RISK-BASED PRIORITIZATION OF COMBINED OCCUPATIONAL HAZARDS IN REPAIR AND MECHANICAL ENTERPRISES: A FRAMEWORK FOR EXPOSURE–HEALTH ASSESSMENT

Repair and mechanical enterprises are characterized by heterogeneous technological processes that may expose workers simultaneously to physical, chemical, and ergonomic hazards. Conventional occupational hygiene approaches frequently assess individual hazards separately, which may underestimate the overall occupational burden when several exposures occur concurrently. Objective: To develop a scientifically grounded methodological framework for quantitative prioritization of combined occupational hazards in repair and mechanical enterprises and to define an analytical pathway for evaluating their relationship with workers' health. Materials and Methods: An analytical narrative review of contemporary occupational health literature was conducted with emphasis on multiple-exposure assessment, job-exposure matrices, occupational epidemiology, quantitative risk assessment, and prevention prioritization. PubMed-indexed studies, international occupational health evidence, and methodological recommendations from authoritative occupational safety institutions were considered. A multistage framework integrating exposure characterization, normalization against applicable occupational exposure limits, cumulative exposure profiling, interaction assessment, health-outcome modelling, and prevention prioritization was developed. Results: The proposed framework consists of five sequential components: (1) identification and characterization of workplace hazards; (2) quantitative estimation of individual exposure burden; (3) construction of a job–exposure profile; (4) statistical assessment of exposure–health relationships; and (5) prioritization of preventive interventions according to risk magnitude, preventability, and expected effectiveness. A normalized exposure ratio is proposed for individual hazards, while a weighted cumulative exposure score may be used for preliminary prioritization when methodological assumptions permit. For epidemiological analysis, multivariable logistic regression with interaction terms is recommended to distinguish independent and combined effects. The framework emphasizes that cumulative exposure should not be reduced to a simple arithmetic sum when hazards act through different biological pathways. Conclusion: Quantitative assessment of combined occupational hazards should move beyond isolated measurements toward an integrated exposure–health–prevention model. The proposed framework can provide a methodological basis for occupational hygiene studies in repair and mechanical enterprises and may support the development of evidence-based, prioritized health-improvement interventions.