Workplace exposure to nanoparticles and the application of provisional nanoreference values in times of uncertain risks

  • Pieter van Broekhuizen
  • Fleur van Broekhuizen
  • Ralf Cornelissen
  • Lucas Reijnders
Research Paper


Nano reference values (NRVs) for occupational use of nanomaterials were tested as provisional substitute for Occupational Exposure Limits (OELs). NRVs can be used as provisional limit values until Health-Based OELs or derived no-effect levels (DNEL) become available. NRVs were defined for 8 h periods (time weighted average) and for short-term exposure periods (15 min-time weighted average). To assess the usefulness of these NRVs, airborne number concentrations of nanoparticles (NPs) in the workplace environment were measured during paint manufacturing, electroplating, light equipment manufacturing, non-reflective glass production, production of pigment concentrates and car refinishing. Activities monitored were handling of solid engineered NPs (ENP), abrasion, spraying and heating during occupational use of nanomaterials (containing ENPs) and machining nanosurfaces. The measured concentrations are often presumed to contain ENPs as well as process-generated NPs (PGNP). The PGNP are found to be a significant source for potential exposure and cannot be ignored in risk assessment. Levels of NPs identified in workplace air were up to several millions of nanoparticles/cm3. Conventional components in paint manufacturing like CaCO3 and talc may contain a substantial amount of nanosized particulates giving rise to airborne nanoparticle concentrations. It is argued that risk assessments carried out for e.g. paint manufacturing processes using conventional non-nano components should take into account potential nanoparticle emissions as well. The concentrations measured were compared with particle-based NRVs and with mass-based values that have also been proposed for workers protection. It is concluded that NRVs can be used for risk management for handling or processing of nanomaterials at workplaces provided that the scope of NRVs is not limited to ENPs only, but extended to the exposure to process-generated NPs as well.


Nanomaterial Nanoparticle Risk management Occupational Exposure Limit Nano reference value Health effects Exposure measurement 


  1. Abbott LC, Maynard AD (2010) Exposure assessment approaches for engineered nanomaterials. Risk Anal 30(11):1634–1644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aschberger K, Christensen FM (2010) Approaches for establishing human health no effect levels for engineered nanomaterials. J Phys. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/304/1/012078 Google Scholar
  3. Auffan M, Rose J, Bottero JY, Lowry GV, Jolivet JP, Wiesner MR (2009) Towards a definition of inorganic nanoparticles from an environmental, health and safety perspective. Nat Nanotechnol 4:634–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bermudez E, Mangum JB, Wong BA, Asgharian B, Hext PM, Warheit DB, Everitt JI (2004) Pulmonary responses of mice, rats, and hamsters to subchronic inhalation of ultrafine titanium dioxide particles. Toxicol Sci 77:347–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. BéruBé K, Balharry D, Sexton K, Koshy L, Jones T (2007) Combustion-derived nanoparticles: mechanisms of pulmonary toxicity. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 34(10):1044–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borm PJA, Robbins D, Haubold S, Kuhlbusch T, Fissan H, Donaldson K, Roel S, Stone V, Kreyling W, Lademann J, Krutmann J (2006) The potential risks of nanomaterials: a review carried out for ECETOC. Part Fibre Toxicol 3:11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brouwer D (2010) Exposure to manufactured nanoparticles in different workplaces. Toxicology 269:120–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brouwer D, van Duuren-Stuurman B, Berges M, Jankowska E, Bard D, Mark D (2009) From workplace air measurement results toward estimates of exposure? Development of a strategy to assess exposure to manufactured nano-objects. J Nanopart Res 11:1867–1881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. BSI (2007) BSI-British Standards. Guide to safe handling and disposal of manufactured nanomaterials. Nanotechnologies—Part 2. PD 6699-2:2007 BSI (2007). Accessed 29 April 2011
  10. Choi HS, Ashitate Y, Lee JH, Kim SH, Matsui A, Insin N, Bawendi MG, Semmler-Behnke M, Frangioni JV, Tsuda A (2010) Rapid translocation of nanoparticles from the lung airspaces to the body. Nat Biotechnol 28:1300–1304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dekkers S, de Heer C (2010) Tijdelijke nano-referentiewaarden. RIVM Rapport 601044001/2010.
