Occupational exposure to crystalline silica and peripheral biomarkers: An update

Abstract

Peripheral biomarkers are important tools for detecting occupational exposures to prevent the onset and/or progression of diseases. Studies that reveal early peripheral biomarkers are highly important to preserve the health of workers and can potentially contribute to diagnosing and/or prognosing occupational pathologies. Exposure to crystalline silica is a problem in several workplaces because it increases the risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), tuberculosis, cancer, and pulmonary fibrosis, clinically defined as silicosis. Silicosis is diagnosed by chest radiography and/or lung tomography in advanced stages when there is a severe loss of lung function. Peripheral biomarkers can help in diagnosing early changes prior to silicosis and represent a highly important technical‐scientific advance that is minimally invasive. This review aimed to investigate the biomarkers studied for evaluating occupational exposure to crystalline silica and to understand the recent advances in this area. Potential oxidative, inflammatory, and immunological biomarkers were reviewed, as well as routine biomarkers such as biochemical parameters. It was found that biomarkers of effect such as serum CC16 and l‐selectin levels could represent promising alternatives. Additionally, studies have shown that neopterin levels in urine and serum can be used to monitor worker exposure. However, further studies are needed that include a greater number of participants, different times of exposure to crystalline silica, and a combination of silicosis patients and healthy volunteers. Evaluating the concentration of crystalline silica in occupational environments, its impact on biomarkers of effect, and alterations in lung function could contribute to revealing early health alterations in workers in a more robust manner.

Concept of health surveillance programme for workers exposed to respirable crystalline silica at present and in the past

“…Some of the introduced modifications can also consider the latest research results. In recent papers the authors discuss the use of some other diagnostic tools and new methods for early silicosis detection, like high resolution computed tomography (HRCT), ultra-low dose computed tomography (ULD-CT), alveolar crystal burden quantification in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), biomarkers present in serum or exhaled breath condensate (EBC) [27][28][29][30].…”

Screening of Serum Biomarkers of Coal Workers’ Pneumoconiosis by Metabolomics Combined with Machine Learning Strategy

“…However, these oxidative, inflammatory and immunological biomarkers are usually not very specific. Further studies also found serum Clara cell protein-16 (CC16) and l-selectin levels could be good biomarkers of pneumoconiosis effect, and neopterin levels in urine and serum may be good exposure biomarkers [ 44 ]. However, large sample epidemiological studies and are still needed for population verification, especially in combination with a large number of different types of people, including pneumoconiosis, healthy control and even nonpneumoconiosis workers exposed to occupational dust.…”

A study of inflammatory biomarkers in crystalline silica exposed rock drillers

“…Biomarker studies of CS exposed humans have focused on inflammation, pneumoproteins and other types of biomarkers, and the results have often been inconsistent (BlancoPérez et al 2021 ; Peruzzi et al 2022 ; Călutu et al 2023 ). This may partly be related to the selection of subjects.…”

“…

The mechanisms of pulmonary CS toxicity have not been completely elucidated. Proposed mechanisms include destruction of pulmonary surfactant or the modification of silica toxicity by surfactant covering the particles, the ability of CS to form free radicals, surface chemistry, the ability to increase lysosomal permeability and the role of silica to induce macrophage immune dysfunction (Hamilton et al Jr 2008;Pavan et al 2019).Biomarker studies of CS exposed humans have focused on inflammation, pneumoproteins and other types of biomarkers, and the results have often been inconsistent (Blan-coPérez et al 2021;Peruzzi et al 2022;Călutu et al 2023). This may partly be related to the selection of subjects.

…”