Three-Year Study of Markers of Oxidative Stress in Exhaled Breath Condensate in Workers Producing Nanocomposites, Extended by Plasma and Urine Analysis in Last Two Years

Abstract

Human data concerning exposure to nanoparticles are very limited, and biomarkers for monitoring exposure are urgently needed. In a follow-up of a 2016 study in a nanocomposites plant, in which only exhaled breath condensate (EBC) was examined, eight markers of oxidative stress were analyzed in three bodily fluids, i.e., EBC, plasma and urine, in both pre-shift and post-shift samples in 2017 and 2018. Aerosol exposures were monitored. Mass concentration in 2017 was 0.351 mg/m3 during machining, and 0.179 and 0.217 mg/m3 during machining and welding, respectively, in 2018. In number concentrations, nanoparticles formed 96%, 90% and 59%, respectively. In both years, pre-shift elevations of 50.0% in EBC, 37.5% in plasma and 6.25% in urine biomarkers were observed. Post-shift elevation reached 62.5% in EBC, 68.8% in plasma and 18.8% in urine samples. The same trend was observed in all biological fluids. Individual factors were responsible for the elevation of control subjects’ afternoon vs. morning markers in 2018; all were significantly lower compared to those of workers. Malondialdehyde levels were always acutely shifted, and 8-hydroxy-2-deoxyguanosine levels best showed chronic exposure effect. EBC and plasma analysis appear to be the ideal fluids for bio-monitoring of oxidative stress arising from engineered nanomaterials. Potential late effects need to be targeted and prevented, as there is a similarity of EBC findings in patients with silicosis and asbestosis.

Effects of Workers Exposure to Nanoparticles Studied by NMR Metabolomics

“…For more details on the subjects' cohort, working environment, analysis of NPs composition and properties, see previous publications [12,13]. A follow-up of the researchers in 2017 and 2018 confirmed the results from 2016 [29].…”

Oxidative Stress and Inflammatory Biomarkers for Populations with Occupational Exposure to Nanomaterials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…As a result, 16 studies were excluded because of data unavailable ( n = 9), without non-exposed controls ( n = 6) and unclear exposure order for NMs and filtered air in two groups ( n = 1). Eventually, 28 studies with 2636 participants (including 1374 exposed and 1262 non-exposed) were included in the meta-analysis [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ].…”

“… Forest plots assessing the effects of exposure to different NMs on the level of MDA compared with the non-exposed control group. NMs, nanomaterials; SiO 2 NPs, silica oxide nanoparticles; IONPs, iron oxide nanoparticles; TiO 2 NPs, titanium dioxide nanoparticles; MWCNTs, multi-walled carbon nanotubes; MDA, malonaldehyde; SMD, standardized mean difference; CI, confidence interval [ 15 , 18 , 19 , 31 , 33 , 34 , 43 , 45 ]. …”

“… Forest plots assessing the effects of NM exposure on the level of MDA in different samples compared with the non-exposed control group. NMs, nanomaterials; EBC, exhaled breath condensate; MDA, malonaldehyde; SMD, standardized mean difference; CI, confidence interval [ 15 , 18 , 19 , 31 , 33 , 34 , 41 , 43 , 45 ]. …”

Individual DNA Methylation Pattern Shifts in Nanoparticles-Exposed Workers Analyzed in Four Consecutive Years

“…The methods of online exposure monitoring involved the use of two various standard aerosol spectrometers (APS 3321 (Aerodynamic Particle Sizer) and SMPS 3936L (Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer)), both from TSI Inc., St. Paul, MN, USA. Full details related to exposure monitoring techniques included in this long-term study were previously published [44][45][46]. An overview of the stationary monitoring data of nano PM fraction and PM > 100 nm obtained during the annual monitoring of individual working processes is presented in Table 2 and described in the results section.…”