↓ Skip to main content

A combined experimental and numerical study on upper airway dosimetry of inhaled nanoparticles from an electrical discharge machine shop

Overview of attention for article published in Particle and Fibre Toxicology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A combined experimental and numerical study on upper airway dosimetry of inhaled nanoparticles from an electrical discharge machine shop
Published in
Particle and Fibre Toxicology, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12989-017-0203-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lin Tian, Yidan Shang, Rui Chen, Ru Bai, Chunying Chen, Kiao Inthavong, Jiyuan Tu

Abstract

Exposure to nanoparticles in the workplace is a health concern to occupational workers with increased risk of developing respiratory, cardiovascular, and neurological disorders. Based on animal inhalation study and human lung tumor risk extrapolation, current authoritative recommendations on exposure limits are either on total mass or number concentrations. Effects of particle size distribution and the implication to regional airway dosages are not elaborated. Real time production of particle concentration and size distribution in the range from 5.52 to 98.2 nm were recorded in a wire-cut electrical discharge machine shop (WEDM) during a typical working day. Under the realistic exposure condition, human inhalation simulations were performed in a physiologically realistic nasal and upper airway replica. The combined experimental and numerical study is the first to establish a realistic exposure condition, and under which, detailed dose metric studies can be performed. In addition to mass concentration guided exposure limit, inhalation risks to nano-pollutant were reexamined accounting for the actual particle size distribution and deposition statistics. Detailed dosimetries of the inhaled nano-pollutants in human nasal and upper airways with respect to particle number, mass and surface area were discussed, and empirical equations were developed. An astonishing enhancement of human airway dosages were detected by current combined experimental and numerical study in the WEDM machine shop. Up to 33 folds in mass, 27 folds in surface area and 8 folds in number dosages were detected during working hours in comparison to the background dosimetry measured at midnight. The real time particle concentration measurement showed substantial emission of nano-pollutants by WEDM machining activity, and the combined experimental and numerical study provided extraordinary details on human inhalation dosimetry. It was found out that human inhalation dosimetry was extremely sensitive to real time particle concentration and size distribution. Averaged particle concentration over 24-h period will inevitably misrepresent the sensible information critical for realistic inhalation risk assessment. Particle size distribution carries very important information in determining human airway dosimetry. A pure number or mass concentration recommendation on the exposure limit at workplace is insufficient. A particle size distribution, together with the deposition equations, is critical to recognize the actual exposure risks. In addition, human airway dosimetry in number, mass and surface area varies significantly. A complete inhalation risk assessment requires the knowledge of toxicity mechanisms in response to each individual metric. Further improvements in these areas are needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 23%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Professor 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 5 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 9%
Physics and Astronomy 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 8 36%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 July 2017.
All research outputs
#6,859,663
of 11,465,445 outputs
Outputs from Particle and Fibre Toxicology
#183
of 339 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,303
of 258,625 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Particle and Fibre Toxicology
#6
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,465,445 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 339 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 258,625 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.