4.7 Article

Effect of Nanoparticles Exposure on Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide (FENO) in Workers Exposed to Nanomaterials

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR SCIENCES
卷 15, 期 1, 页码 878-894

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms15010878

关键词

occupational epidemiology; nanomaterials; airway inflammation; nanoparticles; Fractional exhaled nitric oxide; workers's respiratory health

资金

  1. National Health Research Institutes [98A1-EOSP03-014, 99A1-EOSP03-014, 00A1-EOSP03-014, 01A1-EOSP03-014]
  2. Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Taiwan, ROC [IOSH98-M323, IOSH99-M323, IOSH100-M323, IOSH101-M323]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) measurement is a useful diagnostic test of airway inflammation. However, there have been few studies of FENO in workers exposed to nanomaterials. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of nanoparticle (NP) exposure on FENO and to assess whether the FENO is increased in workers exposed to nanomaterials (NM). In this study, both exposed workers and non-exposed controls were recruited from NM handling plants in Taiwan. A total of 437 subjects (exposed group = 241, non-exposed group = 196) completed the FENO and spirometric measurements from 2009-2011. The authors used a control-banding (CB) matrix to categorize the risk level of each participant. In a multivariate linear regression analysis, this study found a significant association between risk level 2 of NP exposure and FENO. Furthermore, asthma, allergic rhinitis, peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), and NF-kappa B were also significantly associated with FENO. When the multivariate logistic regression model was adjusted for confounders, nano-TiO2 in all of the NM exposed categories had a significantly increased risk in FENO > 35 ppb. This study found associations between the risk level of NP exposure and FENO (particularly noteworthy for Nano-TiO2). Monitoring FENO in the lung could open up a window into the role nitric oxide (NO) may play in pathogenesis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据