Skip to main content

Laboratory Safety and Nanotechnology Workers: an Analysis of Current Guidelines in the USA

NanoEthics volume 10, pages 5–23 (2016)Cite this article

Abstract

Although some regulatory frameworks for the occupational health and safety of nanotechnology workers have been developed, worker safety and health issues in these laboratory environments have received less attention than many other areas of nanotechnology regulation. In addition, workers in nanotechnology labs are likely to face unknown risks and hazards because few of the guidelines and rules for worker safety are mandatory. In this article, we provide an overview of the current health and safety guidelines for nanotechnology laboratory workers by exploring guidelines from different organizations, including the Department of Energy Nanoscale Science Research Centers (DOE-NSRC), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Texas A&M University (TAMU), and University of Massachusetts-Lowell (UML). After discussing these current guidelines, we apply an ethical framework to each set of guidelines to explore any gaps that might exist in them. By conducting this gap analysis, we are able to highlight some of the weaknesses that might be important for future policy development in this area. We conclude by outlining how future guidelines might address some of these gaps, specifically the issue of workers’ participation in the process of establishing safety measures and the development and enforcement of more unified (and mandatory) guidelines.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

£ 29.95

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. The Nanodatabase (nanodb.dk/en/) shows how this concept has been applied to consumer products.

  2. Section 26 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 651(1976)

  3. OSHA Act, section 2b, part 3.

  4. There are currently some generally applicable OSHA regulations such as Respiratory Protection (29 CFR 1910.134) or Hazard Communications (1910. 1200) [6] and regulation for non-production laboratories such as Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories Standard (29 CFR 1910.1450).

  5. This article considers these principles are relevant to be applied to the issues of nanotechnology following the argument that “even though ethical questions of nanotechnology may be more complex than ethical questions of biotechnology, fundamentally the same general ethical principles are at stake” ([62], p. 453).

  6. The training programs may not be efficient to provide workers with specific and transparent information regarding the risks and hazards of nanotechnologies and nanomaterials. However, evaluation of the training programs is beyond the aim of this study and will be addressed in future research.

  7. Section 13 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act of 2005

References

  1. Lux Research (2008) Nanomaterials state of the market Q3 2008: stealth success, broad impact. Lux Research, New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (2001) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Lux Research (2014) Nanotechnology update: corporations up their spending as revenues for nano-enabled products increase., Lux Research website, https://portal.luxresearchinc.com/research/report_excerpt/16215. Accessed 20 July 2015

    Google Scholar 

  4. Sargent Jr JF (2014) The National Nanotechnology Initiative: overview, reauthorization, and appropriations issues. Congressional Research Service. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34401.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2015

  5. Foladori G, Záyago E (2010) What lies beneath: trade unions and the moratorium on the commercialisation of nanotechnologies. Sci Tech Soc 15(1):155–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Maynard AD (2015) The (nano) entrepreneur’s dilemma. Nat Nanotechnol 10(3):199–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Donaldson K, Aitken R, Tran L, Stone V, Duffin R, Forrest G, Alexander A (2006) Carbon nanotubes: a review of their properties in relation to pulmonary toxicology and workplace safety. Toxicol Sci 92(1):5–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lorenz C, Hagendorfer H, von Goetz N, Kaegi R, Gehrig R, Ulrich A, Scheringer M, Hungerbühler K (2011) Nanosized aerosols from consumer sprays: experimental analysis and exposure modeling for four commercial products. J Nanoparticle Res 13(8):3377–3391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Maynard AD, Kuempel ED (2005) Airborne nanostructured particles and occupational health. J Nanoparticle Res 7(6):587–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Nazarenko Y, Han TW, Lioy PJ, Mainelis G (2011) Potential for exposure to engineered nanoparticles from nanotechnology-based consumer spray products. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 21(5):515–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hansen SF, Jensen KA, Baun A (2014) NanoRiskCat: a conceptual tool for categorization and communication of exposure potentials and hazards of nanomaterials in consumer products. J Nanoparticle Res 16(1):1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cameron J, Abouchar J (1991) The precautionary principle: a fundamental principle of law and policy for the protection of the global environment. Boston Coll Int Comp Law Rev 14(1):1–27

    Google Scholar 

  13. Stirling A (2001) The precautionary principle in science and technology. In: O’Riordan T, Cameron J, Jordan A (eds) Reinterpreting the precautionary principle. Cameron and May, London, pp 61–94

    Google Scholar 

  14. World Health Organization (2013) Nanotechnology and human health: scientific evidence and risk governance. WHO website. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/108626/1/e96927.pdf?ua=1

  15. Sass J (2006) Nanotechnology and the precautionary principle., Natural Resources Defense Council website, http://docs.nrdc.org/health/files/hea_06121401a.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2015

    Google Scholar 

  16. Weil D (2003) OSHA: Beyond the politics. Frontline website. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/workplace/osha/weil.html . Accessed 20 July 2015

  17. Schmid K, Riediker M (2008) Use of nanoparticles in Swiss industry: a targeted survey. Environ Sci Technol 42(7):2253–2260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Business and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC) to the OECD (2013) Responsible development of nanotechnology: turