Advertisement

Exposure assessment and engineering control strategies for airborne nanoparticles: an application to emissions from nanocomposite compounding processes

  • Candace S.-J. TsaiEmail author
  • David White
  • Henoc Rodriguez
  • Christian E. Munoz
  • Cheng-Yu Huang
  • Chuen-Jinn Tsai
  • Carol Barry
  • Michael J. Ellenbecker
Research Paper

Abstract

In this study, nanoalumina and nanoclay particles were compounded separately with ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) polymer to produce nanocomposites using a twin-screw extruder to investigate exposure and effective controls. Nanoparticle exposures from compounding processes were elevated under some circumstances and were affected by many factors including inadequate ventilation, surrounding air flow, feeder type, feeding method, and nanoparticle type. Engineering controls such as improved ventilation and enclosure of releasing sources were applied to the process equipment to evaluate the effectiveness of control. The nanoparticle loading device was modified by installing a ventilated enclosure surrounding the loading chamber. Exposures were studied using designed controls for comparison which include three scenarios: (1) no isolation; (2) enclosed sources; and (3) enclosed sources and improved ventilation. Particle number concentrations for diameters from 5 to 20,000 nm measured by the Fast Mobility Particle Sizer and aerodynamic particle sizer were studied. Aerosol particles were sampled on transmission electron microscope grids to characterize particle composition and morphology. Measurements and samples were taken at the near- and far-field areas relative to releasing sources. Airborne particle concentrations were reduced significantly when using the feeder enclosure, and the concentrations were below the baseline when two sources were enclosed, and the ventilation was improved when using either nanoalumina or nanoclay as fillers.

Keywords

Airborne nanoparticle Nanoalumina Nanoclay Nanocomposite compounding Inhalation exposure Engineering control 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Authors would like to acknowledge the financial support from the Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center for High-rate Nanomanufacturing (CHN) funded by the National Science Foundation (Award No. NSF-0425826), the Program of Research Education for Undergraduate students associated with CHN, and the collaboration with National ChiaoTung University funded by the Taiwan Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (Grant No. IOSH98-H324). Doctoral student ChunChia Huang and technician Christopher Santeufemio of UMASS Lowell provided support for the TEM image analysis.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11051_2012_989_MOESM1_ESM.doc (418 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 419 kb)

References

  1. ACGIH (2007) Industrial ventilation: a manual of recommended practice for design. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  2. Bottini M, Magrini A, Bottini N, Bergamaschi A (2003) Nanotubes and fullerenes: an overview of the possible environmental and biological impact of bio-nanotechnologies. Med Lav 94:497–505Google Scholar
  3. Burgess WA, Ellenbecker MJ, Treitman RD (2004) Ventilation for control of the work environment. Wiley-Interscience, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ferin J, Oberdorster G, Penny DP, Soderholm SC, Gelein R, Piper HC (1990) Increased pulmonary toxicity of ultrafine particles? I. Particle clearance, translocation, morphology. J Aerosol Sci 21:381–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ferin J, Oberdörster G, Soderholm S, Gelein R (1991) Pulmonary tissue access of ultrafine particles. J Aerosol Med 4:57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ICRP (1994) International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 66: human respiratory tract model for radiological protection. Elsevier, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Kim TH, Flynn MR (1991a) Airflow pattern around a worker in a uniform freestream. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 52:287–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kim TH, Flynn MR (1991b) Modeling a worker’s exposure from a hand-held source in a uniform freestream. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 52:458–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Maynard AD, Kuempel ED (2005) Airborne nanostructured particles and occupational health. J Nanopart Res 7(6):587–614. doi: 10.1007/s11051-005-6770-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McCarrie KM, Winter R (2003) Properties of epoxy-clay nanocomposite adhesives for bonded strap joints. San Jose State ReportGoogle Scholar
  11. Oberdorster G, Ferin J, Finkelstein J, Wade P, Corson N (1990) Increased pulmonary toxicity of ultrafine particles? II. Lung lavage studies. J Aerosol Sci 21:387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Popendorf W (2006) Industrial hygiene control of airborne chemical hazards. Taylor & Francis, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  13. Renwick LC, Brown D, Clouter A, Donaldson K (2004) Increased inflammation and altered macrophage chemotatic responses caused by two ultrafine particle types. Occup Environ Med 61:442–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Takenaka S, Dornhofer-Takenaka H, Muhle H (1986) Alveolar distribution of fly ash and of titanium dioxide after long-term inhalation by Wistar rats. J Aerosol Sci 17:361–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tsai SJ, Ashter A, Ada E, Mead J, Barry C, Ellenbecker MJ (2008a) Airborne nanoparticle release associated with the compounding of nanocomposites using nanoalumina as fillers. Aerosol and Air Qual Res 8:160–177Google Scholar
  17. Tsai SJ, Ashter A, Ada E, Mead J, Barry C, Ellenbecker MJ (2008b) Control of airborne nanoparticle release during compounding of polymer nanocomposites. NANO 3:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tsai SJ, Ada E, Isaacs J, Ellenbecker MJ (2009) Airborne nanoparticle exposures associated with the manual handling of nanoalumina in fume hoods. J Nanopart Res 11:147–161. doi: 10.1007/s11051-008-9459-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wolff RK, Henderson RF, Eidson AF, Pickrell JA, Rothenberg SJ, Hahn FF (1988) Toxicity of gallium oxide particles following a 4-week inhalation exposure. J Appl Toxicol 8:191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zhang Q, Kusaka Y, Donaldson K (2000) Comparative pulmonary responses caused by exposure to standard cobalt and ultrafine cobalt. J Occup Health 42:179–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Candace S.-J. Tsai
    • 1
    Email author
  • David White
    • 2
  • Henoc Rodriguez
    • 3
  • Christian E. Munoz
    • 3
  • Cheng-Yu Huang
    • 4
  • Chuen-Jinn Tsai
    • 4
  • Carol Barry
    • 2
  • Michael J. Ellenbecker
    • 1
  1. 1.NSF Center for High-rate Nanomanufacturing (CHN)University of Massachusetts LowellLowellUSA
  2. 2.Department of Plastics EngineeringUniversity of Massachusetts LowellLowellUSA
  3. 3.Industrial Microbiology DepartmentUniversity of Puerto Rico MayagüezMayagüezPuerto Rico
  4. 4.Institute of Environmental EngineeringNational Chiao Tung UniversityHsinchuTaiwan

Personalised recommendations