Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

National nanotechnology partnership to protect workers

  • Special Issue: Environmental and Human Exposure of Nanomaterials
  • Published:
Journal of Nanoparticle Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nanotechnology is predicted to improve many aspects of human life. By 2015, it is estimated to represent $3.1 trillion in manufactured goods. Data is emerging that exposure to nanomaterials may pose a health risk to workers. If the economic promise of nanotechnology is to be achieved, ways need to be found to protect nanotechnology workers now. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHAct) gave the responsibility to protect workers to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) through research, standards adoption, and standards enforcement. Since 1980, adopting new occupational health standards has grown more complex. The increased complexity has greatly slowed efforts to adopt protective standards for toxic agents that are well-known to pose significant risks. The likelihood of rapidly adopting standards to protect workers from nanomaterials, whose risks are just emerging, seems even more unlikely. Use of the OSHAct’s general duty clause to protect workers also seems uncertain at this time. In the interim, a national partnership led by NIOSH involving nanotech manufacturers and downstream users, workers, academic researchers, safety, and health practitioners is proposed. A National Nanotechnology Partnership would generate knowledge about the nature and the extent of worker risk, utilize that knowledge to develop risk control strategies to protect nanotechnology workers now, and provide an evidence base for NIOSH recommendations to OSHA for a nanotechnology program standard at a future date.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Administrative Procedures Act 5 United States Code § 553:2000

  • American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations v. OSHA, 965 F.2d 962 (11th Cir. 1992)

  • Cherrie J, Schneider T (1999) Validation of a new method for structured subjective assessment of past concentrations. Ann Occup Hyg 43(4):235–245

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Code of Federal Regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320:1995

  • Code of Federal Regulations, 29 CFR § 1910.133:2005

  • Code of Federal Regulations, 29 CFR § 1910.134:2005

  • Code of Federal Regulations, 29 CFR § 1910.135:2005

  • Code of Federal Regulations, 29 CFR § 1910.136:2005

  • Code of Federal Regulations, 29 CFR § 1910.138:2005

  • Code of Federal Regulations, 29 CFR § 1910.1200:2005

  • Code of Federal Regulations, 29 CFR. § 1910.1450:2005

  • Code of Federal Regulations, 29 CFR Part 1904:2005

  • Congressional Review Act, 5 United States Code §§ 801–808:1996

  • Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993) 509 U.S. 579

  • Davies CJ (2008) Nanotechnology oversight: an agenda for the new administration. Woodrow Wilson Center Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. Available at http://www.nanotechproject.org/publications/archive/pen13/. Accessed 2 Feb 2009

  • Erdely AD, Hulderman T, Salmen R et al (2009) Cross-talk between lung and systemic circulation during carbon nanotube respiratory exposure–potential biomakers. Nano Lett 9(1):36–43. doi:10.1021/nl801828z

    Article  PubMed  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Erosion, Technology and Concentration Group (2007) Principles for the oversight of nanotechnologies and nanomaterials. Available at http://www.etcgroup.org/en/issues/nanotechnology.html. Accessed 12 Jan 2009

  • Executive Order 12866 (1993) Regulatory planning and review. Fed Regist 58:51735

    Google Scholar 

  • Executive Order 13422 (2007) Further amendment to executive order 12866 on regulatory planning and review. Fed Regist 72:2763

    Google Scholar 

  • Executive Order 13497 (2009) Revocation of certain executive orders concerning regulatory planning and review. Fed Regist 74:6113

    Google Scholar 

  • General Accountability Office (2004) OSHA’s voluntary compliance strategies show promising results, but should be fully evaluated before they are expanded. GAO-04-378. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04378.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2009

  • Han JH, Lee EJ, Lee JH et al (2008) Monitoring multiwalled carbon nanotube exposure in carbon nanotube research facility. Inhal Toxicol 20:1–9. doi:10.1080/08958370701758593

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen SF, Larsen BH, Olsen SI et al (2007) Categorization framework to aid hazard identification of nanomaterials. Nanotoxicology 1:243–250. doi:10.1080/17435390701727509

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen SF, Maynard A, Baun A et al (2008) Late lessons from early warnings about nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 3:444–447. doi:10.1038/nnano.2008.198

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Harremoës P, Gee D, MacGavin M et al (2001) Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896–2000. European Environmental Agency, Copenhagen. http://reports.eea.europa.eu/environmental_issue_report_2001_22/en. Accessed 12 Jan 2009

  • Industrial Union Department vs. American Petroleum Institute (1980) 44 U.S. 607, 642

  • Information Quality Act in Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 Pub. L. No. 106–554, § 515(a) (2000)

  • Koshi S (1980) Proposition for a method of evaluating the work environment with regard to air-borne toxic substances. Ind Health 18:179–186

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kuempel ED, Geraci CL, Schulte PA (2007) Risk assessment approaches and research needs for nanoparticles: an examination of data and information from current studies. In: Simeonova PP, Opopol N, Luster MI (eds) Nanotechnology–toxicological issues and environmental safety. Springer, New York, pp 119–145

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhlbusch TAJ, Fissan H (2006) Particle characteristics in the reactor and pelletizing areas of carbon black production. J Occup Environ Health 3:558–567

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lam C-W, James JT, McCluskey R et al (2004) Pulmonary toxicity of single-wall carbon nanotubes in mice 7 and 90 days after intratracheal instillation. Toxicol Sci 77:126–134. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfg243

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lux Research, Inc (2007) The nanotech report: investment overview and market research for nanotechnology, 5th edn. New York

  • Lux Research, Inc (2008) Nanomaterials: Corporate strategy. http://www.luxresearchinc.com/. Accessed 10 Jan 2009

  • Marchant G, Sylvester D, Abbott KW (2007) Nanotechnology regulation: the United States approach. In: Hodge G, Bowman D, Ludlow K (eds) New global frontiers in regulation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 189–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazurek JM, Wood MS (2008) Asbestos-related years of potential life lost before age 65 years—United States, 1968–2005. Mortal Morb Wkly Rep 57:1321–1325

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarity TO (1992) Some thoughts on “deossifying” the rulemaking process. Duke Law J 41:1385–1462. doi:10.2307/1372818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarity TO (2005) Daubert and the proper role for the courts in health, safety, and environmental regulation. Am J Public Health 95(S1):S92–S98. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.044545

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McGarity T, Shapiro S (1993) Workers at risk: the failed promise of the occupational safety and health administration. Praeger, Westport

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendeloff J (1988) The dilemma of toxic substance regulation: how overregulation causes underregulation at OSHA. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Methner MM, Birch ME, Evans DE et al (2007) Case study: identification and characterization of potential sources of worker exposure to carbon nanofibers during polymer composite laboratory operations. J Occup Environ Hyg 4:D125–D130. doi:10.1080/15459620701683871

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Munich Re Group (2002) Nanotechnology: what is in store for us? Munich Re Group, Munich, Germany

  • Murashov V, Howard J (2009) Essential features of proactive occupational risk management of emerging technologies: the example of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology (accepted)

  • Nanotransport Project (2008) Behavior of aerosols released to ambient air from nanoparticle manufacturing. http://research.dnv.com/nanotransport/NANOTRANSPORTdownload/NANOTRANSPORT_Pilar08_f_rev.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2009

  • Nasterlack M, Zober A, Oberlinner C (2008) Considerations on occupational medical surveillance in employees handling nanoparticles. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 8:721–726. doi:10.1007/s00420-007-0245-5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2008) Strategic plan for NIOSH nanotechnology research: filling the knowledge gaps. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/nanotech/strat_plan.html. Accessed 16 Jan 2009

  • National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2009a) Approaches to safe nanotechnology: managing the health and safety concerns associated with engineered nanomaterials. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2009-125

  • National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2009b) Interim guidance for medical screening and hazard surveillance for workers potentially exposed to engineered nanoparticles. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2009-116

  • National Research Council (NRC) (2008) Review of the federal strategy for nanotechnology-related environment, health, and safety research. The National Academies Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Naumann BD, Sargent EV, Starkman BS et al (1996) Performance-based exposure control limits for pharmaceutically active ingredients. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 57:33–42. doi:10.1080/15428119691015197

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Oberdörster G, Oberdörster E, Oberdörster J (2007) Concepts of nanoparticle dose metric and response metric. Environ Health Perspect 115:A290

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 USC §§ 651–678:2000

  • Old L, Methner MM (2008) Engineering case reports. J Occup Environ Hyg 5:D63–D69. doi:10.1080/15459620802059393

    Google Scholar 

  • OMB (2001) Guidelines for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated by Federal Agencies. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/final_information_quality_guidelines.html. Accessed 16 Jan 2009

  • OMB (2005) Final information quality bulletin for peer review Federal Register OMB 70:2664-2667

    Google Scholar 

  • OMB (2007a) OMB issued a memorandum (M-07-13) on the implementation of Executive Order 13422 on April 25, 2007. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/regpol.html

  • OMB (2007b) 72 Fed. Reg. 3432-3440

  • Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2008) Working party on manufactured nanomaterials: list of manufactured nanomaterials and list of endpoints for phase one of the OECD Testing Programme [ENV/JM/MONO(2008)13/REV]. http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2008doc.nsf/LinkTo/NT000034C6/$FILE/JT03248749.PDF. Accessed 1 Feb 2009

  • OSHA (1989) Air contaminants. Fed Regist 54:2332

  • OSHA (1998) Draft Proposed Safety and Health Program Rule, 29 C.F.R. 1900.1. Docket No. S&H-0027 (1998). Available at http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/safetyhealth/nshp.html. Accessed 12 Jan 2009

  • OSHA (2006) Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium final rule. Federal Register 71:10100 (codified at 29 CFR §1910.1026)

    Google Scholar 

  • OSHA (2008) Voluntary protection program: policy and procedures manual. CSP 03-01-003. Available at http://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/Directive_pdf/CSP_03-01-003.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2009

  • Paik SY, Zalk DM, Swuste P (2008) Application of a pilot control banding tool for risk level assessment and control of nanoparticle exposures. Ann Occup Hyg 52(6):419–428. doi:10.1093/annhyg/men041

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 United States Code § 3501:1995

  • Peters T, Heitbrink W, Evans D et al (2006) The mapping of fine and ultrafine particle concentrations in an engine machining and assembly facility. Ann Occup Hyg 50:1–9. doi:10.1093/annhyg/mel067

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Poland C, Duffin R, Kirloch I et al (2008) Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study. Nat Nanotechnol 3:423–428. doi:10.1038/nnano.2008.111

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Public Citizen Health Research Group v. Tyson, 796 F2d 1479 (D.C. Cir. 1986)

  • Pui DYH, Qi C, Stanley N, Oberdorster G, Maynard A (2008) Recirculating air filtration significantly reduces exposure to airborne nanoparticles. Environ Health Perspect 116(7):863–866

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rabinowitz R (Editor-in-Chief) (2002) Occupational safety and health law, 2nd edn. Bureau of National Affairs, Washington, pp 485–486

  • Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 United States Code § 603(a):1980

  • Schulte PA, Geraci C, Zumwalde R (2008a) Sharpening the focus on occupational safety and health in nanotechnology. Scand J Work Environ Health 34(6):471–478

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schulte PA, Trout D, Zumwalde RD et al (2008b) Options for occupational health surveillance of workers potentially exposed to engineered nanoparticles: state of the science. J Occup Environ Med 50(5):517–526. doi:10.1097/JOM.0b013e31816515f7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schulte PA, Schubauer-Berigan M, Mayweather C et al (2009) Issues in the development of epidemiologic studies of workers exposed to engineered nanoparticles. JOEM 51:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Shvedova AA, Kisin ER, Murray AR et al (2008) Inhalation versus aspiration of single walled carbon nanotubes in C57BL/6 mice: inflammation, fibrosis, oxidative stress and mutagenesis. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 295:L552–L565. doi:10.1152/ajplung.90287.2008

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shvedova AA, Kisin ER, Porter D et al (2009) Mechanisms of pulmonary toxicity and medical applications of carbon nanotubes: two faces of Janus? Pharmacol Ther 121:192–204. doi:10.1016/j.pharmthera.2008.10.009

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act, 5 United States Code Part 611:1996

  • Sng J, Koh D (2008) Nanocommentary: occupational and environmental health and nanotechnology—what’s new? Occup Med 58:454–455. doi:10.1093/occmed/kqn132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swiss Re (2004) Nanotechnology: small matter, many unknowns. http://www.swissre.com/pws/research%20publications/risk%20and%20expertise/risk%20perception/nanotechnology_small_matter_many_unknowns_pdf_page.html. Accessed 11 Jan 2009

  • Tsai S-J, Ashter A, Ada E et al (2008) Airborne nanoparticle release associated with the compounding of nanocomposites using nanoalumina as fillers. Aerosol Air Qual Res 8:160–177

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Energy (2009) Notice: the safe handling of unbound engineered nanoparticles. DOE N 456.1. Available at http://www.directives.doe.gov/pdfs/doe/doetext/neword/456/n4561.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2009

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2008) Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/nano/stewardship.htm. Accessed 12 January 2009

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2009) Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program. Interim Report. Available at http://epa.gov/oppt/nano/nmsp-interim-report-final.pdf. Accessed 14 January 2009

  • van Wendel-de-Joode B, Brouwer DH, Vermeulen R et al (2003) DREAM: a method for semi-quantitative dermal exposure assessment. Ann Occup Hyg 47:71–87. doi:10.1093/annhyg/meg012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang J, Chen C, Liu Y et al (2008) Potential neurological lesion after nasal instillation of TiO2 nanoparticles in the anatase and rutile crystal phases. Toxicol Lett 183:72–80. doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2008.10.001

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Watch OMB (2005) OMB Watch analysis on final peer review bulletin. http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/2594/1/232?TopicID=3. Accessed 23 Jan 2009

  • Woodrow Wilson Center Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (2008) Consumer products inventory. http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer/. Accessed 10 Jan 2009

Download references

Acknowledgment

Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Public Health Law Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 395 E Street, S.W., Suite 9200, Washington, DC, 20201, USA

    John Howard

  2. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 395 E Street S.W., Suite 9200, 20201, Washington, DC, USA

    Vladimir Murashov

Authors
  1. John Howard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vladimir Murashov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vladimir Murashov.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Howard, J., Murashov, V. National nanotechnology partnership to protect workers. J Nanopart Res 11, 1673–1683 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-009-9682-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-009-9682-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation