Journal of Nanoparticle Research

, Volume 11, Issue 7, pp 1673–1683 | Cite as

National nanotechnology partnership to protect workers

Special Issue: Environmental and Human Exposure of Nanomaterials


Nanotechnology is predicted to improve many aspects of human life. By 2015, it is estimated to represent $3.1 trillion in manufactured goods. Data is emerging that exposure to nanomaterials may pose a health risk to workers. If the economic promise of nanotechnology is to be achieved, ways need to be found to protect nanotechnology workers now. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHAct) gave the responsibility to protect workers to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) through research, standards adoption, and standards enforcement. Since 1980, adopting new occupational health standards has grown more complex. The increased complexity has greatly slowed efforts to adopt protective standards for toxic agents that are well-known to pose significant risks. The likelihood of rapidly adopting standards to protect workers from nanomaterials, whose risks are just emerging, seems even more unlikely. Use of the OSHAct’s general duty clause to protect workers also seems uncertain at this time. In the interim, a national partnership led by NIOSH involving nanotech manufacturers and downstream users, workers, academic researchers, safety, and health practitioners is proposed. A National Nanotechnology Partnership would generate knowledge about the nature and the extent of worker risk, utilize that knowledge to develop risk control strategies to protect nanotechnology workers now, and provide an evidence base for NIOSH recommendations to OSHA for a nanotechnology program standard at a future date.


Nanotechnology Nanomaterials Occupational safety and health Health standards National partnership Exposure EHS 


