Workplace air measurements and likelihood of exposure to manufactured nano-objects, agglomerates, and aggregates
- 408 Downloads
Manufactured nano-objects, agglomerates, and aggregates (NOAA) may have adverse effect on human health, but little is known about occupational risks since actual estimates of exposure are lacking. In a large-scale workplace air-monitoring campaign, 19 enterprises were visited and 120 potential exposure scenarios were measured. A multi-metric exposure assessment approach was followed and a decision logic was developed to afford analysis of all results in concert. The overall evaluation was classified by categories of likelihood of exposure. At task level about 53 % showed increased particle number or surface area concentration compared to “background” level, whereas 72 % of the TEM samples revealed an indication that NOAA were present in the workplace. For 54 out of the 120 task-based exposure scenarios, an overall evaluation could be made based on all parameters of the decision logic. For only 1 exposure scenario (approximately 2 %), the highest level of potential likelihood was assigned, whereas in total in 56 % of the exposure scenarios the overall evaluation revealed the lowest level of likelihood. However, for the remaining 42 % exposure to NOAA could not be excluded.
KeywordsInhalation Occupational exposure Surface area Particle number concentration Decision logic
The NANOSH project was supported by EU-FP6 program, contract NMP4-CT-2006-032777. Part of the data analysis was funded by the EU-FP7 project NANODEVICE, contract NMP4-LA-2009-211464.
Conflict of interest
The authors report no conflict of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper. The opinions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission.
- Dahm MM, Yencken MS, Schubauer-Berigan MK (2011) Exposure control strategies in the carbonaceous nanomaterial industry. J Occup Environ Med 53(6 SUPPL.):S68–S73Google Scholar
- Hanai S, Kobayashi N, Ema M, Ogura I, Gamo M, Nakanishi J (2009) Risk assessment of manufactured nanomaterials—titanium dioxide (TiO2). NEDO project research and development of nanoparticle characterization methods, Report No. P06041. http://goodnanoguide.org/tiki-download_wiki_attachment.php?attId=32. Accessed 9 Nov 2011
- International Organization for Standardization ISO (2012) ISO/TS 12901-1: nanotechnologies—occupational risk management applied to engineered nanomaterials. Part 1: principles and approaches. ISO/TS 12901-2: nanotechnologies—occupational risk management applied to engineered nanomaterials. Part 2: the use of the control banding approach in occupational risk management. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (2010) Draft current intelligence bulletin: occupational exposure to carbon nanotubes and nanofibers. Cincinnati, OH: Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, DHHS (NIOSH). NIOSH Docket Number: NIOSH 161-AGoogle Scholar
- National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health DHHS (NIOSH) (2011) Current intelligence bulletin 63: occupational exposure to titanium dioxide. Department of Health and Human Services, Public health Service, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Cincinnati, pp 2011–2160Google Scholar
- Schneider T, Brouwer D, Koponen I et al (2011) A conceptual model assessment of inhalation exposure to manufactured nanoparticles. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 21:240–463Google Scholar
- Tsai S-J, Ashter A, Ada E, Mead JL, Barry CF, Ellenbecker MJ (2008) Airborne nanoparticle release associated with the compounding of nanocomposites using nanoalumina as fillers. Aerosol Air Qual Res 8:160–177Google Scholar
- Van Duuren-Stuurman B, Pelzer J, Moelhlmann C, Berges M, Bard D, Wake D, Jankowska E, Brouwer D (2010) A structured observational method to assess dermal exposure to manufactured nanoparticles (MNPs): DREAM as an initial assessment tool. Int J Occup Environ Health 16:397–403Google Scholar