Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Special Issue Occupational Safety
  • Published:
Journal of Nanoparticle Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ACGIH (2008) Control banding: issues and opportunities. A report of the ACGIH Exposure/Control Banding Task Force. ACGIH Publishing, Cincinnati

    Google Scholar 

  • AIHA (2007) Guidance for conducting control banding analyses. American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) Control Banding Working Group. AIHA Publications, Fairfax

  • Annals (1998) Special issue: exposure limits and control banding. Ann Occup Hyg 42(6):355–407

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):531–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, VA

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):259–269

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Environment

  • 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):5–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Farris JP, Ader AW, Ku RH (2006) History, implementation, and evolution of the pharmaceutical hazard categorization and control system. Chem Today 24:5–10

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fernholm A (2008) Nanoparticles scrutinized for health effects. San Francisco Chronicle, May 12, 2008

  • 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):16–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helland A, Scheringer M, Siegrist M et al (2008) Risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials: a survey of industrial approaches. Environ Sci Technol 42(2):640–646

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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):12–17

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2007) Workplace atmospheres—ultrafine, nanoparticle and nanostructured aerosols—inhalation exposure characterization and assessment, ISO/TR 27628: 2007(E). ISO, Geneva

  • 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. http://www.irsst.qc.ca/en/_publicationirsst_100432.html

  • Jones R, Nicas M (2006) Evaluation of COSHH essentials for vapor degreasing and bag filling operations. Ann Occup Hyg 50(2):137–147

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kromhout H (2002) Author’s reply. Occup Environ Med 59:788–789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 44:325–327

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Liao C, Chiang Y, Chio C (2008) Assessing the airborne titanium dioxide nanoparticle-related exposure hazard at workplace. J Hazard Mater 162:57–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maidment S (1998) Occupational hygiene considerations in the development of a structured approach to select chemical control strategies. Ann Occup Hyg 42(6):391–400

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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):429–442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard A (2007) Nanotechnology: the next big thing, or much ado about nothing? Ann Occup Hyg 51(1):1–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nasterlack M, Zober A, Oberlinner C (2008) Considerations on occupational medical surveillance in employees handling nanoparticles. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 81(6):721–726

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 57:33–42

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 2008

  • 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, Germany

  • 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):419–428

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 3:423–428

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):296–303

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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):8985–8994

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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):367–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryman-Rasmussen JP, Riviere JE, Monteiro-Rieviere NA (2006) Penetration of intact skin by quantum dots with diverse physicochemical properties. Toxicol Sci 91(1):159–165

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Germany

  • Schulte P, Geraci C, Zumwalde R, Hoover M, Kuempel E (2008) Occupational risk management of engineered nanoparticles. J Occup Environ Hyg 5(4):239–249

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stern ST, McNeil SE (2008) Nanotechnology safety concerns revisited. Toxicol Sci 101(1):4–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Swuste P (2007). Qualitative methods for occupational risk prevention strategies in safety, control banding—safety. Saf Sci Monit 11(3). Online journal http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/ipso/vol11/Issue3/8%20Swuste.pdf. Accessed 23 Jan 2009

  • Swuste P, Hale A, Pantry S (2003) Solbase: a databank of solutions for occupational hazards and risks. Ann Occup Hyg 47(7):541–548

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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):23–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tielemans E, Noy D, Schinkel J, Heussen H et al (2008) Stoffenmanager exposure model: development of a quantitative algorithm. Ann Occup Hyg 52(6):443–454

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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):42–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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):631–643

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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):90–104

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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):35–42

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yang W, Peters JI, Williams RO (2008) Inhaled nanoparticles—a current review. Int J Pharm 56(1–2):239–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zalk DM (2001) Grassroots ergonomics: initiating an ergonomics program utilizing participatory techniques. Ann Occup Hyg 45(4):283–289

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zalk DM, Nelson DI (2008) History and evolution of control banding: a review. J Occup Environ Health 5(5):330–346

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David M. Zalk.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zalk, D.M., Paik, S.Y. & Swuste, P. Evaluating the Control Banding Nanotool: a qualitative risk assessment method for controlling nanoparticle exposures. J Nanopart Res 11, 1685–1704 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-009-9678-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-009-9678-y

Keywords

Navigation