  1. Administrative Procedures Act 5 United States Code § 553:2000Google Scholar
  2. American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations v. OSHA, 965 F.2d 962 (11th Cir. 1992)Google Scholar
  3. Cherrie J, Schneider T (1999) Validation of a new method for structured subjective assessment of past concentrations. Ann Occup Hyg 43(4):235–245Google Scholar
  4. Code of Federal Regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320:1995Google Scholar
  5. Code of Federal Regulations, 29 CFR § 1910.133:2005Google Scholar
  6. Code of Federal Regulations, 29 CFR § 1910.134:2005Google Scholar
  7. Code of Federal Regulations, 29 CFR § 1910.135:2005Google Scholar
  8. Code of Federal Regulations, 29 CFR § 1910.136:2005Google Scholar
  9. Code of Federal Regulations, 29 CFR § 1910.138:2005Google Scholar
  10. Code of Federal Regulations, 29 CFR § 1910.1200:2005Google Scholar
  11. Code of Federal Regulations, 29 CFR. § 1910.1450:2005Google Scholar
  12. Code of Federal Regulations, 29 CFR Part 1904:2005Google Scholar
  13. Congressional Review Act, 5 United States Code §§ 801–808:1996Google Scholar
  14. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993) 509 U.S. 579 Google Scholar
  15. Davies CJ (2008) Nanotechnology oversight: an agenda for the new administration. Woodrow Wilson Center Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. Available at Accessed 2 Feb 2009
  16. Erdely AD, Hulderman T, Salmen R et al (2009) Cross-talk between lung and systemic circulation during carbon nanotube respiratory exposure–potential biomakers. Nano Lett 9(1):36–43. doi:10.1021/nl801828z PubMedCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  17. Erosion, Technology and Concentration Group (2007) Principles for the oversight of nanotechnologies and nanomaterials. Available at Accessed 12 Jan 2009
  18. Executive Order 12866 (1993) Regulatory planning and review. Fed Regist 58:51735Google Scholar
  19. Executive Order 13422 (2007) Further amendment to executive order 12866 on regulatory planning and review. Fed Regist 72:2763Google Scholar
  20. Executive Order 13497 (2009) Revocation of certain executive orders concerning regulatory planning and review. Fed Regist 74:6113Google Scholar
  21. General Accountability Office (2004) OSHA’s voluntary compliance strategies show promising results, but should be fully evaluated before they are expanded. GAO-04-378. Accessed 12 Jan 2009
  22. Han JH, Lee EJ, Lee JH et al (2008) Monitoring multiwalled carbon nanotube exposure in carbon nanotube research facility. Inhal Toxicol 20:1–9. doi:10.1080/08958370701758593 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hansen SF, Larsen BH, Olsen SI et al (2007) Categorization framework to aid hazard identification of nanomaterials. Nanotoxicology 1:243–250. doi:10.1080/17435390701727509 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hansen SF, Maynard A, Baun A et al (2008) Late lessons from early warnings about nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 3:444–447. doi:10.1038/nnano.2008.198 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  25. Harremoës P, Gee D, MacGavin M et al (2001) Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896–2000. European Environmental Agency, Copenhagen. Accessed 12 Jan 2009
  26. Industrial Union Department vs. American Petroleum Institute (1980) 44 U.S. 607, 642Google Scholar
  27. Information Quality Act in Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 Pub. L. No. 106–554, § 515(a) (2000)Google Scholar
  28. Koshi S (1980) Proposition for a method of evaluating the work environment with regard to air-borne toxic substances. Ind Health 18:179–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kuempel ED, Geraci CL, Schulte PA (2007) Risk assessment approaches and research needs for nanoparticles: an examination of data and information from current studies. In: Simeonova PP, Opopol N, Luster MI (eds) Nanotechnology–toxicological issues and environmental safety. Springer, New York, pp 119–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuhlbusch TAJ, Fissan H (2006) Particle characteristics in the reactor and pelletizing areas of carbon black production. J Occup Environ Health 3:558–567Google Scholar
  31. Lam C-W, James JT, McCluskey R et al (2004) Pulmonary toxicity of single-wall carbon nanotubes in mice 7 and 90 days after intratracheal instillation. Toxicol Sci 77:126–134. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfg243 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lux Research, Inc (2007) The nanotech report: investment overview and market research for nanotechnology, 5th edn. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Lux Research, Inc (2008) Nanomaterials: Corporate strategy. Accessed 10 Jan 2009
  34. Marchant G, Sylvester D, Abbott KW (2007) Nanotechnology regulation: the United States approach. In: Hodge G, Bowman D, Ludlow K (eds) New global frontiers in regulation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 189–211Google Scholar
  35. Mazurek JM, Wood MS (2008) Asbestos-related years of potential life lost before age 65 years—United States, 1968–2005. Mortal Morb Wkly Rep 57:1321–1325Google Scholar
  36. McGarity TO (1992) Some thoughts on “deossifying” the rulemaking process. Duke Law J 41:1385–1462. doi:10.2307/1372818 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McGarity TO (2005) Daubert and the proper role for the courts in health, safety, and environmental regulation. Am J Public Health 95(S1):S92–S98. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.044545 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McGarity T, Shapiro S (1993) Workers at risk: the failed promise of the occupational safety and health administration. Praeger, WestportGoogle Scholar
  39. Mendeloff J (1988) The dilemma of toxic substance regulation: how overregulation causes underregulation at OSHA. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. Methner MM, Birch ME, Evans DE et al (2007) Case study: identification and characterization of potential sources of worker exposure to carbon nanofibers during polymer composite laboratory operations. J Occup Environ Hyg 4:D125–D130. doi:10.1080/15459620701683871 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Munich Re Group (2002) Nanotechnology: what is in store for us? Munich Re Group, Munich, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  42. Murashov V, Howard J (2009) Essential features of proactive occupational risk management of emerging technologies: the example of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology (accepted)Google Scholar
  43. Nanotransport Project (2008) Behavior of aerosols released to ambient air from nanoparticle manufacturing. Accessed 12 Jan 2009
  44. Nasterlack M, Zober A, Oberlinner C (2008) Considerations on occupational medical surveillance in employees handling nanoparticles. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 8:721–726. doi:10.1007/s00420-007-0245-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2008) Strategic plan for NIOSH nanotechnology research: filling the knowledge gaps. Accessed 16 Jan 2009
  46. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2009a) Approaches to safe nanotechnology: managing the health and safety concerns associated with engineered nanomaterials. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2009-125Google Scholar
  47. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2009b) Interim guidance for medical screening and hazard surveillance for workers potentially exposed to engineered nanoparticles. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2009-116Google Scholar
  48. National Research Council (NRC) (2008) Review of the federal strategy for nanotechnology-related environment, health, and safety research. The National Academies Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  49. Naumann BD, Sargent EV, Starkman BS et al (1996) Performance-based exposure control limits for pharmaceutically active ingredients. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 57:33–42. doi:10.1080/15428119691015197 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Oberdörster G, Oberdörster E, Oberdörster J (2007) Concepts of nanoparticle dose metric and response metric. Environ Health Perspect 115:A290PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 USC §§ 651–678:2000Google Scholar
  52. Old L, Methner MM (2008) Engineering case reports. J Occup Environ Hyg 5:D63–D69. doi:10.1080/15459620802059393 Google Scholar
  53. OMB (2001) Guidelines for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated by Federal Agencies. Accessed 16 Jan 2009
  54. OMB (2005) Final information quality bulletin for peer review Federal Register OMB 70:2664-2667Google Scholar
  55. OMB (2007a) OMB issued a memorandum (M-07-13) on the implementation of Executive Order 13422 on April 25, 2007.
  56. OMB (2007b) 72 Fed. Reg. 3432-3440Google Scholar
  57. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2008) Working party on manufactured nanomaterials: list of manufactured nanomaterials and list of endpoints for phase one of the OECD Testing Programme [ENV/JM/MONO(2008)13/REV].$FILE/JT03248749.PDF. Accessed 1 Feb 2009
  58. OSHA (1989) Air contaminants. Fed Regist 54:2332Google Scholar
  59. OSHA (1998) Draft Proposed Safety and Health Program Rule, 29 C.F.R. 1900.1. Docket No. S&H-0027 (1998). Available at Accessed 12 Jan 2009
  60. OSHA (2006) Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium final rule. Federal Register 71:10100 (codified at 29 CFR §1910.1026)Google Scholar
  61. OSHA (2008) Voluntary protection program: policy and procedures manual. CSP 03-01-003. Available at Accessed 12 Jan 2009
  62. Paik SY, 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. doi:10.1093/annhyg/men041 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 United States Code § 3501:1995Google Scholar
  64. Peters T, Heitbrink W, Evans D et al (2006) The mapping of fine and ultrafine particle concentrations in an engine machining and assembly facility. Ann Occup Hyg 50:1–9. doi:10.1093/annhyg/mel067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Poland C, Duffin R, Kirloch I 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. doi:10.1038/nnano.2008.111 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Public Citizen Health Research Group v. Tyson, 796 F2d 1479 (D.C. Cir. 1986)Google Scholar
  67. Pui DYH, Qi C, Stanley N, Oberdorster G, Maynard A (2008) Recirculating air filtration significantly reduces exposure to airborne nanoparticles. Environ Health Perspect 116(7):863–866PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rabinowitz R (Editor-in-Chief) (2002) Occupational safety and health law, 2nd edn. Bureau of National Affairs, Washington, pp 485–486Google Scholar
  69. Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 United States Code § 603(a):1980Google Scholar
  70. Schulte PA, Geraci C, Zumwalde R (2008a) Sharpening the focus on occupational safety and health in nanotechnology. Scand J Work Environ Health 34(6):471–478PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Schulte PA, Trout D, Zumwalde RD et al (2008b) Options for occupational health surveillance of workers potentially exposed to engineered nanoparticles: state of the science. J Occup Environ Med 50(5):517–526. doi:10.1097/JOM.0b013e31816515f7 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schulte PA, Schubauer-Berigan M, Mayweather C et al (2009) Issues in the development of epidemiologic studies of workers exposed to engineered nanoparticles. JOEM 51:1–13Google Scholar
  73. Shvedova AA, Kisin ER, Murray AR et al (2008) Inhalation versus aspiration of single walled carbon nanotubes in C57BL/6 mice: inflammation, fibrosis, oxidative stress and mutagenesis. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 295:L552–L565. doi:10.1152/ajplung.90287.2008 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Shvedova AA, Kisin ER, Porter D et al (2009) Mechanisms of pulmonary toxicity and medical applications of carbon nanotubes: two faces of Janus? Pharmacol Ther 121:192–204. doi:10.1016/j.pharmthera.2008.10.009 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act, 5 United States Code Part 611:1996Google Scholar
  76. Sng J, Koh D (2008) Nanocommentary: occupational and environmental health and nanotechnology—what’s new? Occup Med 58:454–455. doi:10.1093/occmed/kqn132 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tsai S-J, Ashter A, Ada E et al (2008) Airborne nanoparticle release associated with the compounding of nanocomposites using nanoalumina as fillers. Aerosol Air Qual Res 8:160–177Google Scholar
  78. U.S. Department of Energy (2009) Notice: the safe handling of unbound engineered nanoparticles. DOE N 456.1. Available at Accessed 14 Jan 2009
  79. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2008) Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program. Available at Accessed 12 January 2009
  80. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2009) Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program. Interim Report. Available at Accessed 14 January 2009
  81. van Wendel-de-Joode B, Brouwer DH, Vermeulen R et al (2003) DREAM: a method for semi-quantitative dermal exposure assessment. Ann Occup Hyg 47:71–87. doi:10.1093/annhyg/meg012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wang J, Chen C, Liu Y et al (2008) Potential neurological lesion after nasal instillation of TiO2 nanoparticles in the anatase and rutile crystal phases. Toxicol Lett 183:72–80. doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2008.10.001 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Watch OMB (2005) OMB Watch analysis on final peer review bulletin. Accessed 23 Jan 2009
  84. Woodrow Wilson Center Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (2008) Consumer products inventory. Accessed 10 Jan 2009

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Public Health Law Program, Centers for Disease Control and PreventionU.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and PreventionU.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations