Task-based exposure assessment of nanoparticles in the workplace
Source abstract
Abstract
Although task-based sampling is, theoretically, a plausible approach to the assessment of nanoparticle exposure, few studies using this type of sampling have been published. This study characterized and compared task-based nanoparticle exposure profiles for engineered nanoparticle manufacturing workplaces (ENMW) and workplaces that generated welding fumes containing incidental nanoparticles. Two ENMW and two welding workplaces were selected for exposure assessments. Real-time devices were utilized to characterize the concentration profiles and size distributions of airborne nanoparticles. Filter-based sampling was performed to measure time-weighted average (TWA) concentrations, and off-line analysis was performed using an electron microscope. Workplace tasks were recorded by researchers to determine the concentration profiles associated with particular tasks/events. This study demonstrated that exposure profiles differ greatly in terms of concentrations and size distributions according to the task performed. The size distributions recorded during tasks were different from both those recorded during periods with no activity and from the background. The airborne concentration profiles of the nanoparticles varied according to not only the type of workplace but also the concentration metrics. The concentrations measured by surface area and the number concentrations measured by condensation particle counter, particulate matter 1.0, and TWA mass concentrations all showed a similar pattern, whereas the number concentrations measured by scanning mobility particle sizer indicated that the welding fume concentrations at one of the welding workplaces were unexpectedly higher than were those at workplaces that were engineering nanoparticles. This study suggests that a task-based exposure assessment can provide useful information regarding the exposure profiles of nanoparticles and can therefore be used as an exposure assessment tool.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Air Quality and Health Impacts · Healthcare and Environmental Waste Management · Nanoparticles: synthesis and applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (39)
Show source-provided references
1. Afshari A, Matson U et al (2005) Characterization of indoor sources of fine and ultrafine particles: a study conducted in a full-scale chamber. Indoor Air 2:141–15010.1111/j.1600-0668.2005.00332.x ↗
2. Baveye P, Laba M (2008) Aggregation and toxicology of titanium dioxide nanoparticles. Environ Health Perspect 4:A15210.1289/ehp.10915 ↗
3. Bello D, Wardle B et al (2009) Exposure to nanoscale particles and fibers during machining of hybrid advanced composites containing carbon nanotubes. J Nanopart Res 1:231–24910.1007/s11051-008-9499-4 ↗
4. Beurskens-Comuth PAWV, Verbist K et al (2011) Video exposure monitoring as part of a strategy to assess exposure to nanoparticles. Ann Occup Hyg 8:937–94510.1093/annhyg/mer060 ↗
5. Brouwer D, van Duuren-Stuurman B et al (2009) From workplace air measurement results toward estimates of exposure? Development of a strategy to assess exposure to manufactured nano-objects. J Nanopart Res 8:1867–188110.1007/s11051-009-9772-1 ↗
6. Brouwer D, Berges M et al (2012) Harmonization of measurement strategies for exposure to manufactured nano-objects: report of a workshop. Ann Occup Hyg 1:1–910.1093/annhyg/mer099 ↗
7. BSI (2007) Nanotechnologies—Part 2: guide to safe handling and disposal of manufactured nanomaterials, British Standards Institution
8. Buonanno G, Morawska L et al (2011) Exposure to welding particles in automotive plants. J Aerosol Sci 5:295–30410.1016/j.jaerosci.2011.02.003 ↗
9. Demou E, Peter P et al (2008) Exposure to manufactured nanostructured particles in an industrial pilot plant. Ann Occup Hyg 8:695–70610.1093/annhyg/men058 ↗
10. Ellenbecker M, Tsai S (2008) Interim best practices for working with nanoparticles. Center for High-Rate Nanomanufacturing, Boston
11. Heitbrink WA, Evans DE et al (2009) Relationships among particle number, surface area, and respirable mass concentrations in automotive engine manufacturing. J Occup Environ Hyg 1:19–31
12. IFA (2009) Criteria for assessment of the effectiveness of protective measures. http://www.dguv.de/ifa/en/fac/nanopartikel/beurteilungsmassstaebe/index.jsp . Accessed 18 July 2012
13. IRSST (2009) Best practices guide to synthetic nanoparticle risk management, Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail, Montreal
14. Klein Entink R, Fransman W et al (2011) How to statistically analyze nano exposure measurement results: using an ARIMA time series approach. J Nanopart Res 12:6991–700410.1007/s11051-011-0610-x ↗
15. Kuhlbusch T, Asbach C et al (2011) Nanoparticle exposure at nanotechnology workplaces: a review. Part Fibre Toxicol 1:2210.1186/1743-8977-8-22 ↗
16. Lee M-H, McClellan W et al (2007) Reduction of nanoparticle exposure to welding aerosols by modification of the ventilation system in a workplace. J Nanopart Res 1:127–136
17. Lee JH, Kwon M et al (2011) Exposure assessment of workplaces manufacturing nanosized TiO2 and silver. Inhal Toxicol 4:226–23710.3109/08958378.2011.562567 ↗
18. Maynard AD, Aitken RJ (2007) Assessing exposure to airborne nanomaterials: current abilities and future requirements. Nanotoxicology 1:26–4110.1080/17435390701314720 ↗
19. Methner M, Hodson L et al (2010) Nanoparticle emission assessment technique (NEAT) for the identification and measurement of potential inhalation exposure to engineered nanomaterials—Part B: results from 12 field studies. J Occup Environ Hyg 3:163–17610.1080/15459620903508066 ↗
20. Neitzel R, Daniell W et al (2011) Evaluation and comparison of three exposure assessment techniques. J Occup Environ Hyg 5:310–32310.1080/15459624.2011.568832 ↗
21. NIOSH (2009) Approaches to safe nanotechnology. D. o. H. a. H. Services, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Washington
22. Oberdörster G (2010) Safety assessment for nanotechnology and nanomedicine: concepts of nanotoxicology. J Intern Med 1:89–10510.1111/j.1365-2796.2009.02187.x ↗
23. Oberdörster G, Ferin J et al (1994) Correlation between particle size, in vivo particle persistence, and lung injury. Environ Health Perspect 102(5):173–17910.1289/ehp.94102s5173 ↗
24. Oberdörster G, Oberdörster E et al (2005) Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environ Health Perspect 7:823–83910.1289/ehp.7339 ↗
25. Ono-Ogasawara M, Serita F et al (2009) Distinguishing nanomaterial particles from background airborne particulate matter for quantitative exposure assessment. J Nanopart Res 7:1651–165910.1007/s11051-009-9703-1 ↗
26. Park JY, Ramachandran G et al (2010) Determination of particle concentration rankings by spatial mapping of particle surface area, number, and mass concentrations in a restaurant and a die casting plant. J Occup Environ Hyg 8:466–47610.1080/15459624.2010.485263 ↗
27. Peters TM, Heitbrink WA et al (2006) The mapping of fine and ultrafine particle concentrations in an engine machining and assembly facility. Ann Occup Hyg 3:249–257
28. Peters TM, Elzey S et al (2009) Airborne monitoring to distinguish engineered nanomaterials from incidental particles for environmental health and safety. J Occup Environ Hyg 2:73–81
29. Plitzko S (2009) Workplace exposure to engineered nanoparticles. Inhal Toxicol s1:25–2910.1080/08958370902962317 ↗
30. Ramachandran G, Ostraat M et al (2011) A strategy for assessing workplace exposures to nanomaterials. J Occup Environ Hyg 11:673–68510.1080/15459624.2011.623223 ↗
31. Schmoll LH, Peters TM et al (2010) Use of a condensation particle counter and an optical particle counter to assess the number concentration of engineered nanoparticles. J Occup Environ Hyg 9:535–54510.1080/15459624.2010.496072 ↗
32. Schulte P, Geraci C et al (2008) Occupational risk management of engineered nanoparticles. J Occup Environ Hyg 4:239–24910.1080/15459620801907840 ↗
33. Schulte P, Murashov V et al (2010) Occupational exposure limits for nanomaterials: state of the art. J Nanopart Res 6:1971–198710.1007/s11051-010-0008-1 ↗
34. Seixas NS, Sheppard L et al (2003) Comparison of task-based estimates with full-shift measurements of noise exposure. AIHA J 6:823–82910.1080/15428110308984878 ↗
35. Tsai S-J, Ada E et al (2009) Airborne nanoparticle exposures associated with the manual handling of nanoalumina and nanosilver in fume hoods. J Nanopart Res 1:147–16110.1007/s11051-008-9459-z ↗
36. Tsai S-J, Huang RF et al (2010) Airborne nanoparticle exposures while using constant-flow, constant-velocity, and air-curtain-isolated fume hoods. Ann Occup Hyg 1:78–8710.1093/annhyg/mep074 ↗
37. Tsai C-J, Huang C-Y et al (2011) Exposure assessment of nano-sized and respirable particles at different workplaces. J Nanopart Res 13:4161–417210.1007/s11051-011-0361-8 ↗
38. Virji MA, Woskie SR et al (2008) Task-based lead exposures and work site characteristics of bridge surface preparation and painting contractors. J Occup Environ Hyg 2:99–11210.1080/15459620802615772 ↗
39. Virji MA, Woskie SR et al (2009) Agreement between task-based estimates of the full-shift noise exposure and the full-shift noise dosimetry. Ann Occup Hyg 3:201–21410.1093/annhyg/mep010 ↗