Literature DB >> 26635494

Assessing the first wave of epidemiological studies of nanomaterial workers.

Saou-Hsing Liou1, Candace S J Tsai2, Daniela Pelclova3, Mary K Schubauer-Berigan4, Paul A Schulte4.   

Abstract

The results of early animal studies of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) and air pollution epidemiology suggest that it is important to assess the health of ENM workers. Initial epidemiological studies of workers' exposure to ENMs (<100 nm) are reviewed and characterized for their study designs, findings, and limitations. Of the 15 studies, 11 were cross-sectional, 4 were longitudinal (1 was both cross-sectional and longitudinal in design), and 1 was a descriptive pilot study. Generally, the studies used biologic markers as the dependent variables. All 11 cross-sectional studies showed a positive relationship between various biomarkers and ENM exposures. Three of the four longitudinal studies showed a negative relationship; the fourth showed positive findings after a 1-year follow-up. Each study considered exposure to ENMs as the independent variable. Exposure was assessed by mass concentration in 10 studies and by particle count in six studies. Six of them assessed both mass and particle concentrations. Some of the studies had limited exposure data because of inadequate exposure assessment. Generally, exposure levels were not very high in comparison to those in human inhalation chamber studies, but there were some exceptions. Most studies involved a small sample size, from 2 to 258 exposed workers. These studies represent the first wave of epidemiological studies of ENM workers. They are limited by small numbers of participants, inconsistent (and in some cases inadequate) exposure assessments, generally low exposures, and short intervals between exposure and effect. Still, these studies are a foundation for future work; they provide insight into where ENM workers are experiencing potentially adverse effects that might be related to ENM exposures.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biological markers; Cross-sectional study; Epidemiological studies; Longitudinal panel study; Nanomaterial workers; Nanoparticle exposure; Sample size

Year:  2015        PMID: 26635494      PMCID: PMC4666542          DOI: 10.1007/s11051-015-3219-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nanopart Res        ISSN: 1388-0764            Impact factor:   2.253


  29 in total

Review 1.  Nanotechnology safety concerns revisited.

Authors:  Stephan T Stern; Scott E McNeil
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2007-06-30       Impact factor: 4.849

Review 2.  Issues in the development of epidemiologic studies of workers exposed to engineered nanoparticles.

Authors:  Paul A Schulte; Mary K Schubauer-Berigan; Candis Mayweather; Charles L Geraci; Ralph Zumwalde; John L McKernan
Journal:  J Occup Environ Med       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 2.162

3.  Engineered carbonaceous nanomaterials manufacturers in the United States: workforce size, characteristics, and feasibility of epidemiologic studies.

Authors:  Mary K Schubauer-Berigan; Matthew M Dahm; Marianne S Yencken
Journal:  J Occup Environ Med       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 2.162

4.  Industrial production and professional application of manufactured nanomaterials-enabled end products in Dutch industries: potential for exposure.

Authors:  Cindy Bekker; Derk H Brouwer; Erik Tielemans; Anjoeka Pronk
Journal:  Ann Occup Hyg       Date:  2012-10-23

5.  Exposure assessment of workplaces manufacturing nanosized TiO2 and silver.

Authors:  Ji Hyun Lee; Miran Kwon; Jun Ho Ji; Chang Soo Kang; Kang Ho Ahn; Jeong Hee Han; Il Je Yu
Journal:  Inhal Toxicol       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 2.724

Review 6.  Diesel exhaust particulate (DEP) and nanoparticle exposures: what do DEP human clinical studies tell us about potential human health hazards of nanoparticles?

Authors:  Thomas W Hesterberg; Christopher M Long; Charles A Lapin; Ali K Hamade; Peter A Valberg
Journal:  Inhal Toxicol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 2.724

7.  Industrial worker exposure to airborne particles during the packing of pigment and nanoscale titanium dioxide.

Authors:  A J Koivisto; J Lyyränen; A Auvinen; E Vanhala; K Hämeri; T Tuomi; J Jokiniemi
Journal:  Inhal Toxicol       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 2.724

8.  Diurnal, seasonal, and blood-processing patterns in levels of circulating fibrinogen, fibrin D-dimer, C-reactive protein, tissue plasminogen activator, and von Willebrand factor in a 45-year-old population.

Authors:  Alicja R Rudnicka; Ann Rumley; Gordon D O Lowe; David P Strachan
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2007-02-12       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 9.  Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles.

Authors:  Günter Oberdörster; Eva Oberdörster; Jan Oberdörster
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 9.031

10.  The potential risks of nanomaterials: a review carried out for ECETOC.

Authors:  Paul J A Borm; David Robbins; Stephan Haubold; Thomas Kuhlbusch; Heinz Fissan; Ken Donaldson; Roel Schins; Vicki Stone; Wolfgang Kreyling; Jurgen Lademann; Jean Krutmann; David Warheit; Eva Oberdorster
Journal:  Part Fibre Toxicol       Date:  2006-08-14       Impact factor: 9.400

View more
  22 in total

Review 1.  The asbestos-carbon nanotube analogy: An update.

Authors:  Agnes B Kane; Robert H Hurt; Huajian Gao
Journal:  Toxicol Appl Pharmacol       Date:  2018-06-28       Impact factor: 4.219

2.  Fibrosis biomarkers in workers exposed to MWCNTs.

Authors:  Liliya M Fatkhutdinova; Timur O Khaliullin; Olga L Vasil'yeva; Ramil R Zalyalov; Ilshat G Mustafin; Elena R Kisin; M Eileen Birch; Naveena Yanamala; Anna A Shvedova
Journal:  Toxicol Appl Pharmacol       Date:  2016-02-20       Impact factor: 4.219

3.  Predicting Occupational Exposures to Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers Based on Workplace Determinants Modeling.

Authors:  Matthew M Dahm; Stephen Bertke; Mary K Schubauer-Berigan
Journal:  Ann Work Expo Health       Date:  2019-02-16       Impact factor: 2.179

Review 4.  Integration of inflammation, fibrosis, and cancer induced by carbon nanotubes.

Authors:  Jie Dong; Qiang Ma
Journal:  Nanotoxicology       Date:  2019-09-19       Impact factor: 5.913

Review 5.  Evaluating the mechanistic evidence and key data gaps in assessing the potential carcinogenicity of carbon nanotubes and nanofibers in humans.

Authors:  Eileen D Kuempel; Marie-Claude Jaurand; Peter Møller; Yasuo Morimoto; Norihiro Kobayashi; Kent E Pinkerton; Linda M Sargent; Roel C H Vermeulen; Bice Fubini; Agnes B Kane
Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol       Date:  2016-08-18       Impact factor: 5.635

6.  Methodological, political and legal issues in the assessment of the effects of nanotechnology on human health.

Authors:  Irina Guseva Canu; Paul A Schulte; Michael Riediker; Liliya Fatkhutdinova; Enrico Bergamaschi
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2017-12-04       Impact factor: 3.710

Review 7.  Biological monitoring of workers exposed to engineered nanomaterials.

Authors:  P Schulte; V Leso; M Niang; I Iavicoli
Journal:  Toxicol Lett       Date:  2018-06-18       Impact factor: 4.372

8.  Current state of knowledge on the health effects of engineered nanomaterials in workers: a systematic review of human studies and epidemiological investigations.

Authors:  Paul A Schulte; Veruscka Leso; Mamadou Niang; Ivo Iavicoli
Journal:  Scand J Work Environ Health       Date:  2019-01-17       Impact factor: 5.024

9.  Taking stock of the occupational safety and health challenges of nanotechnology: 2000-2015.

Authors:  P A Schulte; G Roth; L L Hodson; V Murashov; M D Hoover; R Zumwalde; E D Kuempel; C L Geraci; A B Stefaniak; V Castranova; J Howard
Journal:  J Nanopart Res       Date:  2016-06-14       Impact factor: 2.253

Review 10.  Nanotechnology in Transportation Vehicles: An Overview of Its Applications, Environmental, Health and Safety Concerns.

Authors:  Muhammad Shafique; Xiaowei Luo
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2019-08-06       Impact factor: 3.623

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.