Abstract
Prolonged exposure to high ambient temperatures, heat stress, and inadequate mitigation measures increases the health and safety risks of construction workers. Following the PRISMA guidelines, our goal was to synthesize recent evidence on the impacts of ambient heat stress on construction workers. A literature review of articles published between 2019 and 2024 was conducted, selecting 42 out of 883 articles that focused on occupational heat stress, extreme ambient temperatures, and their effects on the health, safety, and injury risks of construction workers. The findings highlighted a relationship between occupational heat exposure, increased injury, illness, and mortality among construction workers. Elevated ambient temperatures, during summer and peak work hours, significantly increased the risk of falls, cardiovascular events, and thermal discomfort. Younger, unacclimatized workers in regions with extreme ambient heat and a lack of regulation, observation, and regulation enforcement were at risk. Evidence revealed gaps in worker training, compliance, enforcement, and the integration of individualized monitoring. This review highlights the increasing risks associated with occupational heat exposure in construction workers, driven by rising ambient temperatures. It emphasizes the need for integrated strategies combining personalized wearable technologies, inclusive training, and regulatory reform to improve worker safety and productivity and promote policy development.
Keywords: occupational heat stress, heat-related illness (HRI), construction workers, heat mitigation strategies, workplace safety, rising ambient temperatures
1. Introduction
Occupational heat stress represents a critical threat to worker safety and productivity across multiple industries, with construction personnel facing disproportionately elevated risks due to the convergence of extreme environmental conditions and physically demanding labor requirements. Heat-related occupational injuries greatly affect the workforce. In 2021 and 2022, there were a total of 5770 reported “Days Away from Work, Job Transfer, or Restriction” (DART) cases due to heat. This averaged 2885 cases per year in the United States alone, with construction accounting for over 35% of these incidents despite representing only 6% of the workforce [1,2,3]. However, the number of heat-related illnesses and injuries among workers may be underestimated. Among outdoor workers, construction personnel represent a particularly vulnerable population due to the combination of uncontrolled thermal environments, sustained physical exertion, and time-sensitive project demands that often preclude adequate heat stress mitigation measures.
The physiological burden imposed by occupational heat exposure operates through well-established thermoregulatory pathways. Singh et al. (2019) demonstrated that combined environmental and metabolic heat stress can overwhelm the body’s cooling mechanisms, leading to core temperature elevation and cardiovascular strain [4]. Games et al. (2020) specifically linked this physiological compromise to increased injury risk through impaired cognitive function, reduced motor coordination, and decreased situational awareness [5]. Construction workers exhibit heightened vulnerability across demographic and experiential spectra, with Calkins et al. (2019) highlighting notably higher injury rates among both younger workers (18–24 years) lacking heat acclimatization and older workers (>54 years) with diminished thermoregulatory capacity [6]. This risk intensifies among workers with limited job experience and those employed by smaller contractors with fewer resources for heat stress prevention programs.
The theoretical framework underlying heat-related injury mechanisms centers on the disruption of thermal homeostasis. When environmental heat gain and metabolic heat production exceed the body’s cooling capacity through evaporation, convection, and radiation, core body temperature rises, triggering a cascade of physiological responses. These responses, while initially protective, can compromise cognitive processing, reaction time, and postural stability factors directly linked to traumatic injury risk, particularly falls from elevation and equipment-related accidents [7,8].
Despite growing recognition of heat stress as a significant occupational hazard, substantial knowledge gaps persist that limit the development of effective, evidence-based prevention strategies. Current research inadequately elucidates the specific physiological and cognitive mechanisms through which thermal stress translates to increased injury risk. Spector et al. (2019) identified this critical gap, noting that while epidemiological evidence demonstrates clear associations between heat exposure and injury rates, the underlying causal pathways remain poorly characterized [9]. This mechanistic uncertainty impedes the development of targeted interventions and limits the precision of risk assessment protocols.
While the Heat-Shield consortium and other research initiatives have proposed various heat stress mitigation strategies, rigorous evaluation of intervention effectiveness remains limited [8]. Systematic assessments of cooling technologies, work–rest scheduling protocols, hydration strategies, and personal protective equipment modifications have been insufficient to establish evidence-based best practices. This gap is particularly pronounced regarding interventions specifically designed for construction work environments, where implementation feasibility and cost-effectiveness considerations are paramount. Current measurement approaches demonstrate a restricted scope, typically capturing personal exposure proxies over extended durations rather than acute exposure events most relevant to injury risk [10]. Moreover, existing studies have inadequately addressed workplace diversity, with limited representation of different construction trades, geographic regions, and demographic subgroups. This representational gap constrains the generalizability of findings and limits the development of inclusive prevention strategies.
The economic and human costs of heat-related occupational injuries demand urgent attention from practitioners, policymakers, and industry stakeholders, as they estimate the economic loss from reduced labor productivity due to heat exposure. The Pennsylvania Compensation Rating Bureau (2024) pointed to nearly USD 968 million in heat-related illness claims between 1999 and 2018. However, we should consider that indirect costs (like productivity losses) could triple the direct cost figure [11]. This is a significant understatement according to the cited source. The primary finding of a study estimated the economic loss from reduced labor productivity due to heat exposure. Their model estimated this indirect cost to be between USD 76 billion and USD 117 billion for the year 2010 [12]. Beyond economic considerations, heat stress contributed to approximately 11 construction worker fatalities per year from 1992 to 2022, representing preventable tragedies that devastate families and communities [13]. Current regulatory frameworks, including OSHA guidelines and state-specific heat illness prevention standards, rely on limited evidence bases that may not reflect the complexity of modern construction environments. An enhanced understanding of exposure–response relationships and intervention effectiveness could inform more precise regulatory standards and industry-specific guidance documents.
This scoping review aims to synthesize the most current evidence (2019–2024) on heat stress, health impacts, and occupational injury risk relationships among construction workers, with particular emphasis on identifying effective prevention and mitigation strategies at the workplace level. Unlike previous reviews that have identified gaps in heat stress assessment, our review uniquely integrates recent findings to (1) inform evidence-based prevention guidelines applicable to current construction practices, (2) provide specific regulatory policy recommendations based on emerging evidence, and (3) establish future research priorities that build upon, rather than simply reiterate previously identified gaps in heat stress assessment approaches.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Exploratory Literature Review
Given that this is a relatively emerging area of study, existing research and publications are scarce in this area. Therefore, the review framework cannot accommodate meta-analysis or systematic reviews, as these methods rely on a large number of publications that consistently follow similar methodologies to establish valid and reliable results. Therefore, we opted to adopt a scoping literature review to emphasize exploring the content of the articles, rather than focusing on statistical measures. This scoping review was registered as an open-ended registration on OSF registries (Registration DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W6VYX). We utilized the PRISMA scoping review standards [14] to ensure the methodological rigor of our study.
2.2. Eligibility Criteria
Peer-reviewed articles published in English between 2019 to 2024 were included in this scoping review. Initially, articles and reports on heat stress among construction workers, including clinical studies, clinical trials, clinical trial protocols, controlled clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, comparative studies, observational studies, government publications, guidelines, introductory journal articles, reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, newspaper articles, preprints, technical reports, webcasts, and case reports, that were published from 2019 to 2024, with both abstracts and full texts available for screening, were included in the screening process. Animal trial studies, articles that were published before 2019, and articles published in any language other than English were excluded. First, we kept our eligibility criteria open to explore the extent of the available literature on this topic. After completing the initial search, we updated our eligibility criteria to include only peer-reviewed articles that were published in English. In the second stage of review, i.e., in the screening stage, we only included peer-reviewed articles for further analysis.
2.3. Search Strategy
We conducted our search using the following databases: PubMed (National Library of Medicine), Scopus, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect (Elsevier). The initial search included articles published in English between 1 January 2019 and 4 December 2024, with available abstracts and full-text access. The target population was adults aged 19 to 64 years. The article types included in the filter were case reports, clinical studies, clinical trials, clinical trial protocols, comparative studies, controlled clinical trials, English abstracts, government publications, guidelines, introductory journal articles, meta-analyses, newspaper articles, observational studies, preprints, randomized controlled trials, reviews, systematic reviews, technical reports, and webcasts. However, since our primary focus in this review was on recent developments in the field published in peer-reviewed journals, we excluded the gray literature from the final review. Our search term included “construction workers”. Any study that focused on construction workers only or on outdoor workers, along with the other categories, such as agricultural and mining sector construction workers, was also included in the original research. We included those studies in our final analysis, extracting the information only for the construction workers as much as possible. A total of 883 articles were identified through the search conducted on 10 December 2024, in all four databases. The final search terms for each database included heat stress, heat exposure, occupational heat stress, thermal stress, heat-related illness, heat strain, construction, construction workers, postural balance, fall risk, occupational injuries, workplace safety, temperature, heat, and extreme heat. The keywords, Boolean operators, and combinations used across four databases are provided below.
PubMed (755 articles)
(heat stress*) OR (heat exposure*)) OR (occupational heat stress*)) OR (thermal stress*)) OR (heat-related illness*)) OR (heat strain)) AND (construction)) OR (construction workers*)) AND (postural balance)) OR (fall risk*)) OR (occupational injuries*)) OR (workplace safety*)) OR (workplace safety *)) AND (temperature)) OR (heat)) OR (extreme heat*).
Scopus (75 articles)
((“heat stress” OR “heat exposure” OR “occupational heat stress” OR “thermal stress” OR “heat-related illness” OR “heat strain”) AND (“construction” OR “construction workers” OR “roofers” OR “manual workers” OR “outdoor workers”) AND (“occupational injuries” OR “workplace safety” OR “workplace risk factors”) AND (“temperature” OR “heat” OR “extreme heat” OR “high temperature”)).
Web of Science (40 articles)
TS = (heat stress* OR heat exposure* OR occupational heat stress* OR thermal stress* OR heat-related illness* OR heat strain) AND TS = (construction OR construction workers*) AND TS = (postural balance OR fall risk* OR occupational injuries* OR workplace safety* OR workplace risk factors*) AND TS = (temperature OR heat OR extreme heat*).
Science Direct (13 articles)
Heat stress/exposure/strain/thermal stress/occupational heat stress and fall risk/postural balance/occupational injuries and workplace safety/risk factors among construction workers in extreme heat/heat/high temperature.
2.4. Review Strategy
The screening procedure was conducted using a two-phase decision-making approach. In the first phase, we utilized Rayyan [15], a web-based tool designed to facilitate the organization and execution of literature reviews. The search results from all databases, consisting of titles, abstracts, and full texts, were extracted and then imported into Rayyan for screening. Next, all the authors evaluated each article/report based on the inclusion criteria. After reviewing all the abstracts and systematically resolving the differences of opinion, a total of 57 articles were finally selected for a full-text review. Finally, 42 full papers were considered for the final analysis. Figure 1 portrays a detailed overview of the records collected from individual databases.
Figure 1.
Review process flowchart illustrating the study selection results, following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.
A data matrix was developed for systematically extracting relevant data from the included studies. Independent data extraction was conducted by all the authors, and a weekly team meeting was organized to discuss and compare the data matrix among all authors. Due to inconsistencies in the methodological approaches followed by the included studies and their reporting of findings, conducting any statistical analysis was not feasible, although we reported the frequencies of different subclasses.
3. Results
3.1. Selection of Studies
Among the 883 articles, Rayyan identified 66 duplicates. Rayyan deleted 28 duplicated articles, leaving 855 articles to be screened. After a thorough review of the titles and abstracts, 798 articles were excluded, and a total of 57 articles were selected for full-text screening. After a full-text review of all 57 articles, a total of 42 peer-reviewed articles were included in the final analysis.
3.2. Year of Publication and Country of Origin
Table 1 shows the absolute and relative frequencies of the finally included article characteristics in our scoping review. As shown in Table 1, in 2019, a total of 11 articles (26.2%) were published on this topic, demonstrating substantial scholarly attention. The publication frequency then decreased in subsequent years until 2024, when there was a notable increase, with nine (21.43%) publications on this subject. The majority of the studies were conducted in the United States (10 studies).
Table 1.
Absolute and relative frequency of various article characteristics (n = 42).
| Characteristics | Frequency | % |
|---|---|---|
| Country of Origin | ||
| USA | 10 | 23.81 |
| Canada | 1 | 2.38 |
| Ireland | 1 | 2.38 |
| Italy | 4 | 9.52 |
| Spain | 1 | 2.38 |
| Slovenia and Greece | 1 | 2.38 |
| Australia | 3 | 7.14 |
| China | 2 | 4.76 |
| Taiwan | 1 | 2.38 |
| Thailand | 1 | 2.38 |
| Malaysia | 1 | 2.38 |
| India | 1 | 2.38 |
| Vietnam | 1 | 2.38 |
| Japan | 3 | 7.14 |
| Saudi Arabia | 3 | 7.14 |
| United Arab Emirates | 1 | 2.38 |
| Qatar | 1 | 2.38 |
| Canada, USA, Australia, China, Spain, Italy and Thailand | 1 | 2.38 |
| Canada, USA, Australia, China, Spain, Italy | 1 | 2.38 |
| India, China, Thailand, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Italy, and Sweden | 1 | 2.38 |
| Canada, Australia, China, Italy, Spain, and the USA | 1 | 2.38 |
| North America, Europe, and Asia | 1 | 2.38 |
| Africa, Middle East and Arid Asia, Australia and Pacific Islands, Asia, Europe, and the Americas | 1 | 2.38 |
| Publication Year | ||
| 2024 | 9 | 21.43 |
| 2023 | 8 | 19.05 |
| 2022 | 4 | 9.52 |
| 2021 | 6 | 14.29 |
| 2020 | 4 | 11.90 |
| 2019 | 11 | 26.20 |
| Study Type | ||
| Review | 8 | 19.05 |
| Observational Study | 21 | 50.00 |
| Experimental Study | 6 | 14.29 |
| Empirical Study | 5 | 11.90 |
| Clinical Case Report/Case Study design | 1 of Each | 4.76 |
From Table 1, we can identify that the most common research methods included 21 observational studies, e.g., [16,17,18,19], and 8 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, e.g., [9,20,21,22]. The cross-sectional studies often employed a logistic regression model to analyze the data. Several other articles employed a combined technique of systematic review and meta-analysis and conducted an observational study, which involved collecting primary data at a single point in time from diverse construction worker groups and analyzing combined results statistically to generalize the study findings. Many studies utilized meta-analysis methods in combination with systematic reviews, indicating a common approach to synthesizing findings from multiple observational studies.
Table 2 summarizes the characteristics of studies included in this review. Among the analyzed papers, several key insights and patterns emerged evidently. The topic most extensively studied was temperature/extreme heat (addressed in 36 articles, e.g., [16,18,20,23]), heat stress/heat strain/thermal stress (addressed in 30 articles, e.g., [23,24,25,26]), wet-bulb globe temperature (WBGT) (addressed in 10 articles, e.g., [27,28,29,30]), humidity/relative humidity (addressed in 10 articles, e.g., [27,28,31,32,33]), occupational heat stress/illness/injuries/accidents (addressed in 28 articles, e.g., [9,16,20,34,35]), heat-related illness (addressed in 33 articles, e.g., [16,17,18,23,36,37]), and construction workers and workplace safety (addressed in 40 articles, e.g., [1,38,39,40]). This highlights a broad academic acknowledgment of extreme temperatures as a critical factor influencing occupational safety and the health of the workers in the construction industry. As mentioned above, several studies reported productivity losses among construction workers when WBGT exceeded 28 °C and above.
As shown in Table 2, along with weather determinants, individual and physiological factors, such as age (addressed in 10 articles, e.g., [1,17,28,29]), heart rate (addressed in 10 articles, e.g., [24,25,26]), and skin/body/oral/auditory canal temperature (addressed in 9 articles, e.g., [28,41,42,43]), were also considered, especially by the observational studies conducted. Conversely, gender (explored in four articles, e.g., [9,20,44]), blood pressure (explored in three articles [29,32,45]), and urinary albumin–creatinine ratio (ACR) (studied in just one paper [37]) were the least explored topics, indicating potential research gaps that need further investigation.
Overall, the research designs of the 42 reviewed studies varied widely based on study objectives and data availability, ranging from simple observational analyses to complex spatial–temporal models. The methods varied significantly, including case–crossover designs with logistic regression, time-series regression models (e.g., Poisson and quasi-Poisson models), field-based observational studies employing environmental and physiological monitoring, GIS-based spatial analysis, the utilization of big data analytics, and experimental and quasi-experimental studies with controlled settings.
Table 2.
Characteristics of the studies included in this review, including short summaries.
| Title | First Author/Year of Publication | Target Group | Heat-Related Risk Factors | Findings | Recommendations/Interventions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heat exposure and productivity loss among construction workers: a meta-analysis | [46] | A total of 2387 construction workers across 14 cross-sectional studies in India, China, Iran, Thailand, Australia, Italy, Saudi Arabia, and Sweden |
|
|
|
| Effects of Heat Stress on Workers’ Physical Fatigue and Attentiveness: Multimodal Roofing XR Simulation | [24] | A total of 30 participants (22 males and 8 females) in Indiana, USA |
|
|
|
| Cooler break areas: Reducing heat stress among construction workers in Japan | [45] | A total of 26 male rebar workers; 196 observations collected, 152 used after data exclusion from five construction sites located in urban areas of Japan |
|
|
|
| Association between temperature and occupational injuries in Spain: The role of contextual factors in workers’ adaptation | [44] | Over 22.3 million occupational injuries in 48 provinces in mainland Spain and the Balearic Islands (excluding the Canary Islands, Ceuta, and Melilla) |
|
|
|
| Extreme Heat and Occupational Health Risks | [21] | Multiple studies |
|
|
|
| Exploring the Influence of Extreme Weather on Construction Worker Safety | [47] | A total of 12,624 construction accidents |
|
|
|
| Real-time risk assessment of multi-parameter induced fall accidents at construction sites | [48] | A total of 1718 causalities in Banqiao District, New Taipei City, Taiwan |
|
|
|
| Mandated Rest Breaks and Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in Dallas County, Texas Construction Workers |
[49] | Compensation claims data from 2013 to 2018 in Dallas, Texas |
|
|
|
| Automation in Construction: Spatio-temporal heat risk analysis in construction: Digital twin-enabled monitoring | [31] | For geometric data, 300 UAV images were collected; additionally, weather data were recorded hourly from two weather stations in Stephenville, Texas |
|
|
|
| A case report of near-missed heat stroke | [50] | A case report of a 37-year-old male construction worker in Sarawak, Malaysia, with a history of near-missed diagnosis of exertional heat stroke |
|
|
|
| Development of a Prototype Observatory of Heat-Related Occupational Illnesses and Injuries through the Collection of Information from the Italian Press, as Part of the WORKLIMATE Project | [16] | A total of 35 documented cases of heat-related occupational illnesses and injuries utilizing a media-based surveillance approach |
|
|
|
| The burden of occupational injury attributable to high temperatures in Australia, 2014–19: a retrospective observational study | [51] | Included data from the Australian workforce (10,669,078 employed workers as per 2016 census data) focusing on disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) lost due to occupational injuries |
|
|
|
| Proximity Activity Intensity Identification System in Hot and Humid Weather Conditions: Development and Implementation | [27] | Not explicitly stated; data comprised 94,808 frames of video footage with approximately 95,303 worker detection records |
|
|
|
| Solar installation occupational risks: A systematic review | [22] | A total of 31 articles |
|
|
|
| Association between extreme temperature exposure and occupational injuries among construction workers in Italy: An analysis of risk factors |
[52] | A total of 184,936 construction occupational injuries among construction workers in Italy from 2014 to 2019 |
|
|
|
| Towards real-time thermal stress prediction systems for workers | [41] | Varied across reviewed studies |
|
|
|
| Impacts of hot climatic conditions on work, health, and safety in Australia: A case study of policies in practice in the construction industry | [38] | A large construction company and five of its subcontractors in Australia |
|
|
|
| Heart rate increase from rest as an early sign of heat-related illness risk in construction workers | [17] | A total of 79 male construction workers from two construction sites in Japan |
|
|
|
| Best practices used by contractors to reduce heat-related injuries on construction sites | [36] | A total of 46 respondents out of 120 contractors surveyed in Nevada, USA |
|
|
|
| Developing a Geospatial Framework for Severe Occupational Injuries Using Moran’s I and Getis-Ord Gi Statistics for Southeastern United States | [34] | Nearly 50,000 incident records in Southeastern United States |
|
|
|
| Potential Impacts of Different Occupational Outdoor Heat Exposure Thresholds among Washington State Crop and Construction Workers and Implications for Other Jurisdictions | [53] | Entire state population from 39 counties, Washington state, USA |
|
|
|
| Extreme heat and occupational injuries in different climate zones: A systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological evidence | [20] | A total of 24 epidemiological studies representing nearly 22 million occupational injury cases in six countries: Australia, Canada, China, Italy, Spain, and the USA |
|
|
|
| Perceptions of heat-health impacts and the effects of knowledge and preventive actions by outdoor workers in Hanoi, Vietnam | [18] | Cross-sectional Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (KAP) survey of 1027 outdoor workers in Hanoi, Vietnam |
|
|
|
| Heat-related illness risk and associated personal and environmental factors of construction workers during work in summer | [28] | A total of 61 construction workers (35 at Site 1 and 26 at Site 2) wearing sensors that continuously recording vital signs |
|
|
|
| Understanding occupational heat exposure in the United States and proposing a quantifying stress index | [39] | Included all reported heat-related injury and illness incidents from 39 states, with specific county-level analysis within Alabama |
|
|
|
| Climate Warming and Occupational Heat and Hot Environment Standards in Thailand | [42] | A total of 168; 90 construction workers (working outdoors) and 78 foundry workers (working indoors) in 18 construction sites in northeastern Thailand |
