Search

Over the past decade, the primary focus of nanotoxicology and nanoenvironmental health and safety efforts has been largely on inhalation exposure to engineered nanomaterials, at the production stage, and much less on considering risks along the life cycle of nano-enabled products. Dermal exposure to nanomaterials and its health impact has been studied to a much lesser extent, and mostly in the context of intentional exposure to nano-enabled products such as in nanomedicine, cosmetics and personal care products. How concerning is dermal exposure to such nanoparticles in the context of occupational exposures? When and how should we measure it? In the first of a series of two papers (Larese Filon et al., 2016), we focused our attention on identifying conditions or situations, i.e. a combination of nanoparticle physico-chemical properties, skin barrier integrity, and occupations with high prevalence of skin disease, which deserve further investigation. This second paper focuses on the broad question of dermal exposure assessment to nanoparticles and attempts to give an overview of the mechanisms of occupational dermal exposure to nanoparticles and nano-enabled products and explores feasibility and adequacy of various methods of quantifying dermal exposure to NOAA. We provide here a conceptual framework for screening, prioritization, and assessment of dermal exposure to NOAA in occupational settings, and integrate it into a proposed framework for risk assessment., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.)

Background: Working in healthcare is regarded as a risk factor for occupational skin disease. Workers are exposed to disinfectants, soaps, detergents and latex and need to wash their hands frequently and thoroughly., Aims: To investigate the association between healthcare work and patch test reactions to various potential sensitizers in a population of contact dermatitis patients in various dermatology and occupational medicine units in north-eastern Italy., Methods: Patients with suspected allergic dermatitis underwent patch testing. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusted by age and sex, were calculated for healthcare workers (HCWs), using white-collar workers as control group., Results: HCWs represented 14% of the sample of 19088 patients (68% women, 32% men). Among HCWs, both sexes had a higher risk of developing hand/forearm dermatitis (females: OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.8-2.5; males: OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.3-2.1). HCWs had an increased risk of sensitization to formaldehyde (OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.2-2.3) and to p-phenylenediamine (OR 1.6; CI 1.1-2.3)., Conclusions: Our study suggests a significant association between healthcare work, hand/forearm dermatitis and sensitization to formaldehyde and p-phenylenediamine., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Occupational Medicine. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Cosensitization to nickel, cobalt and chromium occurs in the general population and in some occupational groups., Objectives: To estimate the isolated and concurrent occurrence of nickel, cobalt and chromium contact sensitization and their association with individual and occupational risk factors., Patients/methods: Twelve thousand four hundred and ninety-two patients were patch tested with the European baseline series between 1997 and 2004 in north-eastern Italy. The associations between patch test results and patient characteristics and occupations were investigated by means of multinomial logistic regression analysis., Results: Of the patients, 34.7% (4334 patients) had one or more positive patch test reactions to metals. As compared with those with negative reactions to all three metals, nickel sensitization was significantly higher in females than in males, not only as monosensitization, but also as cosensitization with cobalt, with chromium, or with both metals. Building and related trades workers showed positive reactions to chromium + nickel [odds ratio (OR) 1.99; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-3.76) and chromium + cobalt (OR 2.61; 95% CI 1.46-4.67]. Cleaning workers showed a high prevalence of nickel, chromium, nickel + chromium and nickel + cobalt + chromium cosensitization (ORs 1.29, 1.66, 2.11, and 1.79, respectively). An excess risk for cosensitization to all three metals was found in textile and leather workers (OR 2.19; 95% CI 1.10-4.33), and in bartenders (OR 2.10; 95% CI 1.03-4.26)., Conclusions: Some occupational groups are more likely to develop nickel, cobalt and chromium cosensitization., (© 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S.)

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons have mutagenic and carcinogenic properties and some of them are classified as probable or possible human carcinogens. Aim of this study was to evaluate the genotoxic risk in workers exposed to diesel exaust. Environmental and biological monitoring exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons was carried out on fifty-two workers exposed to diesel exhaust. Urinary 1-hydroxypyrene was employed as a biomarker of internal dose. Significant urinary 1-hydroxypyrene differences between smokers and non-smokers were found. Twenty per cent of urinary 1-hydroxypyrene values exceeded benchmark level for genotoxic effect, while the results of environmental monitoring excluded the existence of exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. In the absence of greater knowledge about the relationship between urinary 1-hydroxypyrene and genotoxic effects under the conditions of very low exposure, extreme caution is recommended when this biomarker of internal dose is employed as an indicator of genotoxic risk.