purpose of the meta-analysis was to compare the presence of sinonasal ADCN among workers exposed to wood dust with non-exposed workers used as controls in case-control studies.

Data were extracted from the selected studies by three authors (A.-J.C, I.H.-G., and C.H.) and differences were solved by consensus. The odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval (CI), and P values are reported for the pooled results based on the use of a random effects model (DerSimonian and Laird method) [21]. A random effects model was chosen due to the low number of studies available and their observational nature. A P-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Cochran’s Q-statistic was used to assess heterogeneity. A significant Q-statistic value (P < 0.10) indicated heterogeneity across the studies examined. The I2 statistic was used to estimate inconsistency in the meta-analysis, thereby representing the percentage of the observed between-study variability due to heterogeneity rather than chance. The following suggested cut-off points were used: I2 = 0–25%, no heterogeneity; I2 = 25–50%, moderate heterogeneity; I2 = 50–75%, large heterogeneity; I2 = 75–100%, extreme heterogeneity [22].

A sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the effect of excluding individual studies in the results. The meta-analysis was performed by using the computer software package RevMan 5.0 [23].


Systematic review

Among the articles that investigated the relationship between exposure to wood dust and cancer and were published between 1975 and September 2013, 70 studies were selected for this review. Reports which only included opinions and/or recommendations from experts were excluded. Of the 70 selected studies, 42 had investigated the relationship between wood dust exposure and cancer according to the incidence of nasal ADCN (n = 22), lung cancer (n = 11), and other cancers (n = 9) (see Fig 1).

Fig 1. A PRISMA flowchart that illustrates the search strategy used to identify articles included in this systematic review.

The historical evolution of the publications indexed in Medline is shown in Fig 2. A total of 114 articles were collected, and their chronological evolution is demonstrated in the vertical cylinders graph. As shown in Fig 2 scientific publications have progressively increased until they reached a peak between 2000 and 2013.

Fig 2. Temporal evolution of the publications related to wood dust exposure and cancer incidence that are indexed in Medline.

As shown in Table 1 most of the selected studies addressed the causal relationship of wood dust with ADCN, and case-control studies [2445] and case series studies were predominant. However, there were other, less common study designs [27] and descriptive or population-based studies [35,38,41] as well. Furthermore, most of the studies assessed the epidemiological association by obtaining a clinical history and/or occupational history for each of the patients examined. The most widely analyzed profession was that of carpenters, followed by sawmill workers and other workers who manipulate wood in their work. OR values were the main measure of impact used in the studies. Bias control and control of confounding variables were reported in eleven studies [26,27,2933,36,37,3941], and these generally included research performed over the last decade. The most common risk factor that was adjusted for was tobacco consumption [26,29,30,33,41], and it was analyzed through logistic regression.

Table 1. Summary of published results on the relation between exposure to wood dust and nasal cancer—adenocarcinoma (ADCN).

Table 2 lists eleven articles that analyzed the association between exposure to wood dust and lung cancer. Of these, seven were case-control studies [2955] and three were population and retrospective studies [48,49,53]. OR was the main measure of impact used in these articles, and bias control and control of confounding variables were only present in four studies which were conducted over the last decade [4648,50,55]. In nine of the studies, an association between lung cancer and wood dust exposure was observed. In the other two studies, a statistically significant association was not observed, potentially due to the low quality of these studies [52,53].

Table 2. Summary of published results on the relation between exposure to wood dust and lung cancer.

The nine studies that investigated the association between exposure to wood dust and other types of cancer are listed in Table 3. Two of these articles focused on the relationship between exposure to wood dust and lymphomas [5658,60], while the other studies involved the following types of cancer: thyroid [6162], mesothelioma [56], multiple myeloma [61], gastric cardia [59], glottic [63], and sarcoma [57]. Case-control studies were the most common (n = 6), followed by records and case reports (n = 2) and population-based cohort studies (n = 1). Except for a study of multiple myeloma, all of the other studies identified a statistically significant association between exposure to wood dust and cancer.

Table 3. Summary of published results on the relationship between exposure to wood dust and other types of cancer.

Table 4 lists the reviews that have been published regarding exposure to wood dust and cancer. The list includes a meta-analysis [6465] of larynx cancer, two systematic reviews [6669], and five narrative reviews [33,67,68,70,71]. In the former, it was concluded that there was no association between larynx cancer and wood dust exposure.

Table 4. Summary of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of exposure to wood dust.


Among the studies included in our systematic review, and according to the predefined criteria for this study, five reports were selected for a meta-analysis [26,35,43,44]. The summary OR under the random-effects model showed that subjects with wood dust exposure exhibited higher rates of sinonasal ADCN compared with non-exposed workers (see Fig 3: OR = 10.28; 95% CI: 5.92 and 17.85, respectively; P<0,0001). A large degree of heterogeneity was also observed between the studies (I2 = 85%). However, in the sensitivity analysis, the exclusion of individual studies did not change this significant result (see Table 5).

Fig 3. Meta-analysis of the association of sinonasal ADCN with wood exposure.

Labor-based wood exposure was compared with other occupational exposures. Test for overall effect: Z = 8.28 (P <0.0001). Test for heterogeneity: χ2 = 46.17 (P <0.0001), I2 = 85%.

Table 5. Patients with ADCN according to their occupational exposure from studies included in the meta-analysis.


The studies that were selected and reviewed show that: 1) wood dust may act as a carcinogen, and 2) there is an association between exposure to wood dust and nasal ADCN, and to a lesser extent, with lung cancer. The results of several studies also suggest that there is a relationship between exposure to wood dust and other types of cancer, although there is currently not sufficient data or evidence to clearly establish this association. Moreover, the design of the included studies (mostly case-control studies) potentially limits the strength of the latter association.

The historical evolution of studies in this field has grown in parallel with the interest and impact of wood dust as an occupational exposure. At first, epidemiological research was mainly observational, and was based on case studies that involved occupations where exposure to wood dust was a factor. Thus, the early studies were of carpenters and sawmill workers. However later on, the studies included other situations where wood is manipulated or processed as a secondary and/or complementary activity. Analytical case-control studies also started to be conducted, thereby adding scientific rigor to the hypothesis by establishing comparisons with healthy controls. The addition of multicentric studies provided further strength to the observed associations.

Most of the evidence presented in the present study was extracted from case-control analytical observational studies. This type of study design, as pointed out in two previous systematic reviews [66,69], is the most appropriate since it makes it possible to study diseases with a large latency period and to assess several types of exposure concomitantly. This study design is also economical and rapid. However, case-control studies do have limitations. For example, potential bias exists in the selection of controls, the temporal relationship between the presumed cause and the studied effect cannot be determined, and there is a need for specific biases to be controlled through adjustment techniques. These considerations have been highlighted in most of the studies and works published over the last two decades. However, advances in statistical techniques or procedures have made it possible to control confounding factors and biases, thus improving the quality of the observations.

Overall, a positive evolution in the methodological quality of the studies and research on wood dust exposure has lead to the publication of evidence that has greater validity and reliability. There was also a wide geographical distribution for the studies that were considered, with the majority conducted in Europe and the United States, followed by studies conducted in Brazil and Colombia. The first study was conducted in 1975 in Australia [45]. However, very few of these studies were included in our meta-analysis.

Apart from the relationship between wood dust and nasal ADCN, the association between exposure to wood dust and other neoplasms, such as lung cancer, has also been assessed. Based on the data of the studies published to date, this association has not been established. Primarily due to the low quality of the evidence collected, the association has been weakly demonstrated in most studies, and evidence was nonexistent in two other studies [52,53]. Consequently, while a potential association exists, it remains to be validated.


It is possible that certain factors in each research or review process can alter the final results. The main limitation of the results of the present review derives from the type of study design that was employed in most of the studies conducted. For example, most of the evidence available is from observational studies, and specifically, from analytical case-control studies. Consequently, a temporal relationship between wood dust exposure and cancer cannot be determined. We also acknowledge that the use of other databases apart from PubMed could have yielded additional results, although we hypothesize that the final result of our work would be similar.

The most important limitation of the articles that were analyzed in this systematic review is that the characterization of occupational exposure in many of the articles published, particularly up until the 1990s, has been retrospective. In addition, the characterization was assessed through the working and occupational history of the patients examined. The latter aspect may be further biased by the quality of the documents examined, the maintenance of the working and occupational history files, and the memory of the workers. Other important limitations include the low number of studies with a cohort-type or prospective monitoring design, the sample size of individual studies, and the existence of few multicentric studies; although the latter is diminished by the wide geographic distribution of the studies that have been conducted. Another limitation of the earlier studies is the lack of adjustment for occupational or environmental risk factors that can act as confounders. These should be adjusted and/or neutralized since they can be linked to both the exposure (cause) and the effect; with a specific example being tobacco.

Regarding the meta-analysis performed, there were very few studies that met the inclusion criteria due to methodological differences. In addition, large heterogeneity was observed between the included studies. Therefore, although our meta-analysis confirms that a significant relationship between wood dust and nasal ADCN exists, this result should be approached with caution.


The conclusion of this systematic review is that there is low-to-moderate quality evidence that supports a causal association between the incidence of cancer and occupational exposure to wood dust. However, the association between exposure to wood dust and nasal ADCN is stronger, largely because most of the causal criteria established by Bradford Hill have been assessed [72]. In regard to lung cancer, caution is still advised in establishing an association with wood dust exposure given the low number of studies that have been conducted and their poor methodological quality.

Nevertheless, it is apparent that there is a need to implement preventive measures for workers exposed to wood dust. We propose that it is appropriate and adequate to establish a series of primary and secondary preventive measures in professional and working environments in order to improve the working health, hygiene, and safety of workers exposed to wood dust. It is critical that future studies overcome the limitations that have been observed in the present systematic review, particularly by identifying the characteristics of occupational exposure, adjusting for other exposures and confounding factors, increasing the sample size, and making comparisons with better control groups.


The authors thank the National School of Occupational Medicine, Institute of Health Carlos III, Ministry of Health, Social Services and Equality (Spain) for funding this review.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: JAMC. Performed the experiments: JAMC MAS. Analyzed the data: IHG CH AJC. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: JAMC MAS MM. Wrote the paper: JAMC MAS MM AJC. Searched for articles: HIdS HMR.


  1. 1. Labrèche F, Duguay P, Ostiguy C, Boucher A, Roberge B, Peters CE, et al. Estimating occupational exposure to carcinogens in Quebec. Am J Ind Med. 2013 Sep;56 (9):1040–50. pmid:23804516
  2. 2. Hinds WC. Basis for particle size-selective sampling for wood dust. Applied Industrial Hygiene 1988;3:67–72.
  3. 3. Scheeper B, Kromhout H, Boleij JS. Wood-dust exposure during wood-working processes. Ann Occup Hyg 1995;39:141–54. pmid:7741413
  4. 4. Teschke K, Demers PA, Davies HW, Kennedy SM, Marion SA, Leung V. Determinants of exposure to inhalable particulate, wood dust, resin acids, and monoterpenes in a lumber mill environment. Ann Occup Hyg 1999;43:247–55. pmid:10432869
  5. 5. Celik A, Kanik A. Genotoxicity of occupational exposure to wood dust: Micronucleus frequency and nuclear changes in exfoliated buccal mucosa cells. Environ Mol Mutagen 2006;47:693–8. pmid:17078100
  6. 6. Macbeth R. Malignant Disease of the Paranasal Sinuses. J Laryngol Otol 1965;79:592–612. pmid:14335138
  7. 7. Acheson ED, Cowdell RH, Hadfield E, Macbeth RG. Nasal cancer in woodworkers in the furniture industry. Br Med J 1968;2:587–96. pmid:5654629
  8. 8. Andersen HC, Andersen I, Solgaard J. Nasal cancers, symptoms and upper airway function in woodworkers. Br J Ind Med 1977;34:201–7. pmid:911690
  9. 9. Brinton LA, Blot WJ, Becker JA, Winn DM, Browder JP, Farmer JC Jr, et al. A case-control study of cancers of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses. Am J Epidemiol 1984;119:896–906. pmid:6731431
  10. 10. Demers PA, Kogevinas M, Boffetta P, Leclerc A, Luce D, Gérin M, et al. Wood dust and sino-nasal cancer: pooled reanalysis of twelve case-control studies. Am J Ind Med 1995;28:151–66. pmid:8585514
  11. 11. Demers PA, Boffetta P, Kogevinas M, Blair A, Miller BA, Robinson CF, et al. Pooled reanalysis of cancer mortality among five cohorts of workers in wood-related industries. Scand J Work Environ Health 1995;21:179–90. pmid:7481605
  12. 12. Carosso A, Ruffino C, Bugiani M. Respiratory diseases in wood workers. Br J Ind Med 1987;44:53–6. pmid:3814535
  13. 13. Barcenas CH, Delclos GL, El-Zein R, Tortolero-Luna G, Whitehead LW, Spitz MR. Wood dust exposure and the association with lung cancer risk. Am J Ind Med 2005;47:349–57. pmid:15776474
  14. 14. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans., International Agency for Research on Cancer. Wood dust and formaldehyde. Lyon: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer; 1995.
  15. 15. Chamorro AJ, Marcos M, Mirón-Canelo JA, Cervera R, Espinosa G. Val247Leu Beta2-glycoprotein-I allelic variant is associated with antiphospholipid syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis. Autoinmunity Reviews 2012; 11: 705–12.
  16. 16. Chamorro AJ, Marcos M, Mirón-Canelo JA, Pastor I, González-Sarmiento R, Laso FJ. Association of μ-opioid receptor (OPRM1) gene polymorphism with response to naltrexone in alcohol dependence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Addict Biol. 2012;17:505–12 pmid:22515274
  17. 17. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observacional Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2007; 147: 163–94.
  18. 18. Urrútia G, Bonfill X. PRISMA declaration: A proposal to improve the publication of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Med Clin (Barc) 2010; 135:507–511.
  19. 19. US Preventive Task Force. Guide to Clinical Preventive services: an assessment to the effectiveness of 169 interventions. Baltimore: Wiliams and Wilkins, 1989.
  20. 20. Centre for Evidence-based Medicine (CEBM). Levels of Evidence (March 2009). Oxford University: CEBM, 2013. Available:
  21. 21. Cochran WG. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics 1954; 10: 101–29.
  22. 22. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557–60. pmid:12958120
  23. 23. Review Manager (RevMan) [computer program]. Version 5.0. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration; 2008.
  24. 24. Bonzini M, Battaglia P, Parassoni D, Casa M, Facchinetti N, Turri-Zanoni M, et al. Prevalence of occupational hazards in patients with different types of epithelial sinonasal cancers. Rhinology. 2013; 51:31–6. pmid:23441309
  25. 25. Gómez ME, Sánchez JF, Cardona AM, Pioquinto JF, Torres P, Sanchez D, et al. Health and working conditions in carpenter's workshops in Armenia (Colombia). Ind Health. 2010; 48:222–30. pmid:20424355
  26. 26. D'Errico A, Pasian S, Baratti A, Zanelli R, Alfonzo S, Gilardi L, et al. A case-control study on occupational risk factors for sino-nasal cancer. Occup Environ Med. 2009; 66:448–55. pmid:19153109
