Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28609256›Full record

ArticleJournal of occupational and environmental hygiene2017

Nano-metal oxides: Exposure and engineering control assessment.

Alberto Garcia, Adrienne Eastlake, Jennifer L Topmiller, Christopher Sparks, Kenneth Martinez, Charles L Geraci

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Alberto Garciaa U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Public Health Service (PHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) , National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) , Cincinnati , Ohio.
Adrienne Eastlakea U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Public Health Service (PHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) , National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) , Cincinnati , Ohio.
Jennifer L Topmillera U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Public Health Service (PHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) , National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) , Cincinnati , Ohio.
Christopher Sparksb Bureau Veritas North America , Houston , Texas.
Kenneth Martinezc Hassett Willis and Company , Washington, DC.
Charles L Geracia U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Public Health Service (PHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) , National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) , Cincinnati , Ohio.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health · USUnited States Department of Health and Human Services · USVeritas (United States) · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In January 2007, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) conducted a field study to evaluate process specific emissions during the production of ENMs. This study was performed using the nanoparticle emission assessment technique (NEAT). During this study, it was determined that ENMs were released during production and cleaning of the process reactor. Airborne concentrations of silver, nickel, and iron were found both in the employee's personal breathing zone and area samples during reactor cleaning. At the completion of this initial survey, it was suggested that a flanged attachment be added to the local exhaust ventilation system.  NIOSH re-evaluated the facility in December 2011 to assess worker exposures following an increase in production rates. This study included a fully comprehensive emissions, exposure, and engineering control evaluation of the entire process. This study made use of the nanoparticle exposure assessment technique (NEAT 2.0). Data obtained from filter-based samples and direct reading instruments indicate that reactor cleanout increased the overall particle concentration in the immediate area. However, it does not appear that these concentrations affect areas outside of the production floor. As the distance between the reactor and the sample location increased, the observed particle number concentration decreased, creating a concentration gradient with respect to the reactor. The results of this study confirm that the flanged attachment on the local exhaust ventilation system served to decrease exposure potential.  Given the available toxicological data of the metals evaluated, caution is warranted. One should always keep in mind that occupational exposure levels were not developed specifically for nanoscale particles. With data suggesting that certain nanoparticles may be more toxic than the larger counterparts of the same material; employers should attempt to control emissions of these particles at the source, to limit the potential for exposure.

Indexed as

Air Pollutants, OccupationalEnvironmental MonitoringHumansMetal NanoparticlesMetals, HeavyNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.Occupational ExposureOxidesUnited StatesVentilationAir Pollutants, OccupationalMetals, HeavyOxidesEngineering controlexposure assessmentnanomaterials

Identifiers

PMID28609256
PMCPMC5655802
OpenAlexW2625671333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.