Sabyne Audignon-Durand1,2, Céline Gramond1, Stéphane Ducamp3, Guyguy Manangama1,2, Alain Garrigou1, Fleur Delva1,2, Patrick Brochard1,2, Aude Lacourt1. 1. University of Bordeaux, Inserm UMR 1219 EPICENE Team, Bordeaux Population Health Research Center, 146 rue Léo Saignat, Bordeaux, France. 2. Bordeaux University Hospital, Service of Occupational Medicine and Occupational Pathology, 12 rue Dubernat, Talence, France. 3. Santé Publique France, Division of Environmental and Occupational health, 12 rue du Val d'Osne, Saint Maurice, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Ultrafine particles (UFPs) are generated from common work processes and have thus existed for a long time. Far more prevalent than engineered nanoparticles, they share common toxicological characteristics with them. However, there is no existing retrospective assessment tool specific to UFPs, for example, for epidemiological purposes. Thus, we aimed to develop a job-exposure matrix dedicated to UFPs. METHOD: Fifty-seven work processes were identified as well as the chemical composition of UFPs emitted, following a literature review and the input of an expert panel. These work processes were associated with occupational codes as defined by the ISCO 1968 classification. The probability and frequency of UFP exposure were assessed for each combination of occupational code and process. Summarized probabilities and frequencies were then calculated for all ISCO occupational codes associated with several processes. Variations in exposure over time or across industrial sectors were accounted for in the assessment of each occupational code. RESULTS: In the ISCO classification, 52.8% of the occupational codes (n = 835) assessed were associated with exposure to UFPs, consisting mainly of carbonaceous, metallic, and mineral families (39.5%, 22 and, 15.8%, respectively). Among them, 42.6% involved very probable exposure, and at a high frequency (regularly or continuously). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that occupational exposure to UFPs may be extensive at the workplace and could concern a wide variety of workers. Pending the integration of a third parameter assessing the intensity of UFP exposure, the MatPUF JEM already constitutes a promising and easy-to-use tool to study the possible adverse health effects of UFPs at work. It may also guide prevention policies in the occupational environments concerned, including those involving engineered nanoparticles.
OBJECTIVE: Ultrafine particles (UFPs) are generated from common work processes and have thus existed for a long time. Far more prevalent than engineered nanoparticles, they share common toxicological characteristics with them. However, there is no existing retrospective assessment tool specific to UFPs, for example, for epidemiological purposes. Thus, we aimed to develop a job-exposure matrix dedicated to UFPs. METHOD: Fifty-seven work processes were identified as well as the chemical composition of UFPs emitted, following a literature review and the input of an expert panel. These work processes were associated with occupational codes as defined by the ISCO 1968 classification. The probability and frequency of UFP exposure were assessed for each combination of occupational code and process. Summarized probabilities and frequencies were then calculated for all ISCO occupational codes associated with several processes. Variations in exposure over time or across industrial sectors were accounted for in the assessment of each occupational code. RESULTS: In the ISCO classification, 52.8% of the occupational codes (n = 835) assessed were associated with exposure to UFPs, consisting mainly of carbonaceous, metallic, and mineral families (39.5%, 22 and, 15.8%, respectively). Among them, 42.6% involved very probable exposure, and at a high frequency (regularly or continuously). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that occupational exposure to UFPs may be extensive at the workplace and could concern a wide variety of workers. Pending the integration of a third parameter assessing the intensity of UFP exposure, the MatPUF JEM already constitutes a promising and easy-to-use tool to study the possible adverse health effects of UFPs at work. It may also guide prevention policies in the occupational environments concerned, including those involving engineered nanoparticles.
Authors: Darrell R Boverhof; Christina M Bramante; John H Butala; Shaun F Clancy; Mark Lafranconi; Jay West; Steve C Gordon Journal: Regul Toxicol Pharmacol Date: 2015-06-23 Impact factor: 3.271
Authors: Simone Ohlwein; Ron Kappeler; Meltem Kutlar Joss; Nino Künzli; Barbara Hoffmann Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2019-02-21 Impact factor: 3.380
Authors: Anna-Kaisa Viitanen; Sanni Uuksulainen; Antti J Koivisto; Kaarle Hämeri; Timo Kauppinen Journal: Ann Work Expo Health Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 2.179
Authors: Pernilla Wiebert; Maria Lönn; Karin Fremling; Maria Feychting; Bengt Sjögren; Gun Nise; T Kauppinen; Nils Plato; Per Gustavsson Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Ajith Pattammattel; Valerie J Leppert; Henry Jay Forman; Peggy A O'Day Journal: Environ Sci Process Impacts Date: 2019-03-20 Impact factor: 4.238
Authors: George S Downward; Erik J H M van Nunen; Jules Kerckhoffs; Paolo Vineis; Bert Brunekreef; Jolanda M A Boer; Kyle P Messier; Ananya Roy; W Monique M Verschuren; Yvonne T van der Schouw; Ivonne Sluijs; John Gulliver; Gerard Hoek; Roel Vermeulen Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Vicki Stone; Mark R Miller; Martin J D Clift; Alison Elder; Nicholas L Mills; Peter Møller; Roel P F Schins; Ulla Vogel; Wolfgang G Kreyling; Keld Alstrup Jensen; Thomas A J Kuhlbusch; Per E Schwarze; Peter Hoet; Antonio Pietroiusti; Andrea De Vizcaya-Ruiz; Armelle Baeza-Squiban; João Paulo Teixeira; C Lang Tran; Flemming R Cassee Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Anaïs Pasquiou; Fanny Pelluard; Guyguy Manangama; Patrick Brochard; Sabyne Audignon; Loïc Sentilhes; Fleur Delva Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Louise Gren; Annette M Krais; Eva Assarsson; Karin Broberg; Malin Engfeldt; Christian Lindh; Bo Strandberg; Joakim Pagels; Maria Hedmer Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2022-03-16 Impact factor: 2.851