  27. 27. Pukkala EI, Martinsen JI, Lynge E, Gunnarsdottir HK, Sparén P, Tryggvadottir L, et al. Occupation and cancer—follow-up of 15 million people in five Nordic countries. Acta Oncol. 2009;48:646–790. pmid:19925375
  28. 28. Fontana L, Liétin B, Catilina P, Devif C, Féneon B, Martin F, et al. Occupational exposure to wood dust and nasal sinus cancer. Ann Otolaryngol Chir Cervicofac. 2008; 125:65–71. pmid:18436189
  29. 29. Jayaprakash V, Natarajan KK, Moysich KB, Rigual NR, Ramnath N, Natarajan N, et al. Wood dust exposure and the risk of upper aero-digestive and respiratory cancers in males. Occup Environ Med. 2008;65:647–54. pmid:18182588
  30. 30. Pesch B, Pierl CB, Gebel M, Gross I, Becker D, Johnen G, et al. Occupational risks for adenocarcinoma of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses in the German wood industry. Occup Environ Med. 2008; 65:191–6. pmid:17881467
  31. 31. Arias-Bahia SH, Echenique Mattos I, Koifman S. Cancer and wood-related occupational exposure in the Amazon region of Brazil. Environ Res. 2005; 99:132–40. pmid:16053937
  32. 32. Helmet M, Graström C, Hemminki K. Occupational risks for nasal cancer in Sweden. J Occup Environ Med. 2004; 46:1033–40. pmid:15602177
  33. 33. Jansing PJ, Chanda R, Gore C, Küpper T. Profiles of occupational exposure in patients with wood dust-induced nasal carcinoma. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2003; 16:329–35. pmid:14964642
  34. 34. Bussi M, Gervasio CF, Riontino E, Valente G, Ferrari L, Pira E, et al. Study of ethmoidal mucosa in a population at occupational high risk of sinonasal adenocarcinoma. Acta Otolaryngol 2002;122:197–201. pmid:11936913
  35. 35. Luce D, Leclerc A, Bégin D, Demers PA, Gérin M, Orlowski E, et al. Sinonasal cancer and occupational exposures: a pooled analysis of 12 case-control studies. Cancer Causes Control. 2002;13:147–57. pmid:11936821
  36. 36. Hildesheim A, Dosemeci M, Chan CC, Chen CJ, Cheng YJ, Hsu MM, et al. Occupational exposure to wood, formaldehyde, and solvents and risk of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2001; 10:1145–53. pmid:11700262
  37. 37. 't Mannetje A, Kogevinas M, Luce D, Demers PA, Bégin D, Bolm-Audorff U, et al. Sinonasal cancer, occupation, and tobacco smoking in European women and men. Am J Ind Med. 1999; 36:101–7. pmid:10361593
  38. 38. Stellman SD, Demers PA, Colin D, Boffetta P. Cancer mortality and wood dust exposure among participants in the American Cancer Society Cancer Prevention Study-II (CPS-II). Am J Ind Med. 1998;34:229–37. pmid:9698991
  39. 39. Leclerc A, Martinez Cortes M, Gérin M, Luce D, Brugère J. Sinonasal cancer and wood dust exposure: results from a case-control study. Am J Epidemiol. 1994; 140:340–9. pmid:8059769
  40. 40. Vaughan TL, Davis S. Wood dust exposure and squamous cell cancers of the upper respiratory tract. Am J Epidemiol 1991; 15;133:560–4. pmid:2006642
  41. 41. Hayes RB, Gerin M, Raatgever JW, de Bruyn A. Wood-related occupations, wood dust exposure, and sinonasal cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 1986;124:569–77. pmid:3752051
  42. 42. Battista G, Cavallucci F, Comba P, Quercia A, Vindigni C, Sartorelli E. A case-referent study on nasal cancer and exposure to wood dust in the province of Siena, Italy. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1983; 9:25–9. pmid:6857185
  43. 43. Roush GC, Meigs JW, Kelly JA, Flannery JT, Burdo H. Sinonasal cancer and occupation: a case-control study. Am J Epidemiol. 1980;111:183–93. pmid:7355881
  44. 44. Cecchi F, Buiatti E, Kriebel D, Nastasi L, Santucci M. Adenocarcinoma of the nose and paranasal sinuses in shoemakers and woodworkers in the province of Florence, Italy (1963–77). Br J Ind Med 1980;37:222–5. pmid:7426471
  45. 45. Ironside P, Matthews J. Adenocarcinoma of the nose and paranasal sinuses in woodworkers in the state of Victoria, Australia. Cancer. 1975;36:1115–24. pmid:1182665
  46. 46. Corbin M, McLean D, Mannetje A, Dryson E, Walls C, McKenzie F, et al. Lung cancer and occupation: A New Zealand cancer registry-based case-control study. Am J Ind Med. 2011;54:89–101. pmid:20957667
  47. 47. Bhatti P, Newcomer L, Onstad L, Teschke K, Camp J, Morgan M, et al. Wood dust exposure and risk of lung cancer. Occup Environ Med. 2011;68:599–604. pmid:21071755
  48. 48. Pronk A, Coble J, Ji BT, Shu XO, Rothman N, Yang G, et al. Occupational risk of lung cancer among lifetime non-smoking women in Shanghai, China. Occup Environ Med. 2009; 66:672–8. pmid:19625285
  49. 49. Laakkonen A, Kyyronen P, Kauppinen T, Pukkala EI. Occupational exposure to eight organic dusts and respiratory cancer among Finns. Occup Environ Med. 2006; 63:726–33. pmid:16601013
  50. 50. Barcenas CH, Delclos GL, El-Zein R, Tortolero-Luna G, Whitehead LW, Spitz MR. Wood Dust exposure and the association with lung cancer risk. Am J Ind Med. 2005; 47:349–57. pmid:15776474
  51. 51. Dement J, Pompeii L, lipkus IM, Samsa GP. Cancer incidence among union carpenters in New Jersey. J Occup Environ Med 2003; 45:1059–67. pmid:14534447
  52. 52. Szadkowska-Stanczyk I, Szymczak W. Nested case-control study of lung cancer among pulp and paper workers in relation to exposure to dust. Am J Ind Med 2001;39:547–56. pmid:11385638
  53. 53. Innos K, Rahu M, Rahu K, Lang I, Leon DA. Wood dust exposure and cancer incidence: a retrospective cohort study of furniture workers in Estonia. A J of Industrial Medicine. 2000: 37:501–11.
  54. 54. Matos EL, Vilensky M, Mirabelli D, Boffetta P. Occupational exposures and lung cancer in Buenos Aires, Argentina. J Occup Environ Med. 2000; 42:653–9. pmid:10874659
  55. 55. Wu X, Delclos GL, Annegers JF, Bondy ML, Honn SE, Henry B, et al. A case-control study of wood dust exposure, mutagen sensitivity, and lung cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1995; 4:583–8. pmid:8547823
  56. 56. Rake C, Gilham C, Haltch J, Darnton A, Hodgson J, Peto J. Occupational, domestic and environmental mesothelioma risks in the British population: a case-control study. British Journal of Cancer. 2009; 100:1175–83. pmid:19259084
  57. 57. Merletti F, Richiardi L, Bertoni F, Ahrens W, Buemi A, Costa-Santos C, et al. Occupational factors and risk of adult bone sarcomas: a multicentric case-control study in Europe. Int J Cancer. 2006 1;118:721–7 pmid:16108052
  58. 58. Fritschi L, Benke G, Hughes AM, Kricker A, Vajdic CM, Grulich A, et al. Risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma associated with occupational exposure to solvents, metals, organic dusts and PCBs (Australia). Cancer Causes Control. 2005; 16:599–607. pmid:15986116
  59. 59. Jansson C, Johansson AL, Bergdahl IA, Dickman PW, Plato N, Adami J, et al. Occupational exposures and risk of esophageal and gastric cardia cancers among male Swedish construction workers. Cancer Causes Control. 2005; 16:755–64. pmid:16049815
  60. 60. Briggs NC, Levine RS, Hall HI, Cosby O, Brann EA, Hennekens CH. Occupational risk factors for selected cancers among African American and White men in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2003;93:1748–52. pmid:14534232
  61. 61. Lee WJ, Baris D, Järvholm B, Silverman DT, Bergdahl IA, Blair A. Multiple myeloma and diesel and other occupational exposures in swedish construction workers. Int J Cancer. 2003 20; 107:134–8. pmid:12925968
  62. 62. Fincham SM, Ugnat AM, Hill GB, Kreiger N, Mao Y. Is occupation a risk factor for thyroid cancer? Canadian Cancer Registries Epidemiology Research Group. J Occup Environ Med. 2000;42:318–22. pmid:10738710
  63. 63. Maier H, Gewelke U, Dietz A, Thamm H, Heller WD, Weidauer H. Laryngeal cancer and occupation—results of the Heidelberg laryngeal cancer study. HNO. 1992; 40:44–51. pmid:1568886
  64. 64. Kawachi I, Pearce N, Fraser J. A New Zealand Cancer Registry-based study of cancer in wood workers. Cancer 1989;64:2609–13. pmid:2819671
  65. 65. Paget-Bailly S, Cyr D, Luce D. Occupational exposures and cancer of the larynx-systematic review and meta-analysis. J Occup Environ Med. 2012; 54:71–84. pmid:22157731
  66. 66. Puñal-Riobóo J, Varela-Lema L, Barros-Dios JM, Juiz-Crespo MA, Ruano-Raviña A. Occupation as a risk factor for oral and pharyngeal cancer. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. 2010;61:375–83. pmid:19850270
  67. 67. De Gabory L, Conso F, Barry B, Stoll D. Carcinogenesis of the ethmoidal adenocarcinoma due to wood dust. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord). 2009; 130:93–104.
  68. 68. Blot WJ, Chow WH, McLaughlin JK. Wood dust and nasal cancer risk. A review of the evidence from North America. J Occup Environ Med. 1997;39:148–56. pmid:9048321
  69. 69. Demers PA, Kogevinas M, Boffetta P, Leclerc A, Luce D, Gérin M, et al. Wood dust and sino-nasal cancer: pooled reanalysis of twelve case-control studies. Am J Ind Med. 1995;28:151–66. pmid:8585514
  70. 70. Nylander LA, Dement JM. Carcinogenic effects of wood dust: review and discussion. Am J Ind Med. 1993; 5: 619–647.
  71. 71. Wills JH. Nasal carcinoma in woodworkers: a review. J Occup Med. 1982;24:526–30. pmid:6750057
  72. 72. Schünemann H, Hill S, Guyatt G, Akl EA, Ahmed F. The GRADE approach and Bradford Hill's criteria for causation. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2011;65:392–5. pmid:20947872