Challenges and Perspectives of Nanoparticle Exposure Assessment

Lee, Ji Hyun; Moon, Min Chaul; Lee, Joon Yeob; Yu, Il Je

doi:10.5487/tr.2010.26.2.095

Cited by 17 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The constraints observed when performing exposure assessments for different kinds of materials and different exposure scenarios have already been reviewed elsewhere [26]. However, examples of these problems include the metrics of nanoparticle assessment and lack of equipment personnel sampling [27]; a shortage of equipment and methods that are suitable for environmental sampling, where measurements are able to differentiate between background from incidental exposure [27, 28]; surface area measurement analysis of nanoparticles e.g. for CNTs and fibre counts [18].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic Review of Screening and Surveillance Programs to Protect Workers from Nanomaterials

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundScreening and surveillance approaches for workers exposed to nanomaterials could aid in early detection of health effects, provide data for epidemiological studies and inform action to decrease exposure. The aim of this review is to identify such screening and surveillance approaches, in order to extract available data regarding (i) the studies that have successfully been implemented in present day, (ii) identification of the most common and/or toxic nano-related health hazards for workers and (iii) possible exposure surveillance markers. This review contributes to the current understanding of the risk associated with nanomaterials by determining the knowledge gap and making recommendations based on current findings.MethodsA systematic review was conducted. PubMed and Embase were searched to identify articles reporting on any surveillance-related study that described both exposure to nanomaterials and the health indicators that were measured. Four reviewers worked in pairs to independently assess the eligibility of studies and risk of bias before extraction of data. Studies were categorised according to the type of study and the medical surveillance performed, which included the type of nanomaterial, any exposure details provided, as well as health indicators and biomarkers tested.ResultsInitially 92 studies were identified, from which 84 full texts were assessed for eligibility. Seven studies met all the inclusion criteria, i.e. those performed in Taiwan, Korea, Czech Republic and the US. Of these, six compared health indicators between exposed and unexposed workers and one study described a surveillance program. All studies were at a high risk of bias. Workers were exposed to a mix of nanomaterials in three studies, carbon-based nanomaterials in two studies, nano-silver in one study and nano-titanium oxide in the other study. Two studies did not find a difference in biomarkers between exposed and unexposed workers. In addition, differences in early effects on pulmonary function or neurobehavioral tests were not observed. One study found an increased prevalence of allergic dermatitis and “sneezing” in the exposed group.ConclusionsThis review of recently published data on surveillance studies proves that there is a gap in the current knowledge, where most of the surveillance-related studies reported do not follow a set format that provides the required information on ENM characterisation, the type of exposure and the measured indicators/biomarkers. Hence, there is very low quality evidence that screening and surveillance might detect adverse health effects associated with workplace exposure. This systematic review is relevant because it proves that, although surveillance programs have been initiated and preliminary results are being published, the current studies are actually not answering the important questions or solving the overall problem regarding what the potential health hazards are among workers either handling or potentially exposed to ENMs. The recommendations, thus proposed, are based on an ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic Review of Screening and Surveillance Programs to Protect Workers from Nanomaterials

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, dose ranges that are relevant to true exposure levels of ENMs need to be included when studying DNA damage responses pertaining to repair pathways. However, ENM exposure assessment currently presents a technical challenge and more work is needed to evaluate emissions of ENMs into the environment [ 41 ]. For example, it will be necessary to perform more thorough background measurements at workplaces to determine accurate occupational exposure levels, to develop appropriate metrics for ENM exposure assessments and to validate personal air samplers.…”

Section: Conclusion and Future Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exposure to Engineered Nanomaterials: Impact on DNA Repair Pathways

Singh

Nelson

Scanlan

et al. 2017

IJMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) may have the potential to cause damage to the genetic material in living systems. The mechanistic machinery functioning at the cellular/molecular level, in the form of DNA repair processes, has evolved to help circumvent DNA damage caused by exposure to a variety of foreign substances. Recent studies have contributed to our understanding of the various DNA damage repair pathways involved in the processing of DNA damage. However, the vast array of ENMs may present a relatively new challenge to the integrity of the human genome; therefore, the potential hazard posed by some ENMs necessitates the evaluation and understanding of ENM-induced DNA damage repair pathways. This review focuses on recent studies highlighting the differential regulation of DNA repair pathways, in response to a variety of ENMs, and discusses the various factors that dictate aberrant repair processes, including intracellular signalling, spatial interactions and ENM-specific responses.

show abstract

“…The last presenter of this session, B. Faure (CEA, France), focused on the relative relevance of two metrics (mass vs number concentration) which may be used for assessing exposure to nanoparticles in the case of personal sampling (12). By checking data obtained with mono-and polydispersed ZnO aerosols, he showed that whereas the mass of zinc measured for the personal nanosampling device is in good agreement with the mass converted from the aerosol counters and granulometers, the same is not true for number concentration.…”

Section: Exposure Sessionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nanosafety forum for young scientists: a meeting report

Pietroiusti

Tran

Campagnolo

2015

European Journal of Nanomedicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In October of 2014, a meeting jointly organized by the EU Nanosafety Cluster and the COST Action TD 1204, was held on the beautiful island of Ortygia in Syracuse (Sicily). The meeting was specifically conceived to give the opportunity to young researchers in the field of nanotoxicology to present and discuss the results of their research. Presentations were divided into eight sessions over 2 days, reflecting the eight working groups of the Nanosafety Cluster. This report gives a description of the meeting activities and a summary of the data presented there.

show abstract

Challenges and Perspectives of Nanoparticle Exposure Assessment

Cited by 17 publications

References 1 publication

Systematic Review of Screening and Surveillance Programs to Protect Workers from Nanomaterials

Systematic Review of Screening and Surveillance Programs to Protect Workers from Nanomaterials

Exposure to Engineered Nanomaterials: Impact on DNA Repair Pathways

Nanosafety forum for young scientists: a meeting report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About