2009
DOI: 10.1007/s11051-009-9649-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Respiratory protection against airborne nanoparticles: a review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
82
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 105 publications
(83 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
1
82
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The shift in MPS for respirator masks from about 0.3 μm to less than 0.1 μm has been discussed in previous studies (Martin and Moyer, 2000;Balazy et al, 2006;Huang et al, 2007;Eninger et al, 2008;Shaffer and Rengasamy, 2009;Rengasamy and Eimer, 2012). The current 42 CFR Part 84 is a regulation based on the photometric detection method that may not be sensitive for measuring nanoparticles (Eninger et al, 2008).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 51%
“…The shift in MPS for respirator masks from about 0.3 μm to less than 0.1 μm has been discussed in previous studies (Martin and Moyer, 2000;Balazy et al, 2006;Huang et al, 2007;Eninger et al, 2008;Shaffer and Rengasamy, 2009;Rengasamy and Eimer, 2012). The current 42 CFR Part 84 is a regulation based on the photometric detection method that may not be sensitive for measuring nanoparticles (Eninger et al, 2008).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 51%
“…The expanding production of ENMs has led to serious concerns regarding their impact on human health and the environment in general (see for example the considerable investment made by the EU in nanosafety research in the H2020 programme, via the EU NanoSafety Cluster [6]). Nanoparticles (NPs) are easily dispersed in air and inhaled because of their nanoscale size [7,8]. Given their increasing use in sunscreens, cosmetics and other personal products they may enter the bloodstream by permeation through skin [1].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies of electrostatic filter efficiency typically employ filter face velocities ranging 0.01-0.5 m/s (Fjeld and Owens 1988;Barrett and Rousseau 1998;Wang 2001;Wei et al 2006;Kim et al 2006;Huang et al 2007;Shaffer and Rengasamy 2009). However, some high-volume sampling equipment and sampling applications could utilize filter face velocities as high as 1.0-2.5 m/s, where experimental data are less available.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%