The use of nanoparticles (NPs) in industry is increasing, bringing with it a number of adverse health effects on workers. Like other chemical carcinogens, NPs can cause cancer via oxidative DNA damage. Of all the molecules vulnerable to oxidative modification by NPs, DNA has received the greatest attention, and biomarkers of exposure and effect are nearing validation. This review concentrates on studies published between 2000 and 2012 that attempted to detect oxidative DNA damage in humans, laboratory animals, and cell lines. It is important to review these studies to improve the current understanding of the oxidative DNA damage caused by NP exposure in the workplace. In addition to examining studies on oxidative damage, this review briefly describes NPs, giving some examples of their adverse effects, and reviews occupational exposure assessments and approaches to minimizing exposure (e.g., personal protective equipment and engineering controls such as fume hoods). Current recommendations to minimize exposure are largely based on common sense, analogy to ultrafine material toxicity, and general health and safety recommendations.
Objectives:The purposes of this study are to investigate workers' exposures to respirable particles generated in taconite mines and to compare two metric methods for mass concentrations using direct-reading instruments. Methods: Air monitorings were conducted at six mines where subjects have been exposed primarily to particulate matters in crushing, concentrating, and pelletizing processes. Air samples were collected during 4 hours of the entire work shift for similarly exposure groups(SEGs) of nine jobs(N=37). Following instruments were employed to evaluate the workplace: a nanoparticle aerosol monitor(particle size range; 10-1000 nm, unit: ㎛ 2 /cc, Model 9000, TSI Inc.); DustTrak air monitors(PM10, PM2.5, unit: ㎎/ ㎥, Model 8520, TSI Inc.); a condensation particle counter(size range; 20-1000 nm, unit: #/cc, P-Trak 8525, TSI Inc.); and an optical particle counter(particle number by size range 0.3-25 ㎛, unit: #/cc, Aerotrak 9306, TSI Inc.).
Results:The highest airborne concentration among SEGs was for furnace operator followed by pelletizing maintenance workers in number of particle and surface area, but not in mass concentrations. The geometric means of PM2.5 by the DustTrak and the Ptrak/Aerotrak were 0.04 mg/m 3 (GSD 2.52) and 0.07 mg/m 3 (GSD 2.60), respectively. Also, the geometric means of RPM by the DustTrak and the Ptrak/Aerotrak were 0.16 ㎎/㎥(GSD 2.24) and 0.32 ㎎/㎥(GSD 3.24), respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficient for DustTrak PM2.5 and Ptrak/Aerotrak PM2.5 was 0.56, and that of DustTrak RPM and Ptrak/Aerotrak RPM was 0.65, indicating a moderate positive association between the two sampling methods. Surface area and number concentration were highly correlated(R 2 = 0.80), while PM2.5 and RPM were also statistically correlated each other(R 2 = 0.79).
Conclusions:The results suggest that it is possible to measure airborne particulates by mass concentrations or particle number concentrations using real-time instruments instead of using the DustTrak Aerosol monitor that monitor mass concentrations only.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.