  12. Donaldson K, Tran L, Jimenez LA, Duffin R, Newby DE, Mills N, MacNee W, Stone V (2005) Combustion-derived nanoparticles: a review of their toxicology following inhalation exposure. Part Fibre Toxicol 2:10. doi:10.1186/1743-8977-2-10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dorbeck-Jung B (2011) Soft regulation and responsible nanotechnological development in the European Union: Regulating occupational health and safety in the Netherlands. Eur J Law Technol 2(3):1–14Google Scholar
  14. EC (2011) Commission recommendation of 18 October 2011 on the definition of nanomaterial (2011/696/EU).L Official Journal of the European Union 275/38 20.10.2011.
  15. ECHA (2008) Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment. Chap. 14. Occupational exposure estimationGoogle Scholar
  16. Evans DE, Heitbrink WA, Slavin TJ, Peters TM (2008) Ultrafine and respirable particles in an automotive grey iron foundry. Ann Occup Hyg 52(1):9–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Göhler D, Stintz M, Hillemann L, Vorbau M (2010) Characterization of nanoparticle release from surface coatings by the simulation of a sanding process. Ann Occup Hyg 54(6):615–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heitbrink WA, Evans DE, Ku BK, Maynard AD, Slavin TJ, Peters TM (2009) Relationships among particle number, surface area, and respirable mass concentrations in auto- motive engine manufacturing. J Occup Environ Hyg 6:19–31. doi:10.1080/15459620802530096 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hesterberg TW, Long CM, Lapin CA, Hamade AK, Valberg PA (2010) Diesel exhaust particulate (DEP) and nanoparticle exposures: what do DEP human clinical studies tell us about potential human health hazards of nanoparticles? Inhal Toxicol 22(8):679–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. IFA (2009) Institut für Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung, criteria for assessment of the effectiveness of protective measures. Accessed 29 April 2011
  21. Kreyling WG, Hirn S, Schleh C (2010) Nanoparticles in the lung. Nat Biotechnol 28(12):1275–1276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee JH, Kwon M, Ji JH, Kang CS, Ahn KH, Han JH, Yu IJ (2011) Exposure assessment of workplaces manufacturing nanosized TiO2 and silver. Inhal Toxicol 23(4):226–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marra J, Voetz M, Kiesling HJ (2010) Monitor for detecting and assessing exposure to airborne nanoparticles. J Nanopart Res 12:21–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Murphy FA, Poland CA, Duffin R, Al-Jamal KT, Ali-Boucetta H, Nunes A, Byrne F, Prina-Mello A, Volkov Y, Li S, Mather SJ, Bianco A, Prato M, MacNee W, Wallace WA, Kostarelos K, Donaldson K (2011) Length-dependent retention of carbon nanotubesin the pleural space of mice initiates sustained inflammation and progressive fibrosis on the parietal pleura. Am J Pathol 178(6):2587–2600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. NIOSH (2010) Occupational exposure to carbon nanotubes and nanofibers. Curr Intell Bull 161-A:1–149Google Scholar
  26. NIOSH (2011) Occupational exposure to titanium dioxide. Curr Intell Bull 63:1–119. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2011–160Google Scholar
  27. Oberdorster G, Oberdorster E, Oberdorster J (2004) Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environ Health Perspect 113(7):823–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pauluhn J (2010) Poorly soluble particulates: searching for a unifying denominator of nanoparticles and fine particles for DNEL estimation. Toxicology 279(1–3):176–188Google Scholar
  29. Peters TM, Heitbrink WA, Evans DE, Slavin TJ, Maynard AD (2006) The mapping of fine and ultrafine particle concentrations in an engine machining and assembly facility. Ann Occup Hyg 50(3):249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Plitzko S (2009) Workplace exposure to engineered nanoparticles. Inhal Toxicol 21(S1):25–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Poland CA, Duffin R, Kinloch I, Maynard A, Wallace WA, Seaton A, Stone V, Brown S, MacNee W, Donaldson K (2008) Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study. Nat Nanotechnol 3:423–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ramachandran G, Ostraat M, Evans DE, Methner MM, O’Shaughnessy P, D’Arcy J, Geraci CL, Stevenson E, Maynard A, Rickabaugh K (2011) A strategy for assessing workplace exposures to nanomaterials. J Occup Environ Hyg 8(11):673–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scenihr (2009) Scientific committee on emerging and newly identified health risks. Risk assessment of products of nanotechnologies. European Commission, Health & Consumers DG, Directorate C: Public Health and Risk Assessment. Accessed 29 April 2011
  34. Schulte PA, Murashov V, Zumwalde R, Kuempel ED, Geraci CL (2010) Occupational exposure limits for nanomaterials: state of the art. J Nanopart Res 12:1971–1987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schulze C, Kroll A, Lehr CM, Schäfer UF, Beckers K, Schnekenburger J, Schultze Isfort C, Landsiedel R, Wohlleben W (2008) Not ready to use overcoming pitfalls when dispersing nanoparticles in physiological media. Nanotoxicology 2(2):51–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. SDU (2006) National MAC-lijst 2006. SDU uitgevers, Den Haag 2006. ISBN 9012 1112 18Google Scholar
  37. SER (2009) Advisory report 0901, nanoparticles in the workplace: health and safety precautions. Social Economic Council Netherlands, The Hague, p 42Google Scholar
  38. SER (2011) Accessed 29 April 2011
  39. SRU (2011) German advisory council on the environment. Precautionary strategies for managing nanomaterials.
  40. Stone V, Hankin S, Aitken R, Aschberger K, Baun A, Christensen F, Fernandes T, Hansen SF, Bloch Hartmann N, Hutchinson G, Johnston H, Micheletti C, Peters S, Ross B, Sokull-Kluettgen B, Stark D, Tran L (2010) Engineered nanoparticles: review of health and environmental safety, Edinburgh Napier University.
  41. Szymczak W, Menzela N, Keck L (2007) Emission of ultrafine copper particles by universal motors controlled by phase angle modulation. Aerosol Sci 38:520–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (2009) Integrated science assessment for particulate matter. EPA/600/R-08/139F, December. Accessed 28 April 2011
  43. van Broekhuizen P, Reijnders L (2011) Building blocks for a precautionary approach to the use of nanomaterials: positions taken by trade unions and environmental NGOs in the European nanotechnologies’ debate. Risk Anal 3(10):1646–1657Google Scholar
  44. van Broekhuizen P, van Broekhuizen F, Cornelissen R, Reijnders L (2011a) Use of nanomaterials in the European construction industry and some occupational health aspects thereof. J Nanopart Res 13:447–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. van Broekhuizen P, van Broekhuizen F, Cornelissen R (2011b) Pilot Nanoreferentiewaarden. Nanodeeltjes en de nanoreferentiewaarde in Nederlandse bedrijven – Eindverslag. Report on behalf of FNV, VNO/NCW, CNVGoogle Scholar
  46. van Broekhuizen P, Dorbeck-Jung B (2012) Acceptance of nano reference values as risk management tool to minimize exposure to nanomaterials at the workplace: lessons from the Netherlands. Manuscript in preparationGoogle Scholar
  47. Vorbau M, Hillemann L, Stintz M (2009) Method for the characterization of the abrasion induced nanoparticle release into air from surface coatings. Aerosol Sci 40:209–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vosburgh DJ, Boysen DA, Oleson JJ, Peters TM (2011) Airborne nanoparticle concentrations in the manufacturing of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) apparel. J Occup Environ Hyg 8(3):139–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wang YF, Tsai PJ, Chen CW, Chen DR, Hsu DJ (2010) Using a modified electrical aerosol detector to predict nanoparticle exposures to different regions of the respiratory tract for workers in a carbon-black manufacturing industry. Environ Sci Technol 44:6767–6774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wehner B, Birmili W, Gnauk T, Wiedensohler A (2002) Particle number size distributions in a street canyon and their transformation into the urban-air background: measurements and a simple model study. Atmos Environ 36:2215–2223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wohlleben W, Brill S, Meier MW, Mertler M, Cox G, Hirth S, von Vacano B, Strauss V, Treumann S, Wiench K, Ma-Hock L, Landsiedel R (2011) On the lifecycle of nanocomposites: comparing released fragments and their in vivo hazards from three release mechanisms and four nanocomposites. Small 7(16):2384–2395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yokel RA, MacPhail RC (2011) Engineered nanomaterials: exposures, hazards, and risk prevention. J Occup Med Toxicol 6:7CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pieter van Broekhuizen
    • 1
  • Fleur van Broekhuizen
    • 1
  • Ralf Cornelissen
    • 1
  • Lucas Reijnders
    • 2
  1. 1.IVAM UvA BVAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem DynamicsUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations