A key issue related to the development of nanotechnology is the protection of researchers in laboratories and workers in production facilities from exposure to engineered nanoparticles (ENPs). Personal protective equipment (PPE) can only provide protection if it is selected correctly, well maintained, and used properly in all possible exposures. The objective of this review was to systematically evaluate studies that have assessed the effectiveness of PPE against ENPs. The scientific literature search included the electronic databases of Web of Science, Scopus, MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane Collaboration Summaries, and NIOSHTIC. According to the PRISMA flow diagram, 24 papers that met the exclusion and inclusion criteria were included in this review. The review results on gloves, masks, and protective clothing revealed that among the common gloves assessed, nitrile 100 gloves were reported as the least suitable protection method against penetration. Also, most masks have low percent penetration. N99 and P100 masks were more effective than N95 masks. The results also indicated that the physical properties of textiles such as fiber diameter, fabric thickness, porosity, air permeability, and pore size are crucial in determining fabric performance against nanomaterials. Most studies have not used a standardized methodology for evaluating the performance of PPE against nanoparticles, highlighting the need for designing and developing a new method. It is essential to develop a precise and valid application guideline based on scientific evidence to assess protection methods for occupational exposure to ENPs.
AdamHYoussefA (2019) Economic impacts of the nanotechnology industry: case study on Egypt. Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Digital Strategies for Organizational Success-January 5-7, 2019. India. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3314931.
AlbertoARMatosCCarmona-AparicioG, et al. (2022) Nanomaterials, a new challenge in the workplace. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology1357: 379–402. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-88071-2_15.
4.
AndraosCGulumianMIchiharaG, et al. (2022) Editorial: occupational exposure to nanomaterials. Front Toxicol4: 1014600. DOI: 10.3389/ftox.2022.1014600.
5.
Baranowska-WójcikESzwajgierDOleszczukP, et al. (2020) Effects of titanium dioxide nanoparticles exposure on human health: a review. Biological Trace Element Research193(1): 118–129. DOI: 10.1007/s12011-019-01706-6.
6.
BordereSCorpartJBouniaN, et al. (2011) Industrial production and applications of carbon nanotubes. Material design27: 1477–1489.
7.
BoskovicLAgranovskiIEBraddockRD, et al. (2005) Influence of Particle Shape on Filtration Processes. Aerosol Science and Technology39: 1184–1190.
8.
BrouwerDHSpaanSRoffM, et al. (2016) Occupational dermal exposure to nanoparticles and nano-enabled products: Part 2, exploration of exposure processes and methods of assessment. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health219(6): 503–512. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2016.05.003.
9.
BussyCAli-BoucettaHKostarelosK (2013) Safety considerations for graphene: lessons learnt from carbon nanotubes. Accounts of Chemical Research46(3): 692–701. DOI: 10.1021/ar300199e.
10.
CaoYLuoY (2019) Pharmacological and toxicological aspects of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) to vascular system: A review. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology385: 1–10. DOI: 10.1016/j.taap.2019.114801.
11.
ChenNSongZMTangH, et al. (2016) Toxicological effects of Caco-2 cells following short-term and long-term exposure to Ag nanoparticles. International Journal of Molecular Sciences17(6): 974. DOI: 10.3390/ijms17060974.
12.
ChengYSZhouY (2017) Effects of size and shape on filtration of TiO2 nanoparticles. Aerosol Science and Technology51: 972–980. DOI: 10.1080/02786826.2017.1321102.
13.
DahmMMYenckenMSSchubauer-BeriganMK (2011) Exposure control strategies in the carbonaceous nanomaterial industry. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine53(6): 68–73. DOI: 10.1097/JOM.0b013e31821b1d3b.
14.
DolezPVinchesLWilkinsonK, et al. (2011) Development of a test method for protective gloves against nanoparticles in conditions simulating occupational use. Journal of Physics: Conference Series304: 012066. DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/304/1/012066.
15.
EmaMOkudaHGamoM, et al. (2017) A review of reproductive and developmental toxicity of silver nanoparticles in laboratory animals. Reproductive Toxicology67: 149–164. DOI: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2017.01.005.
16.
FatkhutdinovaLMKhaliullinTOZalyalovRR, et al. (2015) Assessment of Airborn Multiwalled Carbon Nanotubes in a Manufactoring Environment. Nanotechnol Russ11: 110–116. DOI: 10.1134/S1995078016010055.
17.
GaoPJaquesPAHsiaoTC, et al. (2011) Evaluation of nano- and submicron particle penetration through ten nonwoven fabrics using a wind-driven approach. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene8(1): 13–22. DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2010.515554.
18.
GolanskiLGuiotATardifF (2009a) Experimental evaluation of individual protection devices against different types of nanoaerosols: graphite, TiO2, and Pt. Journal of Physics: Conference Series170: 012025. DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/170/1/012025.
19.
GolanskiLGuiotARouillonF, et al. (2009b) Experimental evaluation of personal protection devices against graphite nanoaerosols: fibrous filter media, masks, protective clothing, and gloves. Human & Experimental Toxicology28(6-7): 353–359. DOI: 10.1177/0960327109105157.
20.
GolanskiLGuiotATardifF (2010) Experimental evaluation of individual protection devices against different types of nanoaerosols: graphite, TiO2, and Pt. Journal of Nanoparticle Research12: 83–89. DOI: 10.1007/s11051-009-9804-x.
JaquesPAPortnoffL (2017) Evaluation of a passive method for determining particle penetration through protective clothing materials. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene14(12): 995–1002. DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2017.1351614.
23.
KunduASharmaSPathaniaAR (2023) Engineered nanomaterials and human exposure: an overview. Materials Today72: 1216–1223. DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2022.09.286.
24.
Larese FilonFBelloDCherrieJW, et al. (2016a) Occupational dermal exposure to nanoparticles and nano-enabled products: Part I—factors affecting skin absorption. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health219: 536–544. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2016.05.009.
25.
Larese FilonFCroseraMMauroM, et al. (2016b) Palladium nanoparticles exposure: evaluation of permeation through damaged and intact human skin. Environmental Pollution214: 497–503. DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.04.077.
26.
MohammadiPGaleraA (2023) Occupational exposure to nanomaterials: a bibliometric study of publications over the last decade. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health249: 114132. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2023.114132.
27.
MyojoTOyabuTOgamiA, et al. (2011) Filtration performance of dust respirators against nanoparticles. Journal of UOEH33: 163–173. DOI: 10.7888/juoeh.33.163.
28.
NahaPCMukherjeeSPByrneHJ (2018) Toxicology of engineered nanoparticles: focus on poly(amidoamine) dendrimers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health15(2): 338. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15020338.
NohiléCDolezPIVu-KhanhT (2008) Parameters controlling the swelling of butyl rubber by solvents. Journal of Applied Polymer Science110: 3926–3933. DOI: 10.1002/app.29004.
31.
NtlailaneMGLWichmannJ (2019) Effectiveness of N95 respirators for nanoparticle exposure control (2000-2016): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Nanoparticle Research21: 170. DOI: 10.1007/s11051-019-4596-0.
32.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al. (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ372: n71. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n71.
33.
ParkJKwakBKKimY, et al. (2011) Efficiency of protective dermal equipment against silver nanoparticles with water aerosol. Journal of Nanoparticle Research13(7): 3043–3049. DOI: 10.1007/s11051-010-0201-2.
34.
RemzovaMZouzelkaRBrzicovaT, et al. (2019) Toxicity of TiO2, ZnO, and SiO2 nanoparticles in human lung cells: safe-by-design development of construction materials. Nanomaterials9(7): 968. DOI: 10.3390/nano9070968.
35.
RengasamySKingWPEimerBC, et al. (2008) Filtration performance of NIOSH-approved N95 and P100 filtering facepiece respirators against 4 to 30 nanometer-size nanoparticles. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene5: 556–564. DOI: 10.1080/15459620802275387.
RocoMCMirkinCAHersamMC (2011) Nanotechnology research directions for societal needs in 2020: summary of international study. J Nanopart Res13: 897–919. DOI: 10.1007/s11051-011-0275-5.
38.
Rodríguez-IbarraCDéciga-AlcarazAIspanixtlahuatl-MerázO, et al. (2020) International landscape of limits and recommendations for occupational exposure to engineered nanomaterials. Toxicology Letters322: 111–119. DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2020.01.016.
39.
Ryman-RasmussenJPRiviereJEMonteiro-RiviereNA (2006) Penetration of intact skin by quantum dots with diverse physicochemical properties. Toxicological Sciences91: 159–165. DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfj122.
40.
SchultePALesoVNiangM, et al. (2019) Current state of knowledge on the health effects of engineered nanomaterials in workers: a systematic review of human studies and epidemiological investigations. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health45(3): 217–238. DOI: 10.5271/sjweh.3800.
41.
ShabbirSKulyarMFBhuttaZA, et al. (2021) Toxicological consequences of titanium dioxide nanoparticles (TiO2NPs) and their jeopardy to human population. BioNanoScience11(2): 621–632. DOI: 10.1007/s12668-021-00836-3.
ThomasDPenicotPContalP, et al. (2001) Clogging of fibrous filters by solid aerosol particles: experimental and modelling study. Chemical Engineering Science56: 3549–3561. DOI: 10.1016/S0009-2509(01)00041-0.
44.
VinchesLHalléS (2018) Effects of size and morphology of TiO2 and SiO2 airborne nanoparticles on their filtration through chemical protective clothing. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Nanotechnology6: 11–20.
45.
VinchesLBoulebnaneYPerronP, et al. (2012a) Swelling of protective gloves in commercial TiO2 nanoparticles colloidal solutions. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Nanotechnology1(1): 45–51. DOI: 10.11159/ijtan.2012.007.
46.
VinchesLPerronGDolezP, et al. (2012b) Swelling of elastomers in solutions of TiO2 nanoparticles. ISRN Polymer Science2012: 272751–272758. DOI: 10.5402/2012/272751.
47.
VinchesLPeyrotCLemarchandL, et al. (2015) Towards understanding the mechanisms and the kinetics of nanoparticle penetration through protective gloves. Journal of Physics: Conference Series617. DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/617/1/012030.
48.
VinchesLTestoriNDolezP, et al. (2013a) Experimental evaluation of the penetration of TiO2 nanoparticles through protective clothing and gloves under conditions simulating occupational use. Nanoscale Research Letters2: 1–15. DOI: 10.1080/21642311.2013.771840.
49.
VinchesLBarbaraJHalléS, et al. (2013b) Physical phenomena facilitating the penetration of solutions of TiO2 nanoparticles through protective gloves. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Nanotechnology1(2): 1–16. DOI: 10.11159/ijtan.2013.001.
50.
VinchesLDolezPWilkinsonKJ, et al. (2013c) Experimental evaluation of the resistance of nitrile rubber protective gloves against TiO2 nanoparticles in water under conditions simulating occupational use. Journal of Physics: Conference Series429: 012056. DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/429/1/012056.
51.
VinchesLHalléSPeyrotC, et al. (2014) Which gloves are efficient to protect against titanium dioxide nanoparticles in work conditions?International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Nanotechnology2: 24–29. DOI: 10.11159/ijtan.2014.004.
52.
VinchesLZemzemMHalléS, et al. (2016) Effectiveness of protective gloves against engineered nanoparticles: difficulties in evaluation. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Nanotechnology4: 9–16. DOI: 10.11159/ijtan.2016.002.
53.
VinchesLZemzemMHalléS, et al. (2017) An improved experimental methodology to evaluate the effectiveness of protective gloves against nanoparticles in suspension. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene14(7): D95–101. DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2017.1285494.
54.
VoEZhuangZ (2013) Development of a new test system to determine penetration of multi-walled carbon nanotubes through filtering facepiece respirators. Journal of Aerosol Science61: 50–59. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2013.01.011.
55.
VoEZhuangZBirchE, et al. (2014) Measurement of mass-based carbon nanotube penetration through filtering facepiece respirator filtering media. Annals of Occupational Hygiene58: 646–656. DOI: 10.1093/annhyg/meu005.
56.
VoEZhuangZBirchE, et al. (2016) Application of direct-reading and elemental carbon analysis methods to measure mass-based penetration of carbon nanotubes through elastomeric half-face and filtering facepiece respirators. Aerosol Science and Technology50(10): 1044–1054. DOI: 10.1080/02786826.2016.1216519.
57.
WangJ (2012) Effects of particle size and morphology on filtration of airborne nanoparticles. KONA Powder and Particle Journal30: 256–266. DOI: 10.14356/kona.2013024.
58.
WiemannMSauerUGVennemannA, et al. (2018) In vitro and in vivo short-term pulmonary toxicity of differently sized colloidal amorphous SiO2. Nanomaterials8(3): 160. DOI: 10.3390/nano8030160.
59.
XiaoliFQiyueCWeihongG, et al. (2020) Toxicology data of graphene-family nanomaterials: an update. Arch Toxicol94(6): 1915–1939. DOI: 10.1007/s00204-020-02717-2.
60.
YangWWangLMettenbrinkEM, et al. (2021) Nanoparticle toxicology. Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology61: 269–289. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-032320-110338.
61.
ZhouYChengYS (2016) Evaluation of N95 filtering facepiece respirators challenged with engineered nanoparticles. Aerosol and Air Quality Research16: 212–220. DOI: 10.4209/aaqr.2015.06.0399.
