Spinazzè Andrea, Zellino Carolina, Borghi Francesca, Campagnolo Davide, Rovelli Sabrina, Keller Marta, Fanti Giacomo, Cattaneo Andrea, Cavallo Domenico M
Dipartimento di Scienza e Alta Tecnologia, Università degli Studi dell'Insubria, Via Valleggio, 11-22100 Como, Italy.
Nanomaterials (Basel). 2021 Feb 5;11(2):409. doi: 10.3390/nano11020409.
In this study, the occupational risk assessment of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) was performed by means of a probabilistic approach. Chronic and subchronic inhalation exposure studies were retrieved during the hazard identification phase of the study. These studies were then used to obtain a guidance value (BMC, expressed as a lognormal distribution with geometric mean ± geometric standard deviation = 10.0 ± 4.2 µg/m) for occupational inhalation exposure to CNTs. An exposure scenario was selected from the scientific literature: three different work events (WEs) related to the production of conductive films were considered: (WE1) manufacturing of single walled carbon nanotubes films during normal operation using local exhaust ventilation (LEV); (WE2) manufacturing of SWCNT film without LEV; and (WE3) cleaning of one of the reactors. For each WE, a probability distribution function was applied, considering exposure expressed as mass concentration, as derived from three different measurement techniques. The ratio of the exposure and the BMC distributions (i.e., the risk characterization ratio-RCR) was used to calculate the probability of occurrence of a relevant occupational risk. All the considered WEs indicated the presence of a risk (i.e., RCR distributions ≥ 1); however, only WE2 resulted in a statistically significant level of risk.
在本研究中,采用概率方法对碳纳米管(CNT)进行职业风险评估。在研究的危害识别阶段检索了慢性和亚慢性吸入暴露研究。然后利用这些研究得出职业吸入碳纳米管的指导值(BMC,以对数正态分布表示,几何平均值±几何标准差 = 10.0 ± 4.2 µg/m)。从科学文献中选择了一种暴露场景:考虑了与导电膜生产相关的三种不同工作事件(WE):(WE1)在正常运行期间使用局部排气通风(LEV)制造单壁碳纳米管薄膜;(WE2)不使用LEV制造单壁碳纳米管薄膜;以及(WE3)清洗其中一个反应器。对于每个工作事件,应用概率分布函数,考虑从三种不同测量技术得出的以质量浓度表示的暴露。暴露分布与BMC分布的比值(即风险特征比 - RCR)用于计算相关职业风险发生的概率。所有考虑的工作事件均表明存在风险(即RCR分布≥1);然而,只有工作事件2导致了具有统计学意义的风险水平。