4.1 Review

Occupational exposure to inhaled nanoparticles: Are young workers being left in the dust?

Journal

JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Volume 61, Issue 5, Pages 333-338

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/1348-9585.12056

Keywords

adolescent; airborne particles; inhaled exposure; vulnerable workers

Funding

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [406440_131282]
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [406440_131282] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Occupational exposure to inhaled nanoparticles (NPs) represents a significant concern for worker health. Adolescent workers may face unique risks for exposure and resulting health effects when compared with adult workers. Methods: This manuscript discusses key differences in risks for occupational exposures to inhaled NPs and resulting health effects between young workers and adult workers via an examination of both physiological and occupational setting factors. Results: Previous studies document how adolescents often face distinct and unique exposure scenarios to occupational hazards when compared to adults. Moreover, they also face different and unpredictable health effects because biological functions such as detoxification pathways and neurological mechanisms are still developing well into late adolescence. Early exposure also increases the chances of developing long-latency disease earlier in life. Taken together, adolescents' rapid growth and development encompasses highly dynamic and complex processes. An aggravating factor is that these processes do not necessarily fall in line with legal classifications of adulthood, nor with occupational exposure limits created for adult workers. Conclusions: The differences in exposures and health consequences from NPs on young workers are insufficiently understood. Research is needed to better understand what adolescent-specific mitigation strategies may be most suitable to address these risk factors.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available