de Graaf · Environmental research 2022 · systematic review of observational studies · n=44 studies

Occupational pesticide exposure, cancer and chronic neurological disorders: A systematic review of epidemiological studies in greenspace workers.

Cited 69 times in the scientific literature.

Level 3 - non-randomized controlled study

Systematic review of predominantly observational (cohort and case-control) epidemiological studies

PubMed 34352232 · doi:10.1016/j.envres.2021.111822 · record verified 2026-08-27

What was done

Authors conducted a systematic review searching PubMed and Scopus to assess the relationship between occupational pesticide exposure and long-term health outcomes (specifically cancers and chronic neurological disorders) among greenspace workers such as landscapers, gardeners, horticulturists, nursery workers, and sports facility maintenance staff. Studies were categorized by design, target population, and reported health outcomes.

What was found

Out of 1,679 identified records, 44 articles met inclusion criteria. Of these, 15 studies investigated greenspace workers exclusively, 10 evaluated them alongside other pesticide applicators, and 6 evaluated greenspace subsets within general population cohorts. Several included studies reported elevated risks for leukaemia, soft-tissue sarcoma, multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and Parkinson's disease. No quantitative risk ratios or numerical estimates were provided in the abstract.

Why it matters

While occupational pesticide research has focused predominantly on agricultural farmers, greenspace workers represent a distinct exposed population with specific handling practices and chemical exposures that may increase their risk for hematologic malignancies and neurodegenerative conditions.

Limits

The abstract does not provide numerical effect sizes or confidence intervals. The underlying literature frequently relied on crude exposure proxies such as job titles rather than direct exposure measurements, introducing risk of misclassification. Most studies ascertained outcomes from death certificates or registries and lacked data on key confounding variables.

Cited by