Abstract
ABSTRACTThe aims of this study were to investigate the concentrations and characteristics of nanoparticle exposure at various workplaces. We compared the concentration and characteristics of nanoparticles at nine workplaces of three types; i.e., small laboratories (LAB), large-scale engineered nanoparticle manufacturing workplaces (ENP), and unintended nanoparticle-emitting workplaces (UNP), using real-time monitoring devices including scanning mobility particle sizers (SMPS), condensation particle counters (CPC), surface area monitors (SAM), and gravimetric sampling. ANOVA and Scheffe’s post hoc tests were performed to compare the concentration based on the type of workplace. The concentrations at UNPs were higher than those at other types of workplace for all measured metrics followed by (in order) ENP manufacturing workplaces and LAB (p < 0.01). Geometric means and geometric standard deviations of LAB, ENP, and UNP for total number concentration measured using SMPS were 8,458 (1.41), 19,612 (2.18), and 84,172 (2.80) particles cm–3, respectively. For CPC, the concentrations were 6,143 (1.45), 11,955 (2.42), and 38,886 (2.61) particles cm–3, respectively. The surface area concentrations were 32.79 (1.46), 93.68 (2.60), and 358.41 (2.74) μm2 cm–3, respectively. The characteristics of exposure and size distributions differed among the workplaces. Some tasks or processes at LAB exhibited higher concentrations than those at ENP or UNP workplaces, and LAB showed the lowest concentration. In conclusion, we observed different exposure characteristics at LAB, ENP, and UNP suggesting that different risk management strategies are required.
Highlights
Three types of nanoparticle source are classified as: naturally occurring, unintended emission of nanoparticles (UNP), and engineered nanoparticles (ENP) (Oberdörster et al, 2005)
general ventilation (GV) was installed at the unintended nanoparticle-emitting workplaces (UNP) workplaces in this study
This study compared the concentrations and characteristics of nanoparticles at nine workplaces categorized as three types (LAB, engineered nanoparticle manufacturing workplaces (ENP), and UNP) to examine nanoparticle exposure based on real-time data and gravimetric sampling
Summary
Three types of nanoparticle source are classified as: naturally occurring (e.g., volcano ash and forest fires), unintended emission of nanoparticles (UNP) (e.g., welding, smelting, and diesel exhaust), and engineered nanoparticles (ENP) (Oberdörster et al, 2005). The application of engineered nanoparticles has increased rapidly in various industries. Based on the probable health hazards of nanoparticles and exposure concerns via inhalation and skin absorption, risk management including traditional control strategies in industrial hygiene; i.e., elimination, substitution, isolation, engineering control, administrative control, and personal equipment, have been reported. Exposure levels may differ throughout the life cycle of nanoparticles due to handling size; i.e., research, development, and production/ manufacturing (Schulte et al, 2008). It is important to examine the exposure level. Data on nanoparticle exposure assessment at laboratories and ENP manufacturing workplaces are insufficient
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
