MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2809568600 · doi:10.1093/annweh/wxy048

A Systematic Review of the Routes and Forms of Exposure to Engineered Nanomaterials

2018· review· en· W2809568600 sur OpenAlex
Ioannis Basinas, Araceli Sánchez Jiménez, Karen S. Galea, Martie van Tongeren, Fintan Hurley

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

fundUn bailleur canadien est enregistré sur le travail.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueAnnals of Work Exposures and Health · 2018
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMaterials Science
ThématiqueNanoparticles: synthesis and applications
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesUniversité de MontréalWorld Health Organization
Mots-clésRisk analysis (engineering)Medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Establishing the routes of exposure is a fundamental component of the risk assessment process for every dangerous substance. The present study systematically reviews the available literature to assess the relevance of the different routes and forms of exposure that are of concern for the protection of workers during the manufacture, handling, or end-use of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs). Methods: A systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature published between 2000 and 2015 was completed. Only studies including measurements of inhalation or dermal exposure were selected and used to identify the exposure situations for which the measurements were collected. The identified exposure situations were grouped based on the type of ENM (i.e. carbon nanotubes and fibres, silicon-based, titanium dioxide, other metal oxides, pure elemental metals, and other ENMs) and activity involved. The grouped exposure situations were assessed to provide a conclusion regarding the likelihood, form, and route of exposure. Assessment of the likelihood of exposure was based on well-defined criteria using a previously established decision logic for inhalation exposure and the outputs from measurements and/or conceptual models for dermal/ingestion exposure. For each combination of nano-activity and type of ENM, the aggregated likelihood across all relevant individual assessments was used to draw conclusions about the relevance of both the inhalation and dermal/ingestion routes. Based on the quality of the data, the strength of the evidence was also evaluated. Results: One hundred and seven studies were identified during the review process, reporting 424 individual exposure assessments. Measurement data were limited for dermal/ingestion exposure and for inhalation exposure for downstream use and end-of-life. However, the data provided high-quality evidence that in occupational settings all three routes can be of relevance for exposure to ENMs. In general, whenever inhalation exposure occurs then dermal and inadvertent ingestion exposure may occur due to surface deposition and transfer due to the ENMs release. However, for some forms of exposure (e.g. suspension/liquids), dermal exposure can occur even when inhalation exposure is unlikely. An increased likelihood of exposure was observed for manual activities such as cleaning and maintenance, collection/harvesting, spraying, and finishing as well as those involving feeding into a process and handling of powders outside enclosures. The likelihood of exposure was affected by the presence of risk management measures and the scale of the production involved. Conclusion: This literature review provides evidence that for ENMs, as found for other materials, the likelihood of the exposure depends largely on the physical form of the substance as well as the applied process and operational conditions. These results can be used to provide first indications of the likelihood of exposure and guidance for exposure controls in workplaces. However, there is a clear lack of high-quality exposure data, in particular for downstream use and end-of-life scenarios and in low- and medium-income countries.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,013
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,475

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,087
Tête enseignante GPT0,368
Écart entre enseignants0,281 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle