Seunghon Ham1, Sunju Kim1, Naroo Lee2, Pilje Kim3, Igchun Eom3, Perng-Jy Tsai4, Kiyoung Lee1, Chungsik Yoon 1

  • 1 Department of Environmental Health, Institute of Health and Environment, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University, (null), Korea
  • 2 Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency, Daejeon, Korea
  • 3 Risk Assessment Division, National Institute of Environmental Research, Incheon, Korea
  • 4 Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Medical College, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan

Received: March 3, 2015
Revised: May 6, 2015
Accepted: May 6, 2015
Download Citation: ||  

  • Download: PDF

Cite this article:
Ham, S., Kim, S., Lee, N., Kim, P., Eom, I., Tsai, P.J., Lee, K. and Yoon, C. (2015). Comparison of Nanoparticle Exposure Levels Based on Facility Type—Small-Scale Laboratories, Large-Scale Manufacturing Workplaces, and Unintended Nanoparticle-Emitting Workplaces. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 15: 1967-1978.


  • Nanoparticles were characterized by types and size of workplaces.
  • Exposure and size characteristics were depend on the size and type of production.
  • Airborne nano particle was low in lab while was high in welding workplace.
  • Specific risk management strategies are required to reduce nano particle exposure.



The aims of this study were to investigate the concentrations and characteristics of nanoparticle exposure at various workplaces. We compared the concentration and characteristics of nanoparticles at nine workplaces of three types; i.e., small laboratories (LAB), large-scale engineered nanoparticle manufacturing workplaces (ENP), and unintended nanoparticle-emitting workplaces (UNP), using real-time monitoring devices including scanning mobility particle sizers (SMPS), condensation particle counters (CPC), surface area monitors (SAM), and gravimetric sampling. ANOVA and Scheffe’s post hoc tests were performed to compare the concentration based on the type of workplace. The concentrations at UNPs were higher than those at other types of workplace for all measured metrics followed by (in order) ENP manufacturing workplaces and LAB (p < 0.01). Geometric means and geometric standard deviations of LAB, ENP, and UNP for total number concentration measured using SMPS were 8,458 (1.41), 19,612 (2.18), and 84,172 (2.80) particles cm–3, respectively. For CPC, the concentrations were 6,143 (1.45), 11,955 (2.42), and 38,886 (2.61) particles cm–3, respectively. The surface area concentrations were 32.79 (1.46), 93.68 (2.60), and 358.41 (2.74) μm2 cm–3, respectively. The characteristics of exposure and size distributions differed among the workplaces. Some tasks or processes at LAB exhibited higher concentrations than those at ENP or UNP workplaces, and LAB showed the lowest concentration. In conclusion, we observed different exposure characteristics at LAB, ENP, and UNP suggesting that different risk management strategies are required.

Keywords: Nanoparticle exposure assessment; Laboratories; Engineered nanoparticle; Unintended

Share this article with your colleagues 


Subscribe to our Newsletter 

Aerosol and Air Quality Research has published over 2,000 peer-reviewed articles. Enter your email address to receive latest updates and research articles to your inbox every second week.

77st percentile
Powered by
   SCImago Journal & Country Rank

2022 Impact Factor: 4.0
5-Year Impact Factor: 3.4

Aerosol and Air Quality Research partners with Publons

CLOCKSS system has permission to ingest, preserve, and serve this Archival Unit
CLOCKSS system has permission to ingest, preserve, and serve this Archival Unit

Aerosol and Air Quality Research (AAQR) is an independently-run non-profit journal that promotes submissions of high-quality research and strives to be one of the leading aerosol and air quality open-access journals in the world. We use cookies on this website to personalize content to improve your user experience and analyze our traffic. By using this site you agree to its use of cookies.