Occupational and industrial burn injury

Overview¶

Occupational burns are the burns you see in a working-age man who was doing a job. Across burn-unit series, work-related injury accounts for a substantial share of all burns; in one South Wales burn-unit cohort, 20% of referred burns occurred in the workplace, with a male-to-female ratio of 11:1 and a mean age of 34 years ^[1]. The same series captured the defining clinical paradox of this population: most occupational burns are small, with 70% involving 1% total body surface area (TBSA) or less ^[1], yet the minority that are severe consume the bulk of resources and produce durable disability.

This page treats occupational burns as a management area rather than a single mechanism, because the work context, not the depth of the wound alone, shapes care. A welder's flash burn, a lineman's high-voltage contact, and a chemical worker's hydrofluoric-acid splash converge in the same burn unit but demand different recognition, different first aid, and different occupational-health follow-up. Three mechanism families dominate: thermal/flame and contact burns, electrical injury, and chemical burns ^[3,5,8]. Workers' compensation data add a dimension that civilian burn registries do not: cost concentration and lost work days. In a Washington State workers' compensation analysis, hospitalized burns were only 1.5% of burn claims but incurred 55% of the costs ^[6]. The clinical task is to recognize the workplace mechanism early, deliver agent-appropriate treatment, and treat return-to-work as a measured endpoint rather than an afterthought.

Epidemiology¶

Who is injured and how often¶

Population-level rates come largely from workers' compensation systems and burn-center series. A West Virginia state-managed compensation analysis estimated the annual incidence of occupational burn at 26.4 per 10,000 workers, highest in the manufacturing sector for men and the service sector for women ^[2]. Across these datasets, the demographic signal is consistent: occupational burns affect mainly young men in physical occupations ^[1]. Hunt et al.'s analysis of occupation-related burns found that the head and upper extremities were the most frequently injured body parts, accounting for 936 injuries (57.6%) ^[3], a distribution that reflects the hands-and-face exposure pattern of manual work.

High-risk occupations recur across studies. Welders, cooks, laborers, food-service workers, and mechanics had higher incidence rates than other occupations in the West Virginia data ^[2]. An electric-utility worker cohort identified welders, line workers, electricians, meter readers, mechanics, maintenance workers, and plant and equipment operators as high-risk ^[5]. A separate occupational series flagged vehicle and equipment cleaners, food-service personnel, and millwrights as carrying disproportionate burn shares (11.3%, 5.3%, and 5.2%) ^[3]. Work-related ocular injury is its own large category; one compensable-injury analysis estimated an annual incidence of 537 eye injuries and illnesses per 100,000 employees ^[4].

Mechanism mix and severity¶

The mechanism distribution varies by industry but follows a recognizable pattern. In the South Wales burn-unit series, chemical burns predominated (23%), followed by flame (14%) and scald (14%) ^[1]. Among electric-utility workers, electric-related burns were the largest category (399 injuries, 45.8%), followed by thermal/heat burns (345, 39.6%) and chemical burns (51, 5.8%) ^[5]. Scald is a major and often dominant mechanism in other settings, so the electrical-and-chemical emphasis above is industry-specific rather than universal. In an oil-industry cohort, scald injury was the single most common mechanism, observed in 50% of cases, ahead of flame (25%), contact (10%), chemical (8.3%), and electrical (7%) burns ^[8]. In a regional burn-center series of occupational burns, the most common burns were flame, electrical, and scald ^[7]. Most injuries are minor: in an oil-industry cohort, major burns above 20% TBSA were found in only 5 cases ^[8], and the utility-worker series reported that the majority of burns involved less than 1 day off work ^[5].

Cost and lost-time concentration¶

The economic footprint of occupational burns is concentrated in a small severe tail. Hospitalized burn cases were only 1.5% of burn claims but incurred 55% of the costs in the Washington State system ^[6]. A regional burn-center series accrued over $16 million in hospital charges for occupational burn admissions ^[7]. At an electric-utility company, 872 thermal-burn and electric-shock injuries represented 3.7% of all injuries but accounted for nearly 13% of all medical claim costs ^[5]. Lost productivity tracks the same way: in the oil-industry cohort, working days lost in burn injuries exceeded that for other injuries of similar severity ^[8]. This cost asymmetry is the practical argument for prevention targeted at the highest-risk trades.

Mechanisms and High-Risk Settings¶

Electrical injury¶

Electrical injury is the signature high-severity occupational burn. High-voltage injuries are usually work-related and, despite often brief contact, can cause serious tissue destruction and secondary injury ^[15]. The biophysical determinants are well characterized: the effect of electricity on the body depends on the type of current, the amount of current, the pathway, the duration, the area of contact, body resistance, and voltage ^[9]. Electrical accidents are conventionally divided into low-voltage (under 1,000 V) and high-voltage (1,000 V or greater) categories ^[9].

The mechanism is heavily occupational. In an Iranian electrical-burn survey, 95.3% of patients were male, half were employees, and 59.3% of injuries occurred at the work site ^[13]. High-voltage current accounted for 67.2% of these burns, and 4.6% of patients died from the direct effect of the electrical burn ^[13]. In a construction-worker electrical-injury study, 52% of admitted patients were construction workers, the most common mechanism was contact with overhead high-voltage power lines at the workplace, and severe complications, limb amputation, and fasciotomy were more frequent in the construction group ^[12]. High-voltage electric injury is associated with a high incidence of extremity compartment syndrome and major amputation; in a large high-voltage series, 56 patients underwent fasciotomy within 24 hours and 80 underwent amputation during hospitalization ^[11]. A 20-year electrical-injury review found that complications were most common in the high-voltage group and that mortality was highest in lightning strikes (17.6%) versus high-voltage (5.3%) and low-voltage (2.8%) contact ^[10].

Electric arc is a distinct, often under-recognized hazard. The majority of mine electrical injuries result from burns from electrical arcs, and few miners are aware that such a hazard exists ^[19].

Chemical and caustic injury¶

Chemical burns are the largest mechanism in some occupational series and bring agent-specific hazards. Alkali (caustic) injury produces tissue damage directly related to the concentration of hydroxyl ions ^[20]. Hydrofluoric acid is the most clinically dangerous occupational chemical agent: it penetrates tissue by initial acid action, allowing fluoride ions to chelate calcium and magnesium ^[21]. Cement is a chronically underestimated alkali; the spectrum of cement-related injury spans contact dermatitis, abrasions, ulcerations, chemical burns, and explosion burns during manufacturing ^[30], and cement burns are considered a severe form of acute irritant contact dermatitis ^[31]. A recurring theme is exposure ignorance: in one chemical-burn series, workers were often unaware that they were using hazardous substances ^[51].

Thermal, flash, explosion, and emerging mechanisms¶

Thermal mechanisms range from molten-metal and contact burns to mass-casualty explosions. Gunpowder explosions in fireworks factories produce large, deep burns; a 13-year series reported a mean TBSA of 40.9%, mostly deep ^[33], with 13% mortality driven by sepsis and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome ^[33]. Yellow-phosphorus and methane explosions add chemical and inhalational dimensions: methane explosion produces thermal injury of the respiratory tract, shock wave, and carbon monoxide intoxication ^[36]. New manufacturing sectors generate new mechanisms; in a small single-center series (n=6), an electric-vehicle manufacturing cohort in Silicon Valley described three categories, flash-flame burns from lithium-ion battery explosions, high-voltage electrical injury, and molten-metal contact burns ^[32].

Assessment¶

Assessment of the occupational burn starts with the agent and the setting, because both predict hidden injury. Late presentation is common; in the South Wales series, 35% of patients presented late, with an average delay of 5 days ^[1]. The wound footprint guides triage: deep partial-thickness and more severe burns require specialist evaluation ^[22]. Electrical injury demands a deliberate search for occult deep-tissue damage, since cutaneous findings underestimate the muscle and tissue injury that drive compartment syndrome and amputation ^[11]. Hydrofluoric-acid exposure requires recognition that a small surface wound can mask life-threatening systemic toxicity ^[22]. Work-related eye injuries warrant their own assessment pathway; foreign bodies and chemical burns are among the most common types of work-related eye injury ^[27].

Management Principles by Agent¶

Occupational burn management follows general burn-care principles with agent-specific additions; the literature here is largely observational, with case series and cohort data rather than randomized trials, so language should track the evidence. Initial first aid is the highest-yield intervention. For caustic and chemical exposures, clothing must be removed quickly and water irrigation initiated at the scene and continued ^[20]. For ocular chemical exposure, immediate copious irrigation at the scene is described as the most important determinant of long-term prognosis ^[26], and chemical eye burns require immediate copious irrigation ^[25].

Hydrofluoric acid requires targeted antidotal therapy beyond irrigation. Reported treatment consists of thoroughly flushing the area with water and applying calcium gluconate gel ^[24]; systemic hypocalcemia may ensue with the potential for life-threatening arrhythmia ^[23], and refractory cases have been managed with intra-arterial calcium gluconate infusion ^[24,23]. Specialized field decontaminants have been reported to prevent burn development: diphoterine decontamination prevented skin and eye burns in a group of metallurgy workers ^[28], and hexafluorine was reported effective in decontaminating hydrofluoric-acid and combined acid splashes ^[29].

Mass-casualty and explosion burns require system-level management. In fireworks gunpowder-explosion casualties, reported optimal management included sufficient fluid resuscitation with invasive monitoring when necessary and prophylactic tracheotomy with mechanical ventilation when upper-airway edema threatened patency ^[34]. For yellow-phosphorus explosion mass casualties, adequate organization of emergency medical resources, early debridement, and accelerating phosphorus excretion were identified as keys to successful rescue ^[35]. Cement and other deep chemical burns frequently require operative management; in a national burn-unit cement-burn series, early debridement and split-thickness skin grafting at diagnosis was identified as the best means of reducing socioeconomic cost and enabling early return to work ^[39].

Complications¶

The severe occupational burn produces a recognizable complication set. High-voltage electrical injury drives extremity compartment syndrome, major amputation, and the highest complication rates among electrical mechanisms ^[11,10]. Hydrofluoric-acid burns cause life-threatening electrolyte abnormalities, including hypocalcemia, from small highly concentrated wounds ^[22,23]. In large explosion burns, acute respiratory distress syndrome is a common early complication and sepsis a common later complication, and in fireworks-factory casualties the commonest causes of death were sepsis and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome ^[33]. Inhalational and respiratory complications are prominent where explosion or confined-space exposure occurs ^[36]. Neurologic, psychological, and musculoskeletal sequelae are frequent and often delayed after electrical injury; in a low-voltage cohort, neurological (92.5%), psychological (90.0%), and musculoskeletal (72.5%) symptoms were documented on average 303.7 days after injury ^[18].

Outcomes and Return to Work¶

Return to work is the outcome that distinguishes occupational burns from other burns, and it is frequently incomplete. In a Swedish work-related burn cohort followed up after injury, 83% of former patients were working, 10% were on sick leave or disability pension, and 7% were unemployed ^[37]; those not working reported worse outcomes across multiple burn-specific health domains and more pain ^[37,37]. After upper-extremity electrical burns, persistent sensory impairment frequently remains despite reconstruction ^[38], and poor or marginal sensory recovery limits reemployment options ^[38]. Long-term disability can be profound: a documented return-to-work case described a worker referred for intervention after 9 years of absence following a severe work burn ^[40]. Rehabilitation goals are evolving; one analysis noted that while the traditional focus has been return-to-work, particularly among tradesmen, psychosocial adjustment supported by assistive technology may be a more productive goal in some cases ^[41].

Prevention¶

Prevention is the dominant theme of the occupational-burn literature, and most authors frame it as the primary lever. Engineering and administrative controls anchor electrical-injury prevention: electrical equipment of 50 volts or more must be de-energized and locked out or tagged out prior to servicing unless doing so increases hazard or is infeasible ^[42], and arc-flash hazard analysis with appropriate warnings is a recognized safeguard ^[42]. Personal protective equipment has documented effect. Most occupational burns from one mechanism could be avoided by adherence to manufacturer recommendations on protective clothing ^[43], and over 90% of work-related eye injuries can be avoided with eye protection ^[25]. Protective-gear redesign has measurable population impact, though the benefit is specific to the design change made: in a New York City firefighter cohort, the modern uniform dramatically reduced burn incidence and severity without adverse effect ^[44], while a later shift to a modified modern uniform did not significantly change burn incidence or severity and instead reduced heat exhaustion ^[44]. Decreased extent of injury in firefighters has likewise been attributed to protective gear ^[45]. Across chemical-burn series, authors emphasize that workplaces bear responsibility to provide safe environments, equipment, and occupational safety training for high-risk groups ^[49], and that promotion of occupational injury protection has been associated with decreased occurrence and severity of occupational and chemical-related burns over time ^[50].

Special Populations¶

Several worker subgroups warrant specific attention. Adolescent workers are an identifiable at-risk group; grease burns at fast-food restaurants were shown to place adolescents at risk ^[47], and in a state adolescent-injury study, average annual injury rates were estimated at 14.0 per 1,000 full-time equivalents for adolescents versus 24.5 per 1,000 for adults ^[48]. Firefighters are an occupational cohort with their own injury structure and prevention literature ^[44,45]; lack of key safety-related protocols appears to put firefighters at risk of mortality, and that risk may be increasing over time ^[46]. Miners face the under-recognized electric-arc hazard described above ^[19].

Controversies and Evidence Gaps¶

Whether voltage predicts long-term outcome after electrical injury is genuinely contested. The traditional low-voltage threshold (under 1,000 V) has been challenged by data suggesting that intermediate-range exposures carry serious and lethal potential distinct from household-range exposure ^[14]. More fundamentally, one analysis found that similarities in endpoints, neuropsychiatric sequelae, the need for late reconstruction, and failure to return to work, challenge the notion that voltage predicts outcome ^[17]. Low-voltage electrical injury complicates this further: affected patients are frequently referred for specialty consultation and testing that usually fail to correlate long-term symptoms with the initial injury ^[16].

Surveillance gaps undermine the evidence base. The National Burn Repository does not capture the full scope of firefighter injuries, likely due to reporting, data-extraction, and care-location issues ^[53], and authors have called for the dataset to be further used for occupational-burn investigation with broader case ascertainment ^[52]. Most of the occupational-burn literature is observational, dominated by single-center series and workers' compensation analyses, which limits causal inference about specific interventions. The concentration of cost and disability in a small severe tail has been reported in individual datasets ^[6,8]. Worker awareness is a persistent weak link: workers are often unaware they are handling hazardous substances ^[51], and electric-arc hazards are poorly recognized in some trades ^[19].

References¶

[1] Munnoch DA, Darcy CM, Whallett EJ, Dickson WA. "Work-related burns in South Wales 1995-96." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2000. PMID: 10869829. ↩

[2] Islam SS, Nambiar AM, Doyle EJ, Velilla AM, Biswas RS, Ducatman AM. "Epidemiology of work-related burn injuries: experience of a state-managed workers' compensation system." The Journal of trauma 2000. PMID: 11130487. ↩

[3] Hunt JP, Calvert CT, Peck MD, Meyer AA. "Occupation-related burn injuries." The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation 2000. PMID: 10935814. ↩

[4] Islam SS, Doyle EJ, Velilla A, Martin CJ, Ducatman AM. "Epidemiology of compensable work-related ocular injuries and illnesses: incidence and risk factors." Journal of occupational and environmental medicine 2000. PMID: 10874649. ↩

[5] Fordyce TA, Kelsh M, Lu ET, Sahl JD, Yager JW. "Thermal burn and electrical injuries among electric utility workers, 1995-2004." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2007. PMID: 17116371. ↩

[6] Baggs J, Curwick C, Silverstein B. "Work-related burns in Washington State, 1994 to 1998." Journal of occupational and environmental medicine 2002. PMID: 12134534. ↩

[7] Taylor AJ, McGwin G, Cross JM, Smith DR, Birmingham BR, Rue LW. "Serious occupational burn injuries treated at a regional burn center." The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation 2002. PMID: 12142576. ↩

[8] Sarma BP. "Epidemiology and man-days loss in burn injuries amongst workers in an oil industry." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2001. PMID: 11451601. ↩

[9] Edlich RF, Farinholt HM, Winters KL, Britt LD, Long WB. "Modern concepts of treatment and prevention of electrical burns." Journal of long-term effects of medical implants 2005. PMID: 16218900. ↩

[10] Arnoldo BD, Purdue GF, Kowalske K, Helm PA, Burris A, Hunt JL. "Electrical injuries: a 20-year review." The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation 2004. PMID: 15534455. ↩

[11] Cancio LC, Jimenez-Reyna JF, Barillo DJ, Walker SC, McManus AT, Vaughan GM. "One hundred ninety-five cases of high-voltage electric injury." The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation 2005. PMID: 16006840. ↩

[12] Salehi SH, Fatemi MJ, Aśadi K, Shoar S, Ghazarian AD, Samimi R. "Electrical injury in construction workers: a special focus on injury with electrical power." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2014. PMID: 23816398. ↩

[13] Mohammadi AA, Amini M, Mehrabani D, Kiani Z, Seddigh A. "A survey on 30 months electrical burns in Shiraz University of Medical Sciences Burn Hospital." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2008. PMID: 17618054. ↩

[14] Rabban J, Adler J, Rosen C, Blair J, Sheridan R. "Electrical injury from subway third rails: serious injury associated with intermediate voltage contact." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 1997. PMID: 9429035. ↩

[15] Gündüz T, Elçioğlu O, Cetin C. "Intensity and localization of trauma in non-fatal electrical injuries." Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES 2010. PMID: 20517750. ↩

[16] Fish JS, Theman K, Gomez M. "Diagnosis of long-term sequelae after low-voltage electrical injury." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2012. PMID: 21979842. ↩

[17] Chudasama S, Goverman J, Donaldson JH, van Aalst J, Cairns BA, Hultman CS. "Does voltage predict return to work and neuropsychiatric sequelae following electrical burn injury?." Annals of plastic surgery 2010. PMID: 20395807. ↩

[18] Theman K, Singerman J, Gomez M, Fish JS. "Return to work after low voltage electrical injury." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2008. PMID: 18849846. ↩

[19] Kowalski-Trakofler K, Barrett E. "Reducing non-contact electric arc injuries: an investigation of behavioral and organizational issues." Journal of safety research 2007. PMID: 18023645. ↩

[20] Amshel CE, Fealk MH, Phillips BJ, Caruso DM. "Anhydrous ammonia burns case report and review of the literature." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2000. PMID: 10812276. ↩

[21] Soderberg K, Kuusinen P, Mathieu L, Hall AH. "An improved method for emergent decontamination of ocular and dermal hydrofluoric acid splashes." Veterinary and human toxicology 2004. PMID: 15303400. ↩

[22] Pruitt VM. "Work-related burns." Clinics in occupational and environmental medicine 2006. PMID: 16647659. ↩

[23] Nguyen LT, Mohr WJ, Ahrenholz DH, Solem LD. "Treatment of hydrofluoric acid burn to the face by carotid artery infusion of calcium gluconate." The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation 2004. PMID: 15353934. ↩

[24] Thomas D, Jaeger U, Sagoschen I, Lamberti C, Wilhelm K. "Intra-arterial calcium gluconate treatment after hydrofluoric acid burn of the hand." Cardiovascular and interventional radiology 2009. PMID: 18506520. ↩

[25] Peate WF. "Work-related eye injuries and illnesses." American family physician 2007. PMID: 17427615. ↩

[26] Lusk PG. "Chemical eye injuries in the workplace. Prevention and management." AAOHN journal : official journal of the American Association of Occupational Health Nurses 1999. PMID: 10205367. ↩

[27] Xiang H, Stallones L, Chen G, Smith GA. "Work-related eye injuries treated in hospital emergency departments in the US." American journal of industrial medicine 2005. PMID: 15940717. ↩

[28] Nehles J, Hall AH, Blomet J, Mathieu L. "Diphoterine for emergent decontamination of skin/eye chemical splashes: 24 cases." Cutaneous and ocular toxicology 2006. PMID: 17162412. ↩

[29] Mathieu L, Nehles J, Blomet J, Hall AH. "Efficacy of hexafluorine for emergent decontamination of hydrofluoric acid eye and skin splashes." Veterinary and human toxicology 2001. PMID: 11577928. ↩

[30] Chung JY, Kowal-Vern A, Latenser BA, Lewis RW. "Cement-related injuries: review of a series, the National Burn Repository, and the prevailing literature." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2007. PMID: 17925652. ↩

[31] Machovcova A. "Caustic ulcers caused by cement aqua: report of a case." Industrial health 2010. PMID: 20424353. ↩

[32] Silverstein ML, Karanas Y, Sheckter CC. "Burns Resulting From Electric Vehicle Manufacturing in Silicon Valley." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2024. PMID: 38800886. ↩

[33] Chen XL, Wang YJ, Wang CR, Hu DL, Sun YX, Li SS. "Burns due to gunpowder explosions in fireworks factory: a 13-year retrospective study." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2002. PMID: 11996855. ↩

[34] Chen XL, Wang YJ, Wang CR, Li SS. "Gunpowder explosion burns in fireworks factory: causes of death and management." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2002. PMID: 12417160. ↩

[35] Xie et al.. "[Rescue and treatment for the mass burn casualties of yellow phosphorus explosion]." Zhonghua shao shang za zhi = Zhonghua shaoshang zazhi = Chinese journal of burns 2008. PMID: 18512558. ↩

[36] Krzywiecki A, Ziora D, Niepsuj G, Jastrzebski D, Dworniczak S, Kozielski J. "Late consequences of respiratory system burns." Journal of physiology and pharmacology : an official journal of the Polish Physiological Society 2007. PMID: 18204142. ↩

[37] Dyster-Aas J, Kildal M, Willebrand M, Gerdin B, Ekselius L. "Work status and burn specific health after work-related burn injury." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2004. PMID: 15555799. ↩

[38] Tredget EE, Shankowsky HA, Tilley WA. "Electrical injuries in Canadian burn care. Identification of unsolved problems." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1999. PMID: 10842620. ↩

[39] Alam M, Moynagh M, Lawlor C. "Cement burns: the dublin national burns unit experience." Journal of burns and wounds 2007. PMID: 18091981. ↩

[40] Tang D, Yu IT, Luo X, Liang Y, He Y. "Case management after long-term absence from work in China: a case report." Journal of occupational rehabilitation 2011. PMID: 21190128. ↩

[41] Robinson CJ. "Using engineering and assistive technologies for rehabilitation after electrical trauma." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1999. PMID: 10842643. ↩

[42] Wallace WJ. "NFPA 70E: Performing the electrical flash hazard analysis." Occupational health & safety (Waco, Tex.) 2005. PMID: 16212025. ↩

[43] Riley P, Regan PJ, Budny PG, Roberts AH. "Contact burns due to thermoplastic road paint." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 1991. PMID: 1760110. ↩

[44] Prezant et al.. "Impact of a design modification in modern firefighting uniforms on burn prevention outcomes in New York City firefighters." Journal of occupational and environmental medicine 2000. PMID: 10953821. ↩

[45] Rabbitts A, Alden NE, Scalabrino M, Yurt RW. "Outpatient firefighter burn injuries: a 3-year review." The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation 2005. PMID: 16006843. ↩

[46] Kahn SA, Palmieri TL, Sen S, Woods J, Gunter OL. "Factors Implicated in Safety-related Firefighter Fatalities." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2017. PMID: 27606562. ↩

[47] Hayes-Lundy C, Ward RS, Saffle JR, Reddy R, Warden GD, Schnebly WA. "Grease burns at fast-food restaurants. Adolescents at risk." The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation 1991. PMID: 2050733. ↩

[48] Parker DL, Clay RL, Mandel JH, Gunderson P, Salkowicz L. "Adolescent occupational injuries in Minnesota. A descriptive study." Minnesota medicine 1991. PMID: 1865859. ↩

[49] Ye et al.. "Ten-year epidemiology of chemical burns in western Zhejiang Province, China." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2016. PMID: 26803372. ↩

[50] Lin CC, Wu CK, Wu YF, Yang JY, Chuang SS. "Clinical Evaluation of Chemical Assault Burns and Occupational Injuries: A 20-year Study at a Single Burn Center." Wounds : a compendium of clinical research and practice 2011. PMID: 25881358. ↩

[51] Herbert K, Lawrence JC. "Chemical burns." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 1989. PMID: 2624694. ↩

[52] Huang Z, Friedman LS. "Work-Related Burn Injuries Hospitalized in US Burn Centers: 2002 to 2011." Journal of occupational and environmental medicine 2017. PMID: 28267099. ↩

[53] Kahn SA, Mosier M. "Firefighter Injury Data Are Wrought With Discrepancy: Pearls From the National Burn Repository." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2018. PMID: 29860394. ↩