A strategy for assessing workplace exposures to nanomaterials

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene

Volumn 8, Issue 11, 2011, Pages 673-685

  Ramachandran, Gurumurthy ^a   Ostraat, Michele ^b   Evans, Douglas E ^c   Methner, Mark M ^c   O’Shaughnessy, Patrick ^d   D’Arcy, James ^e   Geraci, Charles L ^c   Stevenson, Edward ^f   Maynard, Andrew ^g   Rickabaugh, Keith ^h  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b RTI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

^c NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^e GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION   (United States)

^f Liberty Mutual Insurance Company   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^h RJ LEE GROUP   (United States)

Author keywords

Exposure assessment strategy; Exposure management; Nanomaterials

Indexed keywords

NANOMATERIAL;

AIR POLLUTANT; ARTICLE; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; METHODOLOGY; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAFETY; TIME; WORKPLACE;

AIR POLLUTANTS, OCCUPATIONAL; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; HUMANS; NANOSTRUCTURES; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAFETY MANAGEMENT; TIME FACTORS; WORKPLACE;

EID: 84857388900     PISSN: 15459624     EISSN: 15459632     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2011.623223     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Hullmans, A.: Measuring and assessing the development of nanotechnology, Scientometrics 70(3):739–758 (2007).
2. Lane, N., and T. Kalil: “The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Present at the Creation.” [Online] Available at http://www.issues.org/21.4/lane.html (Accessed April 5, 2010).
3. Roco, M.C.: Nanotechnology initiative: Past, present, future. In Handbook on Nanoscience, Engineering, Technology, 2nd ed. W.A. Goddard, et al. (eds.). Boca Raton, Fla.: Taylor & Francis, 2007. pp. 19–44.
4. Lux Research: The Nanotech Report, 5th ed. New York: Lux Research Inc., 2007.
5. Roco, M.C.: Broader societal issues of nanotechnology. J. Nanopart. Res. 5(3–4):181–189 (2003).
6. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center:“ Analysis.” [Online] Available at http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer/analysis draft (Accessed February 12, 2010).
7. Health & Safety Executive (HSE): Nanoparticles: An Occupational Hygiene Review (Research Report 274) by R.J. Aitken, K.S. Creely, and C.L. London: Tran. Institute of OccupationalMedicine for the Health and Safety Executive, 2004.
8. Maynard, A.D.: Nanotechnology: A Research Strategy for Addressing Risk. Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, 2006.
9. Kandlikar, M., G. Ramachandran, A. Maynard, et al.: Health risk assessment for nanoparticles: A case for using expert judgment. J. Nanopart. Res. 9(1):137–156 (2007).
10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH): Approaches to safe nanotechnology: An information exchange with NIOSH. Draft for public comment, Version 1.1. 2006.
11. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Workplace Atmospheres—Ultrafine, Nanoparticle and Nanostructured Aerosols—Inhalation Exposure Characterization and Assessment (ISO/TR 27628: 2007(E)). Geneva: ISO, 2007.
12. McCawley, M., M. Kent, and M. Berakis: Ultrafine beryllium number concentration as a possible metric for chronic beryllium disease risk. Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 16:631–638 (2001).
13. Maynard, A.D., and E. D. Kuempel: Airborne nanostructured particles and occupational health. J. Nanopart. Res. 7(6):587–614 (2005).
14. Paik, S.Y., D.M. Zalk, and P. Swuste: Application of a pilot control banding tool for risk level assessment and control of nanoparticle exposures. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 52(6):419–428 (2008).
15. Ignacio, J., and B. Bullock (eds.): A Strategy for Assessing and Managing Occupational Exposures, 3rd ed. Fairfax, Va.: AIHA Press, 2006.
16. Swihart, M.T.: Vapor-phase synthesis of nanoparticles. Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 8(1):127–133 (2003).
17. Maynard, A.D., P.A. Baron, M. Foley, et al.: Exposure to carbon nanotube material: aerosol release during the handling of unrefined singlewalled carbon nanotube material. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 67:87–107 (2004).
18. Mazzuckelli, J.F., M.M. Methner, M.E. Birch, et al.: Case Study. Identification and characterization of potential sources ofworker exposure to carbon nanofibers during polymer composite laboratory operations. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 4:125–130 (2007).
19. Kuhlbusch, T.A.J., S. Neumann, and H. Fissan: Number size distribution, mass concentration, and particle composition of PM1, PM2.5, and PM10 in bag filling areas of carbon black production. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 1:660–671 (2004).
20. Evans, D.E., B. K. Ku, M.E. Birch, and K. H. Dunn: Aerosolmonitoring during carbon nanofiber production: Mobile direct-reading sampling. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 54(5):514–531 (2010).
21. Johnson, D.R., M.M. Methner, A.J. Kennedy, et al.: Potential for occupational exposure to engineered carbon-based nanomaterials in environmental laboratory studies. Environ. Health Perspect. 118(1):49–54 (2010).
22. Peters, T.M., S. Elzey, R. Johnson, et al.: Airborne monitoring to distinguish engineered nanomaterials from incidental particles for environmental health and safety. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 6:73–81 (2009).
23. Methner, M., L. Hodson, and C. Geraci: Nanoparticle emission assessment technique (NEAT) for the identification and measurement of potential inhalation exposure to engineered nanomaterials- Part A. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 7:1–6 (2010).
24. Methner, M., L. Hodson, A. Dames, et al.: Nanoparticle emission assessment technique (NEAT) for the identification and measurement of potential inhalation exposure to engineered nanomaterials- Part B: Results from 12 field studies. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg., 7:163–176 (2010).
25. Dasch, J., J. D’Arcy, A. Gundrum, et al.: Characterization of fine particles from machining in automotive plants. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2:609–625 (2005).
26. Peters, M.T., W.A. Heitbrink, D.E. Evans, et al.: The mapping of fine and ultrafine particle concentrations in an engine machining and assembly facility. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 50(3):249–257 (2006).
27. Bello, D., A. J. Hart, K. Ahn, et al.: Particles exposure levels during CVD growth and subsequent handling of vertically aligned carbon nanotube films. Carbon 46:974–981 (2008).
28. Evans, D.E., W.A. Heitbrink, T.J. Slavin, et al.: Ultrafine and respirable particles in an automotive grey iron foundry. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 52(1):9–22 (2008).
29. Corn, M., and N.E. Esmen: Workplace exposure zones for classification of employee exposures to physical and chemical agents. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 40:47–57 (1979).
30. Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN): Workplace Atmospheres—Guidance for the Assessment of Exposure by Inhalation of Chemical Agents for Comparison with Limit Values and Measurement Strategy (European Standard EN 689). Effective no later than August 1995.
31. O’Brien, D.M.: (2003). Aerosol mapping of a facility with multiple cases of hypersensitivity pneumonitis: Demonstration of mist reduction and a possible dose/response relationship. Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 18:947–952 (2003).
32. Park, J.Y., G. Ramachandran, P.C. Raynor, et al.: Determination of particle concentration rankings by spatial mapping of particle surface area, number, and mass concentrations in a restaurant and a die casting plant. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 7:466–476 (2010).
33. Ramachandran, G., D. Paulsen, W. Watts, et al.: Mass, surface area and number metrics in diesel occupational exposure assessment. J. Environ. Monit. 7(7):728–735 (2005).
34. Heitbrink, W., D. Evans, B. Ku, et al.: Relationships among particle number, surface area, and respirable mass concentrations in automotive engine manufacturing. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 6:19–31 (2009).
35. Peters, A., H.E. Wichmann, T. Tuch, et al.: Respiratory effects are associated with the number of ultrafine particles. Am. J. Resp. Crit. Care Med. 155:1376–1383 (1997).
36. Maynard, A.D., and R.L. Maynard: A derived association between ambient aerosol surface area and excess mortality using historic time series data. Atmos. Environ. 36:5561–5567 (2002).
37. Brown, D.M., M.R. Wilson, W. MacNee, et al.: Size-dependent proinflammatory effects of ultrafine polystyrene particles: A role for SA and oxidative stress in the enhanced activity of ultrafines. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 175:191–199 (2001).
38. Li, X.Y., P.S. Gilmour, K. Donaldson, et al.: Free radical activity and pro-inflammatory effects of particulate air pollution (PM10) in vivo and in vitro. Thorax 51:1216–1222 (1996).
39. Oberdörster, G.: Toxicology of ultrafine particles: in vivo studies. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A. 358:2719–2740 (2000).
40. Tran, C.L., D. Buchanan, R.T. Cullen, et al.: 2000. Inhalation of poorly soluble particles. II. Influence of particle surface area on inflammation and clearance. Inhal. Toxicol. 12:1113–1126 (2000).
41. Maynard, A.D., and R.J. Aitken: Assessing exposure to airborne nanomaterials: Current abilities and future requirements. Nanotoxicology 1:26–41 (2007).
42. Flegal, K.M., P.M. Keyl, and F.J. Nieto: Differential misclassification arising from nondifferential errors in exposure measurement. Am. J. Epidemiol. 134:1233–1241 (1991).
43. Baron, P.A., and K. Willeke: Aerosol Measurement: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, 2nd Ed. New York: Wiley-Interscience, 2001.
44. ACGIH ®: Air Sampling Instruments, 9th ed. Cincinnati, Ohio: ACGIH, 2001.
45. Baron, P.A., G.J. Deye, B.T. Chen, et al.: Aerosolization of single-walled carbon nanotubes for an inhalation study. Inhal. Toxicol. 20(8):751–760 (2003).
46. Demou, E., P. Peter, and S. Hellweg: Exposure to manufactured nanostructured particles in an industrial pilot plant. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 52(8):695–706 (2008).
47. Park, J., B.K. Kwak, E. Bae, et al.: Characterization of exposure to silver nanoparticles in amanufacturing facility. J. Nanopart. Res. 11:1705–1712 (2009).
48. Schmoll, L., T.M. Peters, and P.T. O’Shaughnessy: Use of a condensation particle counter and an optical particle counter to assess the number concentration of engineered nanoparticles. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 7:535–545 (2010).
49. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP): Human Respiratory Tract Model for Radiological Protection (ICRP Pub. 66). Elmsford, N.Y.: Pergamon Press, 1994.
50. Asbach, C., H. Fissan, B. Stahlmecke, et al.: Conceptual limitations and extensions of the lung-deposited nanoparticle surface area monitor (NSAM). J. Nanopart. Res. 11:101–109 (2009).
51. Ku, B.K., and A. D. Maynard: Comparing aerosol surface-area measurements ofmonodisperse ultrafine silver agglomerates by mobility analysis, transmission electron microscopy and diffusion charging. J. Aerosol Sci. 36:1108–1124 (2005).
52. Schulte, P.A., V. Murashov, R. Zumwalde, et al.: Occupational exposure limits for nanomaterials: State of the art. J. Nanopart. Res. 12:1971–1987 (2010).
53. Ausschuss für Gefahrstoffe [German Committee on Hazardous Substances]: Technische Regeln für Gefahrstoffe 900 (TRGS 900) [Technical Regulations for Hazardous Substances], Arbeitsplatzgrenzwerte [Job limit values, OELs]. [Online] Available at http://www.baua.de/de/Themen-von-A-Z/Gefahrstoffe/TRGS/TRGS-900.html (Accessed Aug. 26, 2011).
54. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH): Evaluation of Health Hazard and Recommendations for Occupational Exposure to Titanium Dioxide, 2005. Draft Document for Public Review and Comment. NIOSH Current Intelligence Bulletin, NIOSH Docket #100.
55. Bayer MaterialScience: “Occupational Exposure Limit (OEL) for Baytubes Defined by Bayer MaterialScience.” [Online] Available at http://www.baytubes.com/news and services/news 0911 6 oel.html (Accessed October 12, 2011)
56. Luizi, F.: “Responsible Care & Nanomaterials: Case Study Nanocyl.” Paper presented at European Responsible Care Conference, Prague, Czech Republic, Oct. 21–23, 2009.
57. German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, BAuA: “Risk Figures and Exposure-Risk Relationships in Activities Involving Carcinogenic Hazardous Substances.” [On line] Available at http://www.baua.de/en/Topics-from-A-to-Z/Hazardous- Substances/TRGS/Announcement-910.html. (Accessed October 12, 2011).
58. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH): Occupational Exposure to Carbon Nanotube and Fibers. NIOSH Current Intelligence Bulletin, November 2010 draft.
59. British Standard Institute (BSI): BSI Guide to Safe Handling and Disposal of Manufactured Nanomaterials (BSI PD6699–2:2007). London: BSI, 2007.
60. IFA: “Criteria for Assessment of the Effectiveness of Protective Measures.” [Online] Available at http://www.dguv.de/ifa/en/fac/nanopartikel/beurtei-lungsmassstaebe/index.jsp (Accessed October 12, 2011).
61. Pacurari, M., V. Castranova, and V. Vallyathan: Single- andmulti-wall carbon nanotubes versus asbestos: Are the carbon nanotubes a new health risk to humans? J. Toxicol. Environ. Health A 73(5):378–395 (2010).
62. Patlolla, A., B. Knighten, and P. Tchounwou: Multi-walled carbon nanotubes induce cytotoxicity, genotoxicity and apoptosis in normal human dermal fibroblast cells. Ethn. Dis. 20(1 Suppl 1):S1–65–72 (2010).
63. Kishore, A.S., P. Surekha, and P.B. Murthy: Assessment of the dermal and ocular irritation potential of multi-walled carbon nanotubes by using in vitro and in vivo methods. Toxicol Lett. 191(2–3):268–274 (2009).
64. Shvedova, A.A., V. Castranova, E.R. Kisin, et al.: Exposure to carbon nanotube material: Assessment of nanotube cytotoxicity using human keratinocyte cells. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Part A 66:1909–1926 (2003).
65. Monteiro-Riviere, N.A., R.J. Nemanich, A.O. Inman, et al.: Multiwalled carbon nanotube interactions with human epidermal keratinocytes. Toxicol. Lett. 155:377–384 (2005).
66. Huczko, A., and H. Lange: Carbon nanotubes: Experimental evidence for a null risk of skin irritation and allergy. Full. Sci. Techn. 9:247–250 (2001).
67. Harris, P.J.F.: 1999. Carbon Nanotubes and Related Structure. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
68. Muller, J., F. Huaux, N. Moreau, et al.: Respiratory toxicity of multiwall carbon nanotubes. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 207:221–231 (2005).
69. Shvedova, A.A., E.R. Kisin, R. Mercer, et al.: Unusual inflammatory and fibrogenic pulmonary responses to single-walled carbon nanotubes in mice. Am. J. Physiol. Lung Cell. Mol. Physiol. 289(5):L698–L708 (2005).
70. Lam, C.-W., J.T. James, R. McCluskey, et al.: Pulmonary toxicity of single-wall carbon nanotubes in mice 7 and 90 days after intratracheal instillation. Toxicol. Sci. 77:126 (2004).
71. Lam, C.-W., J.R. James, R. McCluskey, et al.: A review of carbon nanotube toxicity and assessment of potential occupational and environmental health risks. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 36:189–217 (2006).
72. Pauluhn, J.: Multi-walled carbon nanotubes (Baytubes): Approach for derivation of occupational exposure limit. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 57:78–89 (2010).