Seth McCormick1, Mamadou Niang2, Matthew M Dahm3. 1. Division of Field Studies and Engineering, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1090 Tusculum Ave, Cincinnati, OH, 45226, USA. 2. Professional Staffing Partners, 1008 Water Oak Dr SW, Aiken, SC, 29803, USA. 3. Division of Field Studies and Engineering, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1090 Tusculum Ave, Cincinnati, OH, 45226, USA. mdahm@cdc.gov.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to consolidate exposure assessment methods for occupational research on engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) published within the past 5 years (2015-2020). RECENT FINDINGS: The three ENMs that generated the highest volume of new research include titanium dioxide, graphene, and aluminum oxide. A multi-metric approach, using both online and offline instruments and analyses, has been found to be a useful method to characterize ENM workplace exposures and was commonly used in the recently published literature. Particle number concentration was the most common online exposure metric used, followed by the metrics of mass and surface area. There are currently no consensus methods for offline analyses of most ENMs. Researchers generally used gravimetric or elemental analyses for carbonaceous nanomaterials, titanium dioxide, and other nanometals, but there was little overlap between other ENM materials reviewed. Using biological markers of exposure, such as urinary oxidative stress biomarkers, as an indication of chronic exposure may also be useful for some ENMs and should be further researched. Generally, similar online instrumentation and offline electron microscopy methods were used for all ENMs. However, this consistency was not observed for offline mass analysis methods within specific ENMs. Consolidation of the most recent methods and results of exposure assessments within this broad material category can guide researchers toward future areas of study. Establishing consensus methods of exposure assessment for each individual ENM is crucial to characterizing workplace exposures, pooling data to fully understand their associated risks, and developing useful occupational exposure limits.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to consolidate exposure assessment methods for occupational research on engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) published within the past 5 years (2015-2020). RECENT FINDINGS: The three ENMs that generated the highest volume of new research include titanium dioxide, graphene, and aluminum oxide. A multi-metric approach, using both online and offline instruments and analyses, has been found to be a useful method to characterize ENM workplace exposures and was commonly used in the recently published literature. Particle number concentration was the most common online exposure metric used, followed by the metrics of mass and surface area. There are currently no consensus methods for offline analyses of most ENMs. Researchers generally used gravimetric or elemental analyses for carbonaceous nanomaterials, titanium dioxide, and other nanometals, but there was little overlap between other ENM materials reviewed. Using biological markers of exposure, such as urinary oxidative stress biomarkers, as an indication of chronic exposure may also be useful for some ENMs and should be further researched. Generally, similar online instrumentation and offline electron microscopy methods were used for all ENMs. However, this consistency was not observed for offline mass analysis methods within specific ENMs. Consolidation of the most recent methods and results of exposure assessments within this broad material category can guide researchers toward future areas of study. Establishing consensus methods of exposure assessment for each individual ENM is crucial to characterizing workplace exposures, pooling data to fully understand their associated risks, and developing useful occupational exposure limits.
Authors: Derk Brouwer; Markus Berges; Mohammed Abbas Virji; Wouter Fransman; Dhimiter Bello; Laura Hodson; Stefan Gabriel; Erik Tielemans Journal: Ann Occup Hyg Date: 2011-12-08
Authors: Gurumurthy Ramachandran; Michele Ostraat; Douglas E Evans; Mark M Methner; Patrick O'Shaughnessy; James D'Arcy; Charles L Geraci; Edward Stevenson; Andrew Maynard; Keith Rickabaugh Journal: J Occup Environ Hyg Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: Andrew D Maynard; Paul A Baron; Michael Foley; Anna A Shvedova; Elena R Kisin; Vincent Castranova Journal: J Toxicol Environ Health A Date: 2004-01-09
Authors: Adrienne C Eastlake; Catherine Beaucham; Kenneth F Martinez; Matthew M Dahm; Christopher Sparks; Laura L Hodson; Charles L Geraci Journal: J Occup Environ Hyg Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: Ken Donaldson; David Brown; Anna Clouter; Rodger Duffin; William MacNee; Louise Renwick; Lang Tran; Vicki Stone Journal: J Aerosol Med Date: 2002
Authors: Marina E Vance; Todd Kuiken; Eric P Vejerano; Sean P McGinnis; Michael F Hochella; David Rejeski; Matthew S Hull Journal: Beilstein J Nanotechnol Date: 2015-08-21 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: Jaison Jeevanandam; Ahmed Barhoum; Yen S Chan; Alain Dufresne; Michael K Danquah Journal: Beilstein J Nanotechnol Date: 2018-04-03 Impact factor: 3.649