|
|
|
| Detailed thermal indicators analysis based on outdoor thermal comfort indices in construction sites in South China | [32] | A total of 1063 male workers in Guangzhou, China |
|
|
|
| Heat-health vulnerability in temperate climates: lessons and response options from Ireland | [23] | Included 15 papers |
|
|
|
| A Field Evaluation of Construction Workers’ Activity, Hydration Status, and Heat Strain in the Extreme Summer Heat of Saudi Arabia | [25] | A total of 23 male Indian construction workers (plasterers, tilers, laborers) were monitored and surveys for 260 person-days |
|
|
|
| Risk of Kidney Injury among Construction Workers Exposed to Heat Stress: A Longitudinal Study from Saudi Arabia | [37] | Four construction sites and 65 construction workers in Al-Ahsa Province, Southeastern Saudi Arabia |
|
|
|
| Air temperatures and occupational injuries in the construction industries: a report from Northern Italy (2000–2013) | [33] | A total of 14,072 injury cases were included in Trento, Italy |
|
|
|
| Heat exposure and occupational injuries: Review of the literature and implications | [9] | Varied |
|
|
|
| Evaluation of the impact of heat stress on the occurrence of occupational injuries: Meta-analysis of observational studies | [35] | Meta-analysis included eight studies (five time-series and three case-crossover designs) |
|
|
|
| Assessment of Thermal Exposure Level among Construction Workers in UAE using WBGT, HSI and TW L Indices | [54] | A total of 200 construction workers across three site locations in the United Arab Emirates |
|
|
|
| HeatWaves Occurrence and Outdoor Workers’ Self-assessment of Heat Stress in Slovenia and Greece | [19] | A climatological analysis of heat wave trends from 1981 to 2017 combined with a cross-sectional study among 286 outdoor workers (216 from Slovenia, 70 from Greece) |
|
|
|
| Workplace Heat Exposure Management in Indian Construction Workers Using Cooling Garment | [26] | A total of 29 male construction workers Construction worksite in Ahmedabad city, Gujarat, India |
|
|
|
| Assessment of Heat Stress Exposure among Construction Workers in the Hot Desert Climate of Saudi Arabia | [30] | Ten residential construction sites |
|
|
|
| Investigation on heat stress of construction workers in summer in Chongqing, China | [29] | A total of 60 construction workers |
|
|
|
| Heat-related deaths among construction workers in the United States | [1] | A total of 285 heat-related deaths among construction workers in Northeast, Midwest, West, and South regions in USA |
|
|
|
| A case-crossover study of heat exposure and injury risk among outdoor construction workers in Washington State | [6] | A total of 63,720 occupational traumatic injury at outdoor construction worksites throughout Washington State |
|
|
|
| Nationwide epidemiological study for estimating the effect of extreme outdoor temperature on occupational injuries in Italy | [43] | A total of 2,277,432 occupational injuries across 8090 municipalities in Italy |
|
|
|
| Heat Stress Impacts on Cardiac Mortality in Nepali Migrant Workers in Qatar | [40] | Mortality data of approximately 120,000+ Nepali Migrant Workers in Qatar |
|
|
|
Table 3 displays the key risk factors discussed in the included studies. The factors were grouped into four key categories, including weather factors, physiological factors, individual factors, and workplace-related factors. The numbers indicate the number of studies that assessed each of the abovementioned factors.
Table 3.
Key risk factors discussed in the included studies.
| Key Risk Factors Discussed | Total Number of Studies |
|---|---|
| Weather Factors | |
| Temperature/extreme heat/heat exposure | 36 |
| Heat stress/heat strain/thermal stress | 30 |
| Wet-bulb globe temperature (WBGT) | 10 |
| Humidity | 9 |
| Physiological Factors | |
| Skin/body/oral/auditory canal temperature | 9 |
| Hydration status | 4 |
| Heart rate | 10 |
| Pulse rate | 2 |
| Blood pressure | 3 |
| Individual factors | |
| Age | 10 |
| Gender | 4 |
| Heat-related illness | 33 |
| Occupational heat stress/illness/injuries/accidents | 28 |
| Workplace factors | |
| Construction/construction workers | 37 |
| Workplace safety | 40 |
3.2.1. Temperature/Extreme Heat
Numerous studies (36 articles, e.g., [16,18,20,23]) highlighted a strong correlation between high temperatures and occupational injuries, particularly in sectors such as agriculture, construction, and manufacturing. Workers exposed to extreme heat frequently experienced an increased risk of injury due to impaired cognitive and physical abilities resulting from fatigue, dehydration, and heat stress. Young males, particularly in the construction and agricultural sectors, were consistently identified as the most vulnerable.
3.2.2. Heat Stress/Heat Strain
Heat stress significantly reduced workers’ physical and cognitive performance. Common coping strategies included increasing water intake, adjusting work schedules, and taking regular breaks, mentioned in a total of 30 articles, e.g., [23,24,25,26]. Many workers still lacked adequate awareness and preparedness for dealing with heat stress, underscoring a critical need for enhanced education and improved workplace policies.
3.2.3. Occupational Heat Stress/Illnesses/Injuries/Accidents
Occupational injuries related to heat were prevalent in labor-intensive sectors, including construction and agriculture, as mentioned in a total of 30 articles e.g., [9,16,20,34,35]. High temperatures were associated with increased accident rates, particularly among workers engaged in physically demanding tasks. The use of geographic and technological tools (like GIS and VR simulations) to map and prevent accidents was found to be beneficial in several studies.
3.2.4. Construction Workers and Workplace Safety
Effective workplace safety practices included the provision of shaded rest areas, the availability of hydration stations, and the implementation of work–rest schedules, as mentioned in 40 articles, e.g., [1,38,39,40]. Despite recognized safety measures, actual workplace practices often fell short due to limited implementation or inadequate training of workers.
Table 3 shows that the most common finding across all the studies was a strong correlation between high temperatures and an increased risk of occupational injury. In contrast, factors such as hydration status, blood pressure, or pulse rate remained underexplored, suggesting the need for more physiological and biomonitoring studies. Heat conditions frequently compromised physical and mental performance, resulting in higher incidents of accidents, reduced productivity, and serious health risks. Despite clear evidence linking heat to occupational hazards, many workplaces lacked comprehensive heat stress management strategies. Practical preventive measures (such as rest breaks and hydration practices) were commonly recommended, yet often inadequately implemented. Significant gaps existed in the systematic management of occupational illnesses related to heat, the quantification of productivity loss, and the practical implementation of preventive measures at workplaces. Overall, the studies collectively emphasized the urgent need for more structured and consistently enforced occupational health standards, targeted education and training for workers, and greater research attention on less-studied topics, such as heat exposure, thermal stress, occupational illness, and productivity loss, to effectively mitigate heat-related workplace risks.
It is evident from the scoping review findings that there were regional variations between the studies. The studies conducted in North America and Europe predominantly focused on ambient temperature and workplace safety, whereas the studies conducted in Asia often emphasized humidity, WBGT, and physiological strain, highlighting climatic and occupational context differences. Moreover, the differences in methodological approach might also contribute to the variability in the study findings. While the majority of the studies used observational study designs, few incorporated personal exposure monitoring or longitudinal measurements, which may limit the potential causal inference. Future research is warranted to integrate multifactorial analyses to jointly investigate physiological, environmental, and workplace risk factors to illuminate the process of interaction among these risk factors across regions and worker populations as well.
4. Discussion
This scoping review, enriched by recent studies, reveals a complex and evolving understanding of extreme heat exposure risks in the construction industry. The synthesis of 42 peer-reviewed articles and additional contemporary research highlights the multifactorial nature of heat-related health outcomes, shaped by physiological, environmental, occupational, and policy dimensions. Based on this synthesis, we present evidence-based prevention guidelines and regulatory recommendations to address the critical gaps in current heat stress management practices.
4.1. Heat Exposure and Injury Risk: Comparative Insights
Elevated temperatures are consistently linked to increased occupational injury risk, with recent studies highlighting not only the role of extreme heat but also the compounding effects of humidity, solar radiation, and demographic vulnerabilities. The correlation between elevated temperatures and occupational injuries is well established. Fatima et al. (2021) found a 1% increase in injury risk per 1 °C rise in temperature, with heatwaves elevating risk by 17.4% [20]. This aligns with Binazzi et al. (2019), who reported a statistically significant increase in injury risk, particularly among younger males [35]. Amorim’s recent field study in Kansas City adds nuance, showing that even moderate temperatures (88 °F) led to internal body temperatures exceeding 100.4 °F in 43% of workers [55]. This suggests that humidity and solar radiation, not just temperature, critically influence physiological strain. Calkins et al. (2019) and Dong et al. (2019) emphasized demographic vulnerabilities, with younger, less experienced, and Hispanic workers facing higher risks [1,6]. Amorim’s study corroborated this, identifying roofers and cement masons as particularly vulnerable due to direct sun exposure and heat-retaining materials [55]. Our summary identifies particular worker cohorts requiring focused preventative interventions to mitigate their increased susceptibility to heat-related accidents. Enforcing obligatory acclimatization methods is crucial, necessitating 5–14 days of incremental heat exposure for new employees and those resuming work after absences exceeding one week, as heat tolerance rapidly declines without consistent exposure. Inexperienced workers, especially those under 25 years of age or with less than two months of employment, are at heightened danger and require vigilant supervision during heat events. Specific trades, such as roofing and cement masonry, necessitate additional safeguards; granting them 15 min rest intervals each hour when temperatures are above 85 °F recognizes their vulnerability to direct sunshine and heat-absorbing materials. During extreme heat days, the implementation of mandatory buddy systems is essential, pairing experienced workers with novices to guarantee ongoing peer support and the dissemination of knowledge regarding the signs of heat stress. High-risk tasks, such as roofing and concrete work, should be performed during cooler morning hours before 10 AM, in order to balance project requirements and noise limits. These tailored interventions acknowledge that heat vulnerability differs within the construction workforce and must be handled appropriately.
4.2. Physiological Monitoring and Health Outcomes
Physiological indicators, such as heart rate, core temperature, and hydration status, are central to understanding heat stress. Tracking heart rate, body temperature, and hydration can help spot heat stress early. Studies show many workers start their shifts dehydrated, even when water is available—pointing to the need for better hydration habits and health monitoring on the job. Kakamu et al. (2022) demonstrated that an elevated heart rate from rest is a reliable early marker of heat-related illness [17]. Amorim’s ingestible capsule study is the first in the U.S. to directly measure core temperature in construction workers, revealing widespread dehydration at the start of shifts despite water availability [55]. This finding echoes Al-Bouwarthan et al. (2020a), who found similar dehydration patterns in Saudi Arabia [25]. The convergence of these studies across regions underscores the need for pre-shift hydration protocols and continuous physiological monitoring.
The prevalent dehydration trends shown in various studies require thorough hydration and monitoring strategies that focus on both prevention and early identification of heat stress. Construction sites must do obligatory pre-shift hydration evaluations, utilizing urine color charts or specific gravity measurements to detect workers who commence their shifts in a dehydrated condition. To avert initial dehydration, workers must drink 500–750 mL of water two hours before the start of their shift, thereby establishing sufficient baseline hydration. During the workday, hourly hydration breaks must be instituted, requiring the drinking of a minimum of 250 mL of water to provide consistent fluid replacement that corresponds to sweat losses. Physiological monitoring thresholds must be explicitly established, necessitating obligatory rest intervals when a worker’s sustained heart rate surpasses 75% of their age-predicted maximum (calculated as 220 minus age, multiplied by 0.75) for over five minutes, thereby offering an objective standard for heat strain intervention. Construction sites should implement designated “heat stress stations” furnished with hydration resources, cooling zones, and physiological monitoring equipment, thereby establishing centralized facilities that facilitate compliance for all workers.
4.3. Wearable Technologies: Contrasts and Innovations
Existing heat stress assessment methodologies demonstrate fundamental constraints that compromise their utility in dynamic construction environments. Traditional approaches, including wet-bulb globe temperature (WBGT) measurements and worker symptom self-reporting, fail to provide real-time, individualized data necessary for proactive risk management [56]. These methods rely heavily on meteorological data that may not accurately represent specific workplace microclimates, local heat sources, or individual heat production rates [9]. Furthermore, current monitoring approaches inadequately account for individual variability in heat strain response, acclimatization status, and personal risk factors [57]. Recent advances in wearable technologies offer promising solutions. Saidi and Gauvin (2023) and Marinaccio et al. (2019) advocated for ECG-based sensors over traditional WBGT indices [41,43]. Amorim’s study used ingestible sensors, while Boston University’s C-HEAT project tested wearable fans and cooling towels, finding that workers preferred neck fans over cooling vests [55]. Kenzen’s arm-worn devices, tested in worksites, predicted heat stress 15–30 min before symptoms appear [58]. Compared to Amorim’s passive monitoring, Kenzen’s predictive analytics represented a proactive shift in heat stress management. Despite these innovations, barriers remain. It is noted that ethical concerns, integration challenges, and high costs are obstacles to widespread adoption. While wearable tech is advancing, its scalability and accessibility require further attention [59]. The advancement of wearable technologies demands a carefully planned implementation strategy that balances innovation with practical application. Organizations are encouraged to launch pilot wearable monitoring programs through a phased rollout, beginning with the highest-risk workers—such as roofers and concrete laborers—before expanding site-wide. This focused approach allows for refining protocols while prioritizing the most vulnerable groups. Establishing minimum technological standards is crucial, including real-time heart rate monitoring for all employees whenever the wet-bulb globe temperature (WBGT) exceeds 27 °C, ensuring essential physiological oversight during critical heat exposure periods. Standardized alert systems must be implemented to guarantee immediate supervisor notification when workers exceed safe physiological limits, enabling swift interventions to prevent heat-related illnesses. To overcome financial barriers to technology adoption, stakeholders should develop innovative cost-sharing models involving contractors, insurers, and regulatory bodies, recognizing that enhanced worker safety benefits all parties through reduced injury claims and improved productivity. Equally important is enforcing strict data privacy protections to prevent the misuse of physiological monitoring data for punitive purposes, addressing legitimate surveillance concerns and maintaining the trust that is vital for the program’s success.
4.4. Productivity Loss and Economic Impacts
Heat stress has measurable impacts on labor productivity, with micro- and macro-level evidence indicating significant economic consequences. Han et al. (2024) found that 60% of construction workers experienced productivity loss when the WBGT exceeded 28 °C [46]. This is supported by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, which projects a 5.4% reduction in U.S. capital stock and a 1.8% drop in annual consumption by 2200 due to heat-induced productivity loss [60]. These macroeconomic projections highlight the long-term implications of heat stress beyond individual health. Amorim’s study added micro-level evidence, showing that even mild heat stress disrupts work rhythms and increases fatigue [55]. To alleviate the significant economic repercussions highlighted in our analysis, construction firms could adopt flexible work schedules that respond directly to temperature conditions. When the WBGT exceeds 28 °C, a balanced 50% work and 50% rest schedule should be implemented, shifting to a more cautious 25% work and 75% rest ratio when temperatures rise above 30 °C. Governments and regulatory agencies should offer economic incentives, such as tax credits for firms investing in heat mitigation technologies and comprehensive training programs, to reduce implementation costs while enhancing worker safety. Project planning must incorporate reasonable timetable adjustments that account for expected heat-related productivity declines during summer, avoiding unrealistic deadlines that compromise safety. Moreover, contractors should be required to include heat stress management costs in their project proposals, ensuring that competitive bidding does not undermine essential safety measures. These integrated economic strategies recognize that protecting worker health and maintaining productivity are complementary, not conflicting, goals.
4.5. Gender and Psychosocial Dimensions
Gender differences in heat-related risks are underexplored. Curtis et al. (2022) found that tradeswomen reported higher stress and injury rates than men, with psychosocial exposures like discrimination and harassment contributing significantly [61]. Han et al. (2024) also noted that female/mixed-gender teams were more susceptible to productivity loss [46]. Another study found that women face more psychosocial hazards, while men encounter more physical risks [62]. These findings suggest that gender-sensitive interventions are essential, including tailored PPE, inclusive safety training, and supportive workplace cultures. The implementation of gender-inclusive safety protocols, including the provision of appropriately fitted personal protective equipment and cooling vests tailored for various body types, the establishment of confidential reporting systems for heat-related symptoms to mitigate stigma, the requirement of gender-inclusive heat safety training that addresses both physical and psychosocial stressors, and the creation of separate cooling/rest areas upon request, may enhance safety and comfort for all workers.
4.6. Policy Effectiveness and Regional Contrasts
The substantial economic burden of heat-related occupational injuries—both direct and indirect—warrants urgent attention from policymakers and industry leaders. Policy responses vary widely. Amorim’s study revealed that OSHA lacks a federal heat standard, relying on state-level regulations in California, Oregon, and Washington. Schinasi et al. (2024) found limited impact from Dallas County’s rest break ordinance, suggesting that enforcement and education are critical [49]. A meta-analysis showed that cooling vests and structured work–rest schedules are among the most effective interventions [63]. However, implementation remains inconsistent. The needs for more effective and practical heat stress prevention strategies and guidelines in construction are documented [64]. Regional heat action plans must be formulated to consider local climate trends, workforce demographics, and current infrastructure. Countries with established occupational health systems ought to incorporate mandatory reporting of heat-related illnesses and near-miss accidents into their existing surveillance frameworks, while those developing such systems should emphasize heat stress as a fundamental component. The establishment of certification programs for heat safety officers should be tailored to local project scales and economic conditions. We must modify these limits to align with the specific characteristics of the national construction industry and its regulatory capabilities. These suggestions establish a framework that can be tailored to various regulatory contexts while preserving fundamental protection requirements for construction workers worldwide. The implementation of gender-inclusive safety protocols, including the provision of appropriately fitted personal protective equipment and cooling vests tailored for various body types, the establishment of confidential reporting systems for heat-related symptoms to mitigate stigma, the requirement of gender-inclusive heat safety training that addresses both physical and psychosocial stressors, and the creation of designated cooling/rest areas upon request, may enhance the safety and comfort of all workers.
5. Conclusions
This scoping review highlights the complex nature of heat-related risks in the construction industry, which are influenced by a combination of physiological, occupational, environmental, and policy factors. The synthesis of 42 peer-reviewed articles demonstrates a consistent association between elevated temperatures and increased risk of occupational injuries, particularly among younger, less experienced, and vulnerable worker groups. The scoping review findings also reported productivity losses when the WBGT exceeded 28 °C. Integrating these results into policy or workplace practice frameworks includes improved hydration and cooling measures, recommending temperature-based work–rest cycles, and adjustments to work hours during extreme heat. Therefore, incorporating WBGT thresholds into occupational safety standards to guide employers in preventing productivity loss and heat-related illnesses is warranted.
Moreover, traditional heat monitoring methods are insufficient, while wearable technologies, especially ECG-based sensors, offer promising solutions for real-time physiological assessment. Despite technological advancements, integration challenges and equity concerns persist. Heat exposure and exposure–response relationships also impact productivity and incur economic costs, thereby further amplifying the urgency for effective interventions. Gender specific and psychosocial stressors highlight the need for inclusive, tailored, individualized safety measures. Regional disparities and inconsistent policy enforcement indicate that federal standards and evidence-based prevention strategies are essential. As ambient temperature intensifies, the construction industry must evolve from reactive to proactive heat stress management. Integrating scientific evidence, technological innovation, and policy reform is essential to safeguarding worker health and productivity.
Beyond the current limitations, future research should prioritize longitudinal studies that explore the long-term health effects of repeated occupational heat exposure throughout workers’ lives, especially focusing on potential links to chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular conditions. There remain significant gaps in our knowledge regarding the cost-effectiveness of different intervention strategies, the application of implementation science to overcome barriers in small- to medium-sized construction firms, and the development of predictive biomarkers to identify individuals most vulnerable to heat stress. Additionally, research should investigate the best recovery methods after heat exposure, how heat stress interacts with other workplace hazards, such as chemicals, noise, and vibration, and the effectiveness of culturally tailored training programs for diverse, multilingual construction crews. Addressing these areas will help move from merely identifying risks to delivering evidence-based, practical solutions.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, S.N., S.D.C., and G.I.-M.; methodology, S.N., S.D.C., and G.I.-M.; software, S.N., S.D.C., and G.I.-M.; validation, S.N., S.D.C., and G.I.-M.; formal analysis, S.N., S.D.C., and G.I.-M.; writing—original draft preparation, S.N., S.D.C., and G.I.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Funding Statement
This research received no external funding.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
References
- 1.Dong X., West G.H., Holloway-Beth A., Wang X.W., Sokas R.K. Heat-related deaths among construction workers in the United States. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2019;62:1047–1057. doi: 10.1002/ajim.23024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.NSC . Work Safety: Exposure to Environmental Heat. National Safety Council; Itasca, IL, USA: 2025. [(accessed on 12 August 2025)]. Available online: https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/work/safety-topics/exposure-to-environmental-heat/ [Google Scholar]
- 3.Occupational Safety and Health Administration . Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings SBREFA. Occupational Safety and Health Administration; Washington, DC, USA: 2021. [(accessed on 12 August 2025)]. Available online: https://www.osha.gov/heat/sbrefa. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Singh U., Mani A., James K., Rao M.B., Bhattacharya A. Effects of Heat Exposure from Live-Burn Fire Training on Postural Stability of Firefighters. Ergon. Int. J. 2019;3 doi: 10.23880/eoij-16000213. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Games K.E., Winkelmann Z.K., McGinnis K.D., McAdam J.S., Pascoe D.D., Sefton J.M. Functional Performance of Firefighters After Exposure to Environmental Conditions and Exercise. J. Athl. Train. 2020;55:71–79. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-75-18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Calkins M.M., Bonauto D., Hajat A., Lieblich M., Seixas N., Sheppard L., Spector J.T. A case-crossover study of heat exposure and injury risk among outdoor construction workers in Washington State. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health. 2019;45:588–599. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3814. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.OSHA Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings: Occupational Safety and Health Administration. [(accessed on 12 August 2025)];2024 Available online: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/08/30/2024-14824/heat-injury-and-illness-prevention-in-outdoor-and-indoor-work-settings.
- 8.Flouris A.D., Ioannou L.G., Mayor T.S., Hernandez R.C.S. Report on Solutions to Mitigate Heat Stress of Construction Sector Workers (Deliverable 3.5) 2020. [(accessed on 12 August 2025)]. Available online: https://reterls.it/files/HEAT-SHIELD%20WP3%20Construction%20Report%20.pdf.
- 9.Spector J.T., Masuda Y.J., Wolff N.H., Calkins M., Seixas N. Heat Exposure and Occupational Injuries: Review of the Literature and Implications. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2019;6:286–296. doi: 10.1007/s40572-019-00250-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Milando C.W., Black-Ingersoll F., Heidari L., López-Hernández I., de Lange J., Negassa A., McIntyre A.M., Martinez M.P.B., Bongiovanni R., Levy J.I., et al. Mixed methods assessment of personal heat exposure, sleep, physical activity, and heat adaptation strategies among urban residents in the Boston area, MA. BMC Public Health. 2022;22:2314. doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-14692-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.PCRB . Impact of Excessive Heat on Workplace Injuries. Pennsylvania Compensation Rating Bureau; Philadelphia, PA, USA: 2024. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Gubernot D.M., Anderson G.B., Hunting K.L. The epidemiology of occupational heat exposure in the United States: A review of the literature and assessment of research needs in a changing climate. Int. J. Biometeorol. 2014;58:1779–1788. doi: 10.1007/s00484-013-0752-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.USAFacts How Dangerous Is Extreme Heat for America’s Workers? USAFacts: USAFacts. 2023. [(accessed on 12 August 2025)]. Available online: https://usafacts.org/articles/how-dangerous-is-extreme-heat-for-americas-workers/
- 14.Tricco A.C., Lillie E., Zarin W., O’Brien K.K., Colquhoun H., Levac D., Moher D., Peters M.D.J., Horsley T., Weeks L., et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018;169:467–473. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Ouzzani M., Hammady H., Fedorowicz Z., Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—A web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2016;5:210. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Ionita G., Bonafede M., Ariani F., Marinaccio A., Morabito M., Levi M., WORKLIMATE Collaborative Group Development of a Prototype Observatory of Heat-Related Occupational Illnesses and Injuries Through the Collection of Information from the Italian Press, as Part of the WORKLIMATE Project. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2023;20:4530. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20054530. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Kakamu T., Endo S., Tsutsui Y., Hidaka T., Masuishi Y., Kasuga H., Fukushima T. Heart rate increase from rest as an early sign of heat-related illness risk in construction workers. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2022;89:103282. doi: 10.1016/j.ergon.2022.103282. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Lohrey S., Chua M., Gros C., Faucet J., Lee J.K.W. Perceptions of heat-health impacts and the effects of knowledge and preventive actions by outdoor workers in Hanoi, Vietnam. Sci. Total Environ. 2021;794:148260. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148260. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Pogacar T., Znidarsic Z., Kajfez Bogataj L., Flouris A.D., Poulianiti K., Crepinsek Z. Heat Waves Occurrence and Outdoor Workers’ Self-assessment of Heat Stress in Slovenia and Greece. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2019;16:597. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16040597. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Fatima S.H., Rothmore P., Giles L.C., Varghese B.M., Bi P. Extreme heat and occupational injuries in different climate zones: A systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological evidence. Environ. Int. 2021;148:106384. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106384. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Gibb K., Beckman S., Vergara X.P., Heinzerling A., Harrison R. Extreme Heat and Occupational Health Risks. Annu. Rev. Public Health. 2024;45:315–335. doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-060222-034715. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Duroha J.C., Macht G.A. Solar installation occupational risks: A systematic review. Saf. Sci. 2023;160:106048. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2022.106048. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Paterson S.K., Godsmark C.N. Heat-health vulnerability in temperate climates: Lessons and response options from Ireland. Glob. Health. 2020;16:29. doi: 10.1186/s12992-020-00554-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Pooladvand S., Hasanzadeh S. Effects of Heat Stress on Workers’ Physical Fatigue and Attentiveness: Multimodal Roofing XR Simulation; Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress; Des Moines, IA, USA. 20–23 March 2024. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Al-Bouwarthan M., Quinn M.M., Kriebel D., Wegman D.H. A Field Evaluation of Construction Workers’ Activity, Hydration Status, and Heat Strain in the Extreme Summer Heat of Saudi Arabia. Ann. Work Expo. Health. 2020;64:522–535. doi: 10.1093/annweh/wxaa029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Ashtekar S., Mishra S., Kapadia V., Nag P., Singh G. Workplace Heat Exposure Management in Indian Construction Workers Using Cooling Garment. Workplace Health Saf. 2019;67:18–26. doi: 10.1177/2165079918785388. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Moohialdin A.S.M., Lamari F., Miska M., Trigunarsyah B. Proximity Activity Intensity Identification System in Hot and Humid Weather Conditions: Development and Implementation. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2023;149 doi: 10.1061/JCEMD4.COENG-13332. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Kakamu T., Endo S., Hidaka T., Masuishi Y., Kasuga H., Fukushima T. Heat-related illness risk and associated personal and environmental factors of construction workers during work in summer. Sci. Rep. 2021;11:1119. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-79876-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Li L., Liu H., Chen L., He J. Investigation on heat stress of construction workers in summer in Chongqing, China. E3S Web Conf. 2019;80:03005. doi: 10.1051/e3sconf/20198003005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Al-Bouwarthan M., Quinn M.M., Kriebel D., Wegman D.H. Assessment of Heat Stress Exposure among Construction Workers in the Hot Desert Climate of Saudi Arabia. Ann. Work Expo. Health. 2019;63:505–520. doi: 10.1093/annweh/wxz033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Kim Y., Ham Y. Spatio-temporal heat risk analysis in construction: Digital twin-enabled monitoring. Autom. Constr. 2024;168:105805. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2024.105805. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Tang T.W., Zhang Y.C., Zheng Z.M., Zhou X.Q., Fang Z.S., Liu W.W. Detailed thermal indicators analysis based on outdoor thermal comfort indices in construction sites in South China. Build. Environ. 2021;205:108191. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108191. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Ricco M., Vezzosi L., Balzarini F., Odone A., Signorelli C. Air temperatures and occupational injuries in the construction industries: A report from Northern Italy (2000–2013) Ind. Health. 2020;58:182–192. doi: 10.2486/indhealth.2018-0268. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Fahad M.G.R., Zech W.C., Nazari R., Karimi M. Developing a Geospatial Framework for Severe Occupational Injuries Using Moran’s I and Getis-Ord Gi* Statistics for Southeastern United States. Nat. Hazards Rev. 2022;23 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000566. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Binazzi A., Levi M., Bonafede M., Bugani M., Messeri A., Morabito M., Marinaccio A., Baldasseroni A. Evaluation of the impact of heat stress on the occurrence of occupational injuries: Meta-analysis of observational studies. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2019;62:233–243. doi: 10.1002/ajim.22946. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Best Practices Used by Contractors to Reduce Heat-Related Injuries on Construction Sites. In Proceedings of International Structural Engineering and Construction. 2022. [(accessed on 12 August 2025)]. Available online: https://www.isec-society.org/ISEC_PRESS/EURO_MED_SEC_04/pdf/CON-07.pdf.
- 37.Al-Bouwarthan M., Quinn M.M., Kriebel D., Wegman D.H. Risk of Kidney Injury among Construction Workers Exposed to Heat Stress: A Longitudinal Study from Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020;17:3775. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17113775. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Fatima S.H., Rothmore P., Giles L.C., Bi P. Impacts of hot climatic conditions on work, health, and safety in Australia: A case study of policies in practice in the construction industry. Saf. Sci. 2023;165:106197. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2023.106197. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Sabrin S., Zech W.C., Nazari R., Karimi M. Understanding occupational heat exposure in the United States and proposing a quantifying stress index. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health. 2021;94:1983–2000. doi: 10.1007/s00420-021-01711-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Pradhan B., Kjellstrom T., Atar D., Sharma P., Kayastha B., Bhandari G., Pradhan P.K. Heat Stress Impacts on Cardiac Mortality in Nepali Migrant Workers in Qatar. Cardiology. 2019;143:37–48. doi: 10.1159/000500853. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Saidi A., Gauvin C. Towards real-time thermal stress prediction systems for workers. J. Therm. Biol. 2023;113:103405. doi: 10.1016/j.jtherbio.2022.103405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Phanprasit W., Rittaprom K., Dokkem S., Meeyai A.C., Boonyayothin V., Jaakkola J.J.K., Näyhä S. Climate Warming and Occupational Heat and Hot Environment Standards in Thailand. Saf. Health Work. 2021;12:119–126. doi: 10.1016/j.shaw.2020.09.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Marinaccio A., Scortichini M., Gariazzo C., Leva A., Bonafede M., De’Donato F.K., Stafoggia M., Viegi G., Michelozzi P., Carla A., et al. Nationwide epidemiological study for estimating the effect of extreme outdoor temperature on occupational injuries in Italy. Environ. Int. 2019;133:105176. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.105176. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Vielma C., Achebak H., Quijal-Zamorano M., Lloyd S.J., Chevance G., Ballester J. Association between temperature and occupational injuries in Spain: The role of contextual factors in workers’ adaptation. Environ. Int. 2024;192:109006. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.109006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Kawakami R., Hasebe H., Yamamoto Y., Yoda S., Takeuchi G., Abe R., Tosaka Y., Nomura Y. Cooler break areas: Reducing heat stress among construction workers in Japan. Build. Environ. 2024;262:111821. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111821. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Han S., Dong L., Weng Y., Xiang J. Heat exposure and productivity loss among construction workers: A meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2024;24:3252. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-20744-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Lyu P., Song S., Khorshid S. Exploring the Influence of Extreme Weather on Construction Worker Safety; Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress 2024; Des Moines, IA, USA. 20–23 March 2024; pp. 508–517. [Google Scholar]
- 48.Cheng M.Y., Vu Q.T., Teng R.K. Real-time risk assessment of multi-parameter induced fall accidents at construction sites. Autom. Constr. 2024;162:105409. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2024.105409. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Schinasi L.H., Williams A., Schnake-Mahl A. Mandated Rest Breaks and Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in Dallas County, Texas Construction Workers. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2024;66:731–736. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000003144. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Yeoh C.W., Law W.C. A case report of near-missed heat stroke. Medicine. 2023;102:e36676. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000036676. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Varghese B.M., Hansen A., Mann N., Liu J., Zhang Y., Driscoll T.R., Morgan G.G., Dear K., Capon A., Gourley M., et al. The burden of occupational injury attributable to high temperatures in Australia, 2014-19: A retrospective observational study. Med. J. Aust. 2023;219:542–548. doi: 10.5694/mja2.52171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Gariazzo C., Taiano L., Bonafede M., Leva A., Morabito M., Donato F.D., Marinaccio A. Association between extreme temperature exposure and occupational injuries among construction workers in Italy: An analysis of risk factors. Environ. Int. 2023;171:107677. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2022.107677. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Flunker J.C., Zuidema C., Jung J., Kasner E., Cohen M., Seto E., Austin E., Spector J.T. Potential Impacts of Different Occupational Outdoor Heat Exposure Thresholds among Washington State Crop and Construction Workers and Implications for Other Jurisdictions. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2022;19:11583. doi: 10.3390/ijerph191811583. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Ahmed H.O., BinDekhain J.A., Alshuweihi M.I., Yunis M.A., Matar N.R. Assessment of thermal exposure level among construction workers in UAE using WBGT, HSI and TW L indices. Ind. Health. 2019;58:170–181. doi: 10.2486/indhealth.2018-0259. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Amorim F., Schlader Z. Environmental Heat Stress and Physiological Heat Strain in Construction Workers During Work in the Summer. CPWR-The Center for Construction Research and Training; Silver Spring, MD, USA: 2024. [Google Scholar]
- 56.Kuras E.R., Richardson M.B., Calkins M.M., Ebi K.L., Hess J.J., Kintziger K.W., Jagger M.A., Middel A., Scott A.A., Spector J.T., et al. Opportunities and Challenges for Personal Heat Exposure Research. Environ. Health Perspect. 2017;125:085001. doi: 10.1289/EHP556. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Gao C., Kuklane K., Ostergren P.O., Kjellstrom T. Occupational heat stress assessment and protective strategies in the context of climate change. Int. J. Biometeorol. 2018;62:359–371. doi: 10.1007/s00484-017-1352-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.LHSFNA Measure and Prevent Heat Illness with Wearables: Laborers’ Health & Safety Fund of North America. 2023 [Updated 29 June 2023] [(accessed on 12 August 2025)]. Available online: https://lhsfna.org/measure-and-prevent-heat-illness-with-wearables/
- 59.Cannady R., Warner C., Yoder A., Miller J., Crosby K., Elswick D., Kintziger K.W. The implications of real-time and wearable technology use for occupational heat stress: A scoping review. Saf. Sci. 2024;177:106600. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2024.106600. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Casey G., Fried S.G., Goode E. How Long Do Rising Temperatures Affect Economic Growth? 2023. [(accessed on 12 August 2025)]. Available online: https://www.frbsf.org/wp-content/uploads/el2023-15.pdf.
- 61.Curtis H.M., Meischke H.W., Simcox N.J., Laslett S., Monsey L.M., Baker M., Seixas N.S. Working Safely in the Trades as Women: A Qualitative Exploration and Call for Women-Supportive Interventions. Front. Public Health. 2021;9:781572. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.781572. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Biswas A., Harbin S., Irvin E., Johnston H., Begum M., Tiong M., Apedaile D., Koehoorn M., Smith P. Sex and Gender Differences in Occupational Hazard Exposures: A Scoping Review of the Recent Literature. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2021;8:267–280. doi: 10.1007/s40572-021-00330-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Esfahani T.M., Awolusi I., Hatipkarasulu Y. Heat Stress Prevention in Construction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Risk Factors and Control Strategies. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2024;21:1681. doi: 10.3390/ijerph21121681. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Khorshid S., Song S. Exploring Intervention Strategies to Prevent Occupational Heat Stress. A Scoping Review. Saf. Health Work. 2025;16:134–144. doi: 10.1016/j.shaw.2025.03.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

