Metrics and instruments used to assess occupational exposure to nanomaterials: A scoping review

Quantitative assessment of occupational exposure to nanomaterials in workplaces is crucial. This task faces many challenges, notably the lack of an agreed-upon metric for measuring and characterizing exposure. This scoping review examines research on exposure assessment, focusing on the metrics used to evaluate occupational exposure. In accordance with PRISMA-ScR reporting recommendations, databases PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched without initial time limit up to September 23, 2026. The inclusion criteria were articles quantitatively assessing airborne nanoscale particles in occupational or workplace relevant settings. The following data were extracted and descriptively analyzed: measurement metrics, instruments, tasks, sampling strategies, background assessment, and assessment purposes. From the 3867 records identified, 215 studies were included, of which number based measurements were reported in 195 (90.7%), particle size distributions in 164 (76.3%), mass related outcomes in 149 (69.3%) and airborne surface area measures in 69 (32.1%); categories overlapped. Fifty three studies reported lung deposition related surface area measures. Direct reading instruments characterized particle concentration and size patterns whereas collection based sampling and offline analyses provided complementary chemical and morphological information. Differences in background assessment, sampling location, instrument outputs and the distinction between directly measured and derived metrics complicated comparisons. The frequency of reporting does not determine the metric validity, health relevance, or comparative suitability. The choice of what metric to adopt depends on the material, occupational task, and assessment purpose. In addition, both online and offline measurements should be taken when appropriate, and reports need to be consistently compared to facilitate improved exposure characterization and interpretation.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Next Nanotechnology
Published
2026-11-07
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nxnano.2026.100921
Primary Topic
Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
article

Metrics and instruments used to assess occupational exposure to nanomaterials: A scoping review

Nargess Moghadasi, Azadeh Ashtarinezhad, Soqrat Omari Shekaftik, Neda Mehrparvar et al.
Next Nanotechnology
Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
article

Metrics and instruments used to assess occupational exposure to nanomaterials: A scoping review

Nargess Moghadasi, Azadeh Ashtarinezhad, Soqrat Omari Shekaftik, Neda Mehrparvar, Zahra Peivandi, Sadaf Tasbiti Banasaz
article en

Abstract

Quantitative assessment of occupational exposure to nanomaterials in workplaces is crucial. This task faces many challenges, notably the lack of an agreed-upon metric for measuring and characterizing exposure. This scoping review examines research on exposure assessment, focusing on the metrics used to evaluate occupational exposure. In accordance with PRISMA-ScR reporting recommendations, databases PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched without initial time limit up to September 23, 2026. The inclusion criteria were articles quantitatively assessing airborne nanoscale particles in occupational or workplace relevant settings. The following data were extracted and descriptively analyzed: measurement metrics, instruments, tasks, sampling strategies, background assessment, and assessment purposes. From the 3867 records identified, 215 studies were included, of which number based measurements were reported in 195 (90.7%), particle size distributions in 164 (76.3%), mass related outcomes in 149 (69.3%) and airborne surface area measures in 69 (32.1%); categories overlapped. Fifty three studies reported lung deposition related surface area measures. Direct reading instruments characterized particle concentration and size patterns whereas collection based sampling and offline analyses provided complementary chemical and morphological information. Differences in background assessment, sampling location, instrument outputs and the distinction between directly measured and derived metrics complicated comparisons. The frequency of reporting does not determine the metric validity, health relevance, or comparative suitability. The choice of what metric to adopt depends on the material, occupational task, and assessment purpose. In addition, both online and offline measurements should be taken when appropriate, and reports need to be consistently compared to facilitate improved exposure characterization and interpretation.

Next NanotechnologyVol. 10
Iran University of Medical Sciences (IR), Politecnico di Torino (IT), Tehran University of Medical Sciences (IR)
Iran University of Medical Sciences
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon