6/7/13 Epidemiological study of health hazards among workers handling engineered nanomaterials

Paper:

Epidemiologicalstudy of health hazards among workers

handling engineered nanomaterials

Saou-Hsing Liou • Tsui-Chun Tsou • Shu-Li Wang • Lih-Ann Li • Hung-Che Chiang •

Wan-Fen Li • Pin-Pin Lin • Ching-Huang Lai • Hui-Ling Lee • Ming-Hsiu Lin •

Jin-Huei Hsu • Chiou-Rong Chen • Tung-Sheng Shih • Hui-Yi Liao •

Yu-Teh Chung

Keywords: : nanoparticle, health hazard, antioxidant, inflammation, risk level

This was a pretty long paper, so I didn't include all the details.

Dead Body: what are the potential health hazards among workers handling nanomaterials who are potentially exposed to nanoparticles?

Prior work: Tons of previous work both on animals and humans.  All of it cited, and seem that they are good examples.

Only evidence in humans that nps are bad is for polyacrylate NPs, but in animals, there are lots of lung issues,

Lots of evidence that NPs, over fine particles, lead to oxidative stress markers.

Solution: Study to see the results of different tests with different risk groups.

Background: there are natural and engineering NPs (latter including carbon nanotubes, black carbon, nanogold and nanoresins) (former from traffic pollution and combustion). A lot of the natural particles have shown links to respiratory illness, lung inflammation, oxidative damage, worsening of heart disease, atherosclerosis, asthma and possibly lung cancer. Only carbon nanotubes, black carbon and titania have shown negative effects for the engineered nanoparticles.

Route of entry for lung issues: Inhalation (1) <100nm np in alveoli, (2) clearance of np inlung slow, (3) migration of nps from lungs to circulatory system, (4) np migration to brain, interstitial tissues, and regional lymph nodes, 

What are the most interesting results: 

• Studies: antioxidant enzyme activity, lung inflammation and oxidative damage or lipid peroxidation, cardiovascular disease markers, DNA damage and genotoxicity, pulmonary function, and neurobehavioral function.
• Risk Levels 1-4 based on the type of material, the type of nanoparticle, and general exposure.  4 was the worst, while 1 was the least probable. Some confounding variables were accounted for.
• Antioxidant enzyme activity was generally lower in risk groups
• Lung inflammation and markers of oxidative damage or lipid peroxidation did not differe between the groups
• Generally, CVD risk markers were higher in risk groups
• No difference in DNA damage or genotoxicity, or pulmonary lung function
• Risk groups had lower 7-digit memory, but not for 5- and 6-digit memory.

What are the most interesting discussions: 

• There is a discrepancy in this study compared to other studies.  This one didn’t find a big issue with the lungs, but found more problems with oxidative damage, memory, and cardio.  Past studies have focused more on the lungs, including animal studies.  They suggest one difference may be the low dose of exposure to the handling workers as opposed to the studies where animals were actually dosed with nanoparticles.  
• the study was pretty small, with a diverse group of nanoparticles, and only a few years in length.  They call for a study that is more systematic
• Open up the discussion of looking at SOD and cardiovascular response to NPs as a new place for investigation

Materials used: 

 subjects (exposed and unexposed to handling of NPs) from 14 manufacturing plants in Taiwan.  Tests were performed on 227 exposed workers, and 137 unexposed workers.

Blood and urine samples tested, as well as exhaled breath condensates

Tested: pulmonary function, heart rate variability, and neurofunctional behavior. 

How this applies to my work:

• I need to be safe!  As a researcher in this area, it is important to take into consideration the safety of my product/service.  I'll have to watch what future research comes out of this area.

Applications:

Cited = 

My own -