ArticleCentral European journal of public health2025
Preventive effect of precautionary lowered exposure or adaptation of nanomaterial workers?
Article in Central European journal of public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- DNA damage in the leukocytes of nanocomposite-exposed workers.Mutagenesis · 2026Article
- Transcriptomics insight into occupational exposure to engineered nanoparticles.Nanomedicine (London, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesNanotechnology is a fast-growing field in both science and industry. However, experimental studies brought warning data concerning the negative effect of engineered nanoparticle exposure leading to oxidative stress, inflammation, decreased immune cell viability, and genotoxicity. The consequences of human exposure may appear with decades of latency. Therefore, more data is needed to identify the hazardous effects of nanoparticles. Exposure should be under control and biomarkers of effect are urgently searched.
methodsExposures of researchers working with nanocomposites were measured in yearly intervals for 5 years and biomarkers of oxidative stress and/or antioxidant capacity were analysed. Exposure to aerosols with nanoparticles was measured repeatedly using online and offline instruments during both the machining of geopolymer samples with epoxide resin and nanoSiO
resultsOn average, 21 researchers were examined yearly (aged 40 ± 5 years, exposure 14 ± 3 years). After 5 years, the mean mass concentration dropped from 0.921 to 0.563 mg/m
conclusionsThe adaptation of long-term exposed researchers may give a plausible explanation. However, to our meaning, the precautionary principle and higher attention of the employers to the potential risk of nanoparticles by reducing nanoparticles exposure by almost one order of magnitude played the key role.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40625134What 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.