Advertisement

Workplace air measurements and likelihood of exposure to manufactured nano-objects, agglomerates, and aggregates

  • Derk H. Brouwer
  • Birgit van Duuren-Stuurman
  • Markus Berges
  • Delphine Bard
  • Elzbieta Jankowska
  • Carsten Moehlmann
  • Johannes Pelzer
  • Dave Mark
Research Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Inhalation Occupational exposure Surface area Particle number concentration Decision logic 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

Supplementary material

11051_2013_2090_MOESM1_ESM.docx (8.1 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 8294 kb)

References

  1. Abbott LC, Maynard AD (2010) Exposure assessment approaches for engineered nanomaterials. Risk Anal 30:1634–1644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azong-Wara N, Asbach C, Stahlmecke B et al (2013) Design of a new nanoparticle thermophoretic. J Nanopart Res 15:1530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartley DL, Vincent JH (2011) Sampling conventions for estimating ultrafine and fine aerosol particle deposition in the human respiratory tract. Ann Occup Hyg 55:696–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brouwer D (2010) Exposure to manufactured nanoparticles in different workplaces. Toxicology 269:120–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brouwer D, van Duuren-Stuurman B, Berges M et al (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
  6. Brouwer D, Berges M, Virji MA et al (2012) Harmonization of measurement strategies for exposure to manufactured nano-objects; report of a workshop. Ann Occup Hyg 56:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cena LG, Peters TM (2011) Characterization and control of airborne particles emitted during production of epoxy/carbon nanotube nanocomposites. J Occup Environ Hyg 48:86–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Curwin B, Bertke S (2011) Exposure characterization of metal oxide nanoparticles in the workplace. J Occup Environ Hyg 8:580–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Ham S, Yoon C, Lee E, Lee K, Park D, Chung E, Kim P, Lee B (2012) Task-based exposure assessment of nanoparticles in the workplace. J Nanopart Res 14:1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Hristozo DR, Gottardo S, Critto A, Marcomini A (2012) Risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials: a review of available data and approaches from a regulatory perspective. Nanotoxicology. doi: 10(3109/17435390).2011.626534 Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Klein Entink RH, Fransman W, Brouwer DH (2011) How to statistically analyze nano exposure measurement results: using an ARIMA time series approach. J Nanopart Res 13:6991–7004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kuhlbusch TAJ, Neumann S, Fissan H (2004) Number size distribution, mass concentration, and particle composition of PM1 PM2.5, and PM10 in bag filling areas of carbon black production. J Occup Environ Hyg 1:660–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kuhlbusch TAJ, Asbach C, Fissan H, Göhler D, Stintz M (2011) Nanoparticle exposure at nanotechnology workplaces: a review. Part Fibre Toxicol 8:22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leppänen M, Lyyränen J, Järvelä M, Auvinen A, Jokiniemi J, Pimenoff J, Tuomi T (2011) Exposure to CeO2 nanoparticles during flame spray process. Nanotoxicology. doi: 10.3109/17435390.2011.600838 Google Scholar
  18. Marquart H, Heussen H, Le Feber M, Noy D, Tielemans E, Schinkel J, West J, Van der Schaaf D (2008) ‘Stoffenmanager’, a web-based control banding tool using an exposure process model. Ann Occup Hyg 52:429–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Methner M, Hodson L, Geraci C (2010) Nanoparticle emission assessment technique (NEAT) for the identification and measurement of potential inhalation exposure to engineered nanomaterials. Part A. J Occup Environ Hyg 7(3):127–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Motzkus C, Chivas-Joly C, Guillaume E, Ducourtieux S, Saragoza L, Lesenechal D, Macé T, Longuet C (2012) Aerosols emitted by the combustion of polymers containing nanoparticles. J Nanopart Res 14:687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. Oberdörster G, Stone V, Donaldson K (2007) Toxicology of nanoparticles: A historical perspective (Review). Nanotoxicol 1:2–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Peters TM, Elzey S, Johnson R, Park H, Grassian VH, Maher T, O’Shaughnessy P (2009) Airborne monitoring to distinguish engineered nanomaterials from incidental particles for environmental health and safety. J Occup Environ Hyg 6:73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. Tsai C-J, Huang C-Y, Chen S-C, Ho C-E, Huang C-H, Chen C-W, Chang C-P, Tsai SJ, Ellenbecker MJ (2011) Exposure assessment of nano-sized and respirable particles at different workplaces. J Nanopart Res 13:4161–4172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Van Broekhuizen P, van Broekhuizen F, Cornelissen R, Reijnders L (2012) Workplace exposure to nanoparticles and the application of provisional nano reference values in times of uncertain risks. J Nanopart Res 14:770. doi: 10.1007/s11051-012-0770-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Woskie SR, Bello D, Virji MA, Stefaniak AB (2010) Understanding workplace processes and factors that influence exposures to engineered nanomaterials. Int J Occup Environ Health 16:365–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Derk H. Brouwer
    • 1
  • Birgit van Duuren-Stuurman
    • 1
  • Markus Berges
    • 2
  • Delphine Bard
    • 3
  • Elzbieta Jankowska
    • 4
  • Carsten Moehlmann
    • 2
  • Johannes Pelzer
    • 2
  • Dave Mark
    • 3
  1. 1.TNO Research Group Risk Analysis for Products in DevelopmentZeistThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Institute für Arbeitsschutz - IFASankt AugustinGermany
  3. 3.Health and Safety Laboratory - HSLBuxtonUK
  4. 4.Central Institute for Labour Protection - National Research Institute – CIOP-PIBWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations