Evaluating the Control Banding Nanotool: a qualitative risk assessment method for controlling nanoparticle exposures

  • David M. Zalk
  • Samuel Y. Paik
  • Paul Swuste
Special Issue Occupational Safety


Control banding (CB) strategies offer simplified processes for controlling worker exposures in the absence of firm toxicological and exposure information. The nanotechnology industry is an excellent candidate for applying such strategies with overwhelming uncertainties of work-related health risks posed by nanomaterials. A recent survey shows that a majority of nanomaterial producers are not performing a basic risk assessment of their product in use. The CB Nanotool, used internationally, was developed to conduct qualitative risk assessments to control nanoparticle exposures. Nanotoxicology experts have requested standardization of toxicological parameters to ensure better utility and consistency of research. Such standardization would fit well in the CB Nanotool’s severity and probability risk matrix, therefore enhancing the protection of nanotechnology industry workers. This article further evaluates the CB Nanotool for structure, weighting of risk factors, and utility for exposure mitigation, and suggests improvements for the CB Nanotool and the research needed to bolster its effectiveness.


Nanoparticle Nanomaterial Control banding Risk assessment Qualitative Risk level CB Nanotool Toxicology Exposure EHS 



This manuscript is in part based on a presentation at the OECD Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN) on exposure assessment and exposure mitigation in Frankfurt, Germany, October 21, 2008 titled “Manufactured nanomaterials Control Banding Nanotool, a qualitative risk assessment method: it might be hazardous at the bottom.” Funding, in part, was provided by US DOE by LLNL Contract (DE-AC52-07NA27344); Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. LLNL-JRNL-413240.


  1. ACGIH (2008) Control banding: issues and opportunities. A report of the ACGIH Exposure/Control Banding Task Force. ACGIH Publishing, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  2. AIHA (2007) Guidance for conducting control banding analyses. American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) Control Banding Working Group. AIHA Publications, FairfaxGoogle Scholar
  3. Annals (1998) Special issue: exposure limits and control banding. Ann Occup Hyg 42(6):355–407Google Scholar
  4. Annals (2003) Chemical control in small, medium sized enterprises, control banding, other approaches. Papers from a meeting in London, November 2002. Ann Occup Hyg 47(7):531–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ANSI (2000) Risk assessment and reduction: a guide to estimate, evaluate and reduce risks associated with machine tools. Association for Manufacturing Technology (B11, TR3-2000), McLean, VAGoogle Scholar
  6. Bałazy A, Toivola M, Reponen T, Podgorski A et al (2006) Based performance evaluation of N95 filtering-facepiece respirators challenged with nanoparticles. Ann Occup Hyg 50(3):259–269PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Borm P, Houba R, Linker F (2008) Omgaan met nanodeeltjes op de werkvloer. Survey naar goede praktijken in omgaan met nanomaterialen in de Nederlandse industrie en kennisinstellingen. (Dealing with nanoparticles at the shop floor.) Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment and Ministry of Housing, Spacial Planning and EnvironmentGoogle Scholar
  8. Donaldson K, Aitken R, Tran L, Stone V et al (2006) Carbon nanotubes: a review of their properties in relation to pulmonary toxicology and workplace safety. Toxicol Sci 92(1):5–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Farris JP, Ader AW, Ku RH (2006) History, implementation, and evolution of the pharmaceutical hazard categorization and control system. Chem Today 24:5–10Google Scholar
  10. Fernholm A (2008) Nanoparticles scrutinized for health effects. San Francisco Chronicle, May 12, 2008Google Scholar
  11. Hallock MF, Greenley P, DiBerardinis L, Kallin D (2008) Potential risks of nanomaterials and how to safely handle materials of uncertain toxicity. J Chem Health Saf 16(1):16–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Helland A, Scheringer M, Siegrist M et al (2008) Risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials: a survey of industrial approaches. Environ Sci Technol 42(2):640–646PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holsapple MP, Farland WH, Landry TD, Monteiro-Riviere NA et al (2005) Research strategies for safety evaluation of nanomaterials, part II: toxicological and safety evaluation of nanomaterials, current challenges and data needs. Toxicol Sci 88(1):12–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2007) Workplace atmospheres—ultrafine, nanoparticle and nanostructured aerosols—inhalation exposure characterization and assessment, ISO/TR 27628: 2007(E). ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  15. IRSST (2009) Best practices guide to synthetic nanoparticle risk management. Report R-599, Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST), Montréal, Québec, Canada.
  16. Jones R, Nicas M (2006) Evaluation of COSHH essentials for vapor degreasing and bag filling operations. Ann Occup Hyg 50(2):137–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kromhout H (2002) Author’s reply. Occup Environ Med 59:788–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kromhout H, Vermeulen R (2000) Long term trends in occupational exposure: are they real? What causes them? What shall we do with them? Ann Occup Hyg 44:325–327PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Liao C, Chiang Y, Chio C (2008) Assessing the airborne titanium dioxide nanoparticle-related exposure hazard at workplace. J Hazard Mater 162:57–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Maidment S (1998) Occupational hygiene considerations in the development of a structured approach to select chemical control strategies. Ann Occup Hyg 42(6):391–400PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Marquart H, Heussen H, Le Feber M, Noy D et al (2008) ‘Stoffenmanager’, a web-based control banding tool using an exposure process model. Ann Occup Hyg 52(6):429–442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maynard A (2007) Nanotechnology: the next big thing, or much ado about nothing? Ann Occup Hyg 51(1):1–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nasterlack M, Zober A, Oberlinner C (2008) Considerations on occupational medical surveillance in employees handling nanoparticles. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 81(6):721–726PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Naumann BD, Sargent EV, Starkman BS, Fraser WJ et al (1996) Performance-based exposure control limits for pharmaceutical active ingredients. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 57:33–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. NRC (2008) Toxicoloog Paul Borm is ongerust over huidige nanoproducten [Toxicologist Paul Borm is worried about the present nanoproducts]. NRC Handelsblad, PCM Uitgevers Publishers, NL. 16 August 2008Google Scholar
  26. Orthen B (2008) Approaches for the definition of threshold limit values for nanomaterials. In: OECD workshop on exposure assessment and exposure mitigation, 20 Oct 2008, Frankfurt, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  27. Paik S, 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):419–428PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Poland C, Duffin R, Kinloch I, Maynard A et al (2008) Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos like pathogenicity in a pilot study. Nat Nanotechnol 3:423–428Google Scholar
  29. Powers KW, Brown SC, Krishna VJ, Wasdo SC et al (2006) Research strategies for safety evaluation of nanomaterials part VI: characterization of nanoscale particles for toxicological evaluation. Toxicol Sci 90(2):296–303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Robichaud CO, Tanzil D, Weilenmann U, Wiesner MR (2005) Relative risk analysis of several manufactured nanomaterials: an insurance industry context. Environ Sci Technol 39(22):8985–8994PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Russel R, Maidment S, Brooke I, Topping M (1998) An introduction to a UK scheme to help small firms control health risks from chemicals. Ann Occup Hyg 42(6):367–376Google Scholar
  32. Ryman-Rasmussen JP, Riviere JE, Monteiro-Rieviere NA (2006) Penetration of intact skin by quantum dots with diverse physicochemical properties. Toxicol Sci 91(1):159–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schneider T (2008) Relevance of dustiness and aerosol dynamics for personal exposure. In: OECD workshop on exposure assessment and exposure mitigation, 20 Oct 2008, Frankfurt, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  34. Schulte P, Geraci C, Zumwalde R, Hoover M, Kuempel E (2008) Occupational risk management of engineered nanoparticles. J Occup Environ Hyg 5(4):239–249PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stern ST, McNeil SE (2008) Nanotechnology safety concerns revisited. Toxicol Sci 101(1):4–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Swuste P (2007). Qualitative methods for occupational risk prevention strategies in safety, control banding—safety. Saf Sci Monit 11(3). Online journal Accessed 23 Jan 2009
  37. Swuste P, Hale A, Pantry S (2003) Solbase: a databank of solutions for occupational hazards and risks. Ann Occup Hyg 47(7):541–548PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thomas K, Aguar P, Kawasaki H, Morris J et al (2006) Research strategies for safety evaluation of nanomaterials, part VIII: international efforts to develop risk-based safety evaluations for nanomaterials. Toxicol Sci 92(1):23–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tielemans E, Noy D, Schinkel J, Heussen H et al (2008) Stoffenmanager exposure model: development of a quantitative algorithm. Ann Occup Hyg 52(6):443–454PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tsuji JS, Maynard AD, Howard PC, James JT, Lam C (2006) Research strategies for safety evaluation of nanomaterials, part IV: risk assessment of nanoparticles. Toxicol Sci 89(1):42–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Warheit DB, Borm PJ, Hennes C, Lademann J (2007a) Testing strategies to establish the safety of nanomaterials: conclusions of an ECETOC workshop. Inhal Toxicol 19(8):631–643PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Warheit DB, Webb TR, Reed KL, Frerichs S, Sayes CM (2007b) Pulmonary toxicity study in rats with three forms of ultrafine-TiO2 particles: differential responses related to surface properties. Toxicology 230(1):90–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Warheit DB, Sayes CM, Reed KL, Swain KA (2008) Health effects related to nanoparticle exposures: environmental, health and safety considerations for assessing hazards and risks. Pharm Ther 120(1):35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yang W, Peters JI, Williams RO (2008) Inhaled nanoparticles—a current review. Int J Pharm 56(1–2):239–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zalk DM (2001) Grassroots ergonomics: initiating an ergonomics program utilizing participatory techniques. Ann Occup Hyg 45(4):283–289PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Zalk DM, Nelson DI (2008) History and evolution of control banding: a review. J Occup Environ Health 5(5):330–346Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lawrence Livermore National LaboratoryLivermoreUSA
  2. 2.Safety Science GroupDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations