4.3 Article

Occupational Exposure to Ultrafine Particles and Placental Histopathological Lesions: A Retrospective Study about 130 Cases

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182312719

Keywords

placenta; particulate matter; occupational exposure; nanoparticles; pathology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study investigated the association between maternal occupational exposure to Ultrafine Particles (UFPs) and histopathological placental lesions, revealing a significant correlation between exposure and placental hypoplasia. Further research is needed to clarify the pathophysiological mechanisms involved.
Ultrafine particles (UFPs) are particles smaller than 100 nanometers that are produced unintentionally during human activities or natural phenomena. They have a higher biological reactivity than bigger particles and can reach the placenta after maternal exposure. One study has shown an association between maternal occupational exposure to UFPs and fetal growth restriction. Yet few studies have focused on the effects of UFP exposure on placental histopathological lesions. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between maternal occupational exposure to UFPs and histopathological lesions of their placenta. The analyses were based on data from the ARTEMIS Center. A job-exposure matrix was used to assess occupational exposure to UFPs. The histopathological placental exam was performed by two pathologists who were blinded to the exposure of each subject. The examination was conducted in accordance with the recommendations of the Amsterdam consensus. The study sample included 130 placentas (30 exposed, 100 unexposed). Maternal occupational exposure to UFPs during pregnancy is significantly associated with placental hypoplasia (the phenomenon affected 61% of the exposed patients and 34% of the unexposed ones, p < 0.01). Further research is needed to explain its pathophysiological mechanisms.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available