ArticleAnnals of work exposures and health2019
Predicting Occupational Exposures to Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers Based on Workplace Determinants Modeling.
Article in Annals of work exposures and health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating occupational exposures to the graphene family of nanomaterials: Implications for worker safety and health.Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene · 2026Article
- Quantile regression for longitudinal data with values below the limit of detection and time-dependent covariates-application to modeling carbon nanotube and nanofiber exposures.Annals of work exposures and health · 2024Article
- Serum peptidome: diagnostic window into pathogenic processes following occupational exposure to carbon nanomaterials.Particle and fibre toxicology · 2021Article
- Occupational Exposure to Carbon Nanotubes and Carbon Nanofibres: More Than a Cobweb.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Evaluation of total and inhalable samplers for the collection of carbon nanotube and carbon nanofiber aerosols.Aerosol science and technology : the journal of the American Association for Aerosol Research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent cross-sectional epidemiologic studies have examined the association between human health effects and carbon nanotube and nanofiber (CNT/F) workplace exposures. However, due to the latency of many health effects of interest, cohort studies with sufficient follow-up will likely be needed. The objective of this study was to identify workplace determinants that contribute to exposure and develop predictive models to estimate CNT/F exposures for future use in epidemiologic studies.
methodsExposure measurements were compiled from 15 unique facilities for the metrics of elemental carbon (EC) mass at both the respirable and inhalable aerosol size fractions as well as a quantitative analysis performed by transmission electron microscopy (TEM). These metrics served as the dependent variables in model development. Repeated personal samples were collected from most of the 127 CNT/F worker participants for 252 total observations. Determinants were categorized as company-level or worker-level and used to describe the exposure relationship within the dependent variables. The influence of determinants on variance components was explored using mixed linear models that utilized a backwards stepwise selection process with a lowering of the AIC for model determinant selection. Additional ridge regression models were created that examined predictive performance with and without all two-way interactions. Cross-validation was performed on each model to evaluate the generalizability of its predictive capabilities while predictive performance was evaluated according to the corresponding R2 value and root mean square error (RMSE).
resultsDeterminants at the company-level that increased exposure included an inadequate or semi-adequate engineering control rating, increasing average CNT/F diameter/length, daily quantities of material handled from 101 g to >1 kg and >1 kg, the use of CNF materials, the industry type of hybrid producer/user, and the expert assessment of a high exposure potential. Worker-level determinants associated with higher exposure included handling the dry-powdered form of CNT/F, handling daily quantities of material >1 kg, direct/indirect exposure, having the job title of engineer, using a respirator, using a ventilated or unventilated enclosure, and the job task of powder handling. The mixed linear models explained >60% of the total variance when using all company- and worker-level determinants to create the three exposure models. The cross-validated RMSE values for each of the three mixed models ranged from 2.50 to 4.23. Meanwhile, the ridge regression models, without all two-way interactions, estimated cross-validated RMSE values of 2.85, 2.23, and 2.76 for the predictive models of inhalable EC, respirable EC, and TEM, respectively.
conclusionsThe ridge regression models demonstrated the best performance for predicting exposures to CNT/F for each exposure metric, although they only provided a modest predictive capability. Therefore, it was concluded that the models alone would not be adequate in predicting workplace exposures and would need to be integrated with other methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.