Titanium dioxide nanoparticles: occupational exposure assessment in the photocatalytic paving production

  • Andrea SpinazzèEmail author
  • Andrea Cattaneo
  • Marina Limonta
  • Valentina Bollati
  • Pier Alberto Bertazzi
  • Domenico M. Cavallo
Research Paper


Limited data are available regarding occupational exposure assessment to nano-sized titanium dioxide (nano-TiO2). The objective of this study is to assess the occupational exposure of workers engaged in the application of nano-TiO2 onto concrete building materials, by means of a multi-metric approach (mean diameter, number, mass and surface area concentrations). The measurement design consists of the combined use of (i) direct-reading instruments to evaluate the total particle number concentrations relative to the background concentration and the mean size-dependent characteristics of particles (mean diameter and surface area concentration) and to estimate the 8-h time-weighted average (8-h TWA) exposure to nano-TiO2 for workers involved in different working tasks; and (ii) filter-based air sampling, used for the determination of size-resolved particle mass concentrations. A further estimation was performed to obtain the mean 8-h TWA exposure values expressed as mass concentrations (µg nano-TiO2/m3). The multi-metric characterization of occupational exposure to nano-TiO2 was significantly different both for different work environments and for each work task. Generally, workers were exposed to engineered nanoparticles (ENPs; <100 nm) mean levels lower than the recommended reference values and proposed occupational exposure limits (40,000 particle/cm3; 300 µg/m3) and relevant exposures to peak concentration were not likely to be expected. The estimated 8-h TWA exposure showed differences between the unexposed and exposed subjects. For these last, further differences were defined between operators involved in different work tasks. This study provides information on nano-TiO2 number and mass concentration, size distribution, particles diameter and surface area concentrations, which were used to obtain work shift-averaged exposures.


Occupational exposure Exposure assessment Titanium dioxide Engineered nanoparticles Engineered nanomaterial Occupational health 



The authors gratefully acknowledge PURETI Italia srl for the participation in this research project. The authors also extend an acknowledgment to Dr. Sabrina Rovelli for her contribution to the environmental samplings.


This study was supported by a grant in the framework of “The MULAN program” (MULtilevel Approach to the study of Nanomaterials health and safety), a project founded by Fondazione Cariplo (Grant Number: 2011-2096).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication.


  1. (The) American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (2010) Threshold limit values for chemical substances and physical agents & biological exposure indices. Signature Publications 2010, Cincinnati, OHGoogle Scholar
  2. Asbach, C, Kuhlbusch T, Kaminski H et al (2012) NanoGEM standard operation procedures for assessing exposure to nanomaterials, following a tiered approach. Accessed 6 June 2016
  3. Asbach C, Kaminski H, Von Barany D, Kuhlbusch TAJ, Monz C, Dziurowitz N, Pelzer J, Vossen K, Berlin K, Dietrich S, Götz U, Kiesling HJ, Scierl R, Dahmann D (2012) Comparability of portable nanoparticle exposure monitors. Ann Occup Hyg 56(5):606–621Google Scholar
  4. Berges MGM (2013) Exposure during production and handling of manufactured nanomaterials. In: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (ed) Nanomaterials, Wiley-VCH Verlag. GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim, Germany. doi: 10.1002/9783527673919.ch2
  5. Brouwer D, van Duuren-Stuurman B, Berges M et al (2009) From workplace air measurement results towards estimates of exposure? Development of a strategy to assess exposure to manufactured nano-objects. J Nanopart Res 11:1867–1881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brouwer D, Berges M, Virji MA et al (2012) Harmonization of measurement strategies for exposure to manufactured nano-objects; report of a workshop. Ann Occup Hyg 56(1):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen BT, Afshari A, Stone S et al (2010) Nanoparticles containing spray can aerosol: characterization, exposure assessment, and generator design. Inhal Toxicol 22(13):1072–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cornelissen R, Jongeneelen F, van Broekhuizen P et al (2012) Guidance working safely with nanomaterials and –products, the guide for employers and employees. FNV, VNO/NCW, CNV. Accessed 6 June 2016
  9. Curwin B, Bertke S (2011) Exposure characterization of metal oxide nanoparticles in the workplace. J Occup Environ Hyg 8:580–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Demou E, Stark WJ, Hellweg S (2009) Particle emission and exposure during nanoparticle synthesis in research laboratories. Ann Occup Hyg 53:829–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fierz M, Houle C, Steigmeier P et al (2011) Design calibration, and field performance of a miniature diffusion size classifier. Aerosol Sci Technol 45(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. IFA Criteria for Assessment of the Effectiveness of Protective Measures. Institut für Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung (2011). Accessed 18 Dec 2015
  13. Japan National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) (2011) Final reports on risk assessments of three manufactured nanomaterials, 2011. Accessed 18 Dec 2015
  14. Jensen ACØ, Levin M, Koivisto AJ, Kling KI, Saber AT, Koponen IK (2015) Exposure assessment of particulate matter from abrasive treatment of carbon and glass fibre-reinforced epoxy-composites—two case studies. Aerosol Air Qual Res 15(5):1906–1916. doi: 10.4209/aaqr.2015.02.0086 Google Scholar
  15. Kaluza S, Balderhaar JK, Orthen B et al (2009) Literature review. In: Kosk-Bienko J (ed) Workplace exposure to nanoparticles. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA), Spain, pp 1–89Google Scholar
  16. Kaminski H, Kuhlbusch TA, Rath S et al (2013) Comparability of mobility particle sizers and diffusion chargers. J Aerosol Sci 57:156–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kaminski H, Beyer M, Fissan H et al (2015) Measurements of nanoscale TiO2 and Al2O3 in industrial workplace environments-methodology and results. Aerosol Air Qual Res. doi: 10.4209/aaqr.2014.03.0065 Google Scholar
  18. Koivisto AJ, Aromaa M, Mäkelä JM et al (2012a) Concept to estimate regional inhalation dose of industrially synthesized nanoparticles. ACS Nano 6:1195–1203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koivisto AJ, Lyyränen J, Auvinen A et al (2012b) Industrial worker exposure to airborne particles during the packing of pigment and nanoscale titanium dioxide. Inhal Toxicol 24:839–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koivisto AJ, Palomäki JE, Viitanen A-K et al (2014) Range-finding risk assessment of inhalation exposure to nanodiamonds in a laboratory environment. Int J Environ Res Public Health 11:5382–5402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koivisto AJ, Jensen ACØ, Levin M et al (2015) Testing a near field/far field model performance for prediction of particulate matter emissions in a paint factory. Environ Sci Process Impacts 17:62–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koponen IK, Koivisto AJ, Jensen KA (2015) Worker exposure and high time-resolution analyses of process-related dust concentrations at mixing stations in two paint factories. Ann Occup Hyg. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/mev014 Google Scholar
  23. Kuhlbusch TAJ, Asbach C, Fisaan H et al (2011) Nanoparticle exposure at nanotechnology workplaces: a review. Part Fibre Toxicol. doi: 10.1186/1743-8977-8-22 Google Scholar
  24. Lee JH, Kwon M, Ji JH et al (2011) Exposure assessment of workplaces manufacturing nanosized TiO2 and silver. Inhal Toxicol 23(4):226–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lorenz C, Hagendorfer H, von Goetz N et al (2011) Nanosized aerosols from consumer sprays: experimental analysis and exposure modeling for four commercial products. J Nanopart Res 13(8):3377–3391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meier R, Clark K, Riediker M (2013) Comparative testing of a miniature diffusion size classifier to assess airborne ultrafine particles under field conditions. Aerosol Sci Technol 47(1):22–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Methner M, Hodson L, Geraci C (2009a) Nanoparticle emission assessment technique (NEAT) for the identification and measurement of potential inhalation exposure to engineered nanomaterials—part A. J Occup Environ Hyg 7(3):127–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Methner M, Hodson L, Dames A, Geraci C (2009b) Nanoparticle emission assessment technique (NEAT) part B. J Occup Environ Hyg 7:163–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morawska L, McGarry P, Morris H et al (2012) Measurements of particle emissions from nanotechnology processes, with assessment of measuring techniques and workplace controls. Safe Work Australia Report. Accessed 6 June 2016
  30. NIOSH. Current Intelligence Bulletin 63 (2011) Occupational exposure to titanium dioxide. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, DHHS, 2011. No. 2011-160, Cincinnati, OHGoogle Scholar
  31. Pietroiusti A, Magrini A (2014) Engineered nanoparticles at the workplace: current knowledge about workers’ risk. Occup Med 64(5):319–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Price HD, Stahlmecke B, Arthur R, Kaminski H, Lindermann J, Däuber E, Asbach C, Kuhlbusch TAJ, BéruBé KA, Jones TP (2014) Comparison of instruments for particle number size distribution measurements in air quality monitoring. J Aerosol Sci 76:48–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shi H, Magaye R, Castranova V, Zhao J (2013) Titanium dioxide nanoparticles: a review of current toxicological data. Part Fibre Toxicol 10(1):15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Spinazzè A, Cattaneo A, Scocca DR et al (2015) Multi-metric measurement of personal exposure to ultrafine particles in selected urban microenvironments. Atmos Environ 110:8–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stone V, Hankin S, Aitken R et al (2010) Engineered nanoparticles: review of health and environmental safety. Edinburgh Napier University. Accessed 18 Dec 2015
  36. Tsai C-J, Wu C-H, Leu M-L et al (2009) Dustiness test of nanopowders using a standard rotating drum with a modified sampling train. J Nanopart Res 11:121–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tsai C-J, Huang C-Y, Chen S-C et al (2011) Exposure assessment of nano-sized and respirable particles at different workplaces. J Nanopart Res 13:4161–4172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Van Broekhuizen P, van Broekhuizen F, Cornelissen R, Reijnders L (2011) Use of nanomaterials in the European construction industry and some occupational health aspects thereof. J Nanopart Res 13:447–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Van Broekhuizen P, van Veelen W, Streekstra W-H et al (2012) Exposure limits for nanoparticles: report of an international workshop on nano reference values. Ann Occup Hyg 56:515–524Google Scholar
  40. Yang Y, Mao P, Wang Z-P, Zhang J-H (2012) Distribution of nanoparticle number concentrations at a nano-TiO2 Plant. Aerosol Air Qual Res 12(5):934–940. doi: 10.4209/aaqr.2012.02.0047 Google Scholar
  41. Zimmerman N, Pollitt KJG, Jeong CH, Wang JM, Jung T, Cooper JM, Wallace JS, Evans GJ (2014) Comparison of three nanoparticle sizing instruments: the influence of particle morphology. Atmos Environ 86:140–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Spinazzè
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andrea Cattaneo
    • 1
  • Marina Limonta
    • 1
  • Valentina Bollati
    • 2
    • 3
  • Pier Alberto Bertazzi
    • 2
    • 3
  • Domenico M. Cavallo
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Scienza e Alta TecnologiaUniversità degli studi dell’InsubriaComoItaly
  2. 2.EPIGET-Epidemiology, Epigenetics and Toxicology Lab, Dipartimento di Scienze Cliniche e di ComunitàUniversità degli Studi di MilanoMilanItaly
  3. 3.Unità di Epidemiologia, Fondazione Cà GrandaIRCCS Ospedale Maggiore PoliclinicoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations