From workplace air measurement results toward estimates of exposure? Development of a strategy to assess exposure to manufactured nano-objects
Source abstract
Abstract
In the past few years, an increasing number of studies on workplace air measurements on manufactured nano-materials and -objects have been published. Most of the studies had a more explorative character, so a direct interpretation to workers” exposure for a given exposure situation, activity, or process is not a straight-forward process. In general, the studies use a quite similar package of devices for near real-time monitoring of particle number- and mass concentration in size ranges <100 nm up to 10 μm, and the collection of samples for off-line characterization of air samples. Various approaches for addressing background concentrations and its use to indicate the potential for exposure to nano-objects could be observed. Within the EU-sponsored NANOSH project, a harmonized approach for measurement strategy, data analysis and reporting was developed. In addition to time/activity–concentration profiles as reported by most studies, this approach enables a first step to estimate the potential for exposure to manufactured nano-objects, more quantitatively. The NANOSH data will be collated into a base, which may form the starting point for a harmonized database facilitating overall analysis in near future, to derive estimates for exposure for several exposure situations.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Air Quality and Health Impacts · Air Quality Monitoring and Forecasting · Indoor Air Quality and Microbial Exposure
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (34)
Show source-provided references
1. Asbach C, Fissan H, Stahlmecke B, Kulbusch TAJ, Pui DYH (2009) Conceptual limitations and extensions of lung-deposited nanoparticle surface area monitor (NSAM). J Nanopart Res 11:101–109. doi: 10.1007/s11051-008-9479-810.1007/s11051-008-9479-8 ↗
2. Bello D, Hart AJ, Ahn K, Hallock M, Yamamoto N, Garcia EJ, Ellenbecker MJ, Wardle BL (2008) Particle exposure levels during CVD growth and subsequent handling of vertically-aligned carbon nanotube films. Carbon 266:974–98110.1016/j.carbon.2008.03.003 ↗
3. Bello D, Wardie BL, Yamamoto N, Guzman deVilloria R, Garcia EJ, Hart AJ, Ahn K, Ellenbecker MJ, Hallock M (2009) Exposure to nanoscale particles and fibres during machining of hybrid advanced composites containing carbon nanotubes. J Nanopart Res 11:231–24910.1007/s11051-008-9499-4 ↗
4. Brouwer DH, Gijsbers JHJ, Lurvink MWMN (2004) Personal exposure to ultrafine particles in the workplace: exploring sampling techniques and strategies. Ann Occup Hyg 48:439–453. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/meh040
5. Cheng Y-H, Chao Y-C, Wu C-H, Tsai C-J, Uang S-N, Shih T-S (2008) Measurements of ultrafine particle concentrations and size distribution in an iron foundry. J Hazard Mater 158:124–130. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.01.03610.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.01.036 ↗
6. Demou E, Peter P, Hellweg S (2008) Exposure to manufactured nanostructured particles in an industrial pilot plant. Ann Occup Hyg 52:695–706. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/ment058
7. Fransman W, Cherrie J, van Tongeren M, Schneider T, Tischler M, Schinkel J, Marquart H, Warren N, Kromhout H, Tielemans E (2009) Development of a mechanistic model for the Advanced REACH Tool (ART), Beta release. TNO report V 8667, Zeist, The Netherlands, pp 34–45
8. Froeschke S, Kohler S, Weber AP, Kasper G (2003) Impact fragmentation of nanoparticle agglomerates. J Aerosol Sci 34:275–287. doi: 10.1016/S0021-98502(02)00185-410.1016/S0021-8502(02)00185-4 ↗
9. Fujitani Y, Kobayashi T, Arashidani K, Kunugita N, Suemura K (2008) Measurement of the physical properties of aerosols in a fullerene factory for inhalation exposure assessment. J Occup Environ Hyg 5:380–389. doi: 10.1080/1545962080205005310.1080/15459620802050053 ↗
10. Han JH, Lee EJ, Lee JH, So KP, Lee YH, Bae GN, Lee S-B, Ji JH, Cho MH, Yu IJ (2008) Monitoring multiwalled carbon nanotube exposure in carbon nanotube research facility. Inhal Toxicol 20:741–749. doi: 10.11080/0895837080194223810.1080/08958370801942238 ↗
11. Heitbrink WA, Evans DE, Ku BK, Maynard AD, Slavin TJ, Peters TM (2009) Relationships among particle number, surface area, and respirable mass concentrations in automotive engine manufacturing. J Occup Environ Hyg 6:19–31. doi: 10.1080/1545962080253009610.1080/15459620802530096 ↗
12. Ibaseta N (2007) Etude experimentale et modelisation de lémission d’aerosols ultrafine lors du deversement de poudres nanostructures. Thesis, Institut National Polytechniques de Toulouse, France. http://ethesis.inp-toulouse.france/archive/00000612/
13. ISO (2008) Nanotechnologies—terminology and definitions for nano-objects—nanoparticle, nanofibre and nanoplate. ISO TS 27687. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva
14. Ku BK, Maynard AD (2005) Comparing aerosol surface-area measurements of monodisperse ultrafine silver agglomerates by mobility analysis transmission electron microscopy and diffusion charging. J Aerosol Sci 36:1108–112410.1016/j.jaerosci.2004.12.003 ↗
15. Kuhlbusch TAJ, Fissan H (2006) Particle characteristics in the reactor and pelletizing areas of carbon black production. J Occup Environ Hyg 3:558–567. doi: 10.1080/1545962060091228010.1080/15459620600912280 ↗
16. Kuhlbusch TAJ, Neumann S, Fissan H (2004) Number size distribution, mass concentration, and particle composition of PM1, PM2.5, and PM10 in bag filling areas of carbon black production. J Occup Environ Hyg 1:660–671. doi: 10.1080/1545962049050224210.1080/15459620490502242 ↗
17. Maynard AD (2002a) Estimating aerosol surface area from number and mass concentration. Ann Occup Hyg 47:123–144. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/meg022
18. Maynard AD (2002b) Experimental determination of ultrafine TiO2 deagglomeration in a surrogate pulmonary surfactant: preliminary results. Ann Occup Hyg 46(Supplement 1):197–202. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/mef63010.1093/annhyg/46.suppl_1.197 ↗
19. Maynard AD, Aitken RJ (2007) Assessing exposure to airborne nanomaterials; current abilities and future requirements. Nanotoxicology 1:26–41. doi: 10.1080/1743539070131472010.1080/17435390701314720 ↗
20. Maynard AD, Zimmer AT (2002) Evaluation of grinding aerosols in terms of alveolar dose: the significance of using mass, surface area and number metrics. Ann Occup Hyg 46(Suppl 1):315–319. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/mef65410.1093/annhyg/46.suppl_1.315 ↗
21. Maynard AD, Baron PA, Foley M, Shvedova AA, Kisin ER, Castranova V (2004) Exposure to carbon nanotube material: aerosol release during the handling of unrefined single-walled carbon nanotube material. J Toxicol Environ Health A 67:87–107. doi: 10.1080/1528739049025368810.1080/15287390490253688 ↗
22. Methner M (2008) Effectiveness of local exhaust ventilation (LEV) in controlling engineered nanomaterial emissions during reactor cleanout operations. J Occup Environ Hyg 5:D63–D69. doi: 10.1080/1545962080205939310.1080/15459620802059393 ↗
23. Methner MM, Birch ME, Evan DE, Ku B-K, Hoover MD (2007) Identification and characterization of potential sources of worker exposure to carbon nanofibers during polymer composite laboratory operations. J Occup Environ Hyg 4:D125–D130. doi: 10.1080/1545962070168387110.1080/15459620701683871 ↗
24. Money CD, Van Hemmen JJ, Vermeire TG (2007) Scientific governance and the process for exposure scenario development in REACH. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 17:S34–S37. doi: 10.1038/sj.jes.750056410.1038/sj.jes.7500564 ↗
25. Ono-Ogasawara M, Serita F, Takaya M (2009) Distinguishing nanomaterial particles from background airborne particulate matter for quantitative exposure assessment. J Nanopart Res. doi: 10.1007/s11051-9703-1
26. Peters TM, Elzey S, Johnson R, Park H, Grassian VH, Maher T, O’Shaughnessy P (2009) Airborne monitoring to distinguish engineered nanomaterials from incidental particles for environmental health and safety. J Occup Environ Hyg 6:73–81. doi: 1080/1545962080259005810.1080/15459620802590058 ↗
27. Ramachandran G, Paulsen D, Watts W, Kittelson D (2005) Mass, surface area and number metrics in diesel occupational exposure assessment. J Environ Monit 2005:728–735. doi: 10.1039/b503854e10.1039/b503854e ↗
28. Rothenbacher S, Messerer A, Kasper G (2008) Fragmentation and bond strength of airborne diesel soot agglomerates. Part Fibre Toxicol 5:9. doi: 101186/1743-8977-5-910.1186/1743-8977-5-9 ↗
29. Seipenbusch M, Toneva P, Peukert W, Weber AP (2007) Impact fragmentation of metal nanoparticle agglomerates. Part Part Syst Charact 24:193–200. doi: 10.1002/ppsc.20060108910.1002/ppsc.200601089 ↗
30. Tielemans E, Schneider T, Goede H et al (2008) Conceptual model for assessment of inhalation exposure: defining modifying factors. Ann Occup Hyg 52:577–586. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/mem059
31. Tsai S-J, Ada E, Isaacs JA, Ellenbecker MJ (2008a) Airborne nanoparticle exposures associated with the manual handling of nanoalumina and nanosilver in fume hoods. J Nanopart Res. doi: 10.1007/s11051-008-9459-z10.1007/s11051-008-9459-z ↗
32. Tsai S-J, Ashter A, Ada E, Mead JL, Barry CF, Ellenbecker MJ (2008b) Airborne nanoparticle release associated with the compounding of nanocomposites using nanoalumina as fillers. Aerosol Air Qual Res 8:160–17710.4209/aaqr.2008.01.0001 ↗
33. Yeganeh B, Kull CM, Hull MS, Marr LC (2008) Characterization of airborne particles during production of carbonaceous nanomaterials. Environ Sci Technol 42:4600–4606. doi: 10.1021/es703043c10.1021/es703043c ↗
34. Zartarian V, Bahadori T, McKone T (2005) Adoption of an official ISEA glossary. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 15:1–5. doi: 1053-424565/$30.0010.1038/sj.jea.7500411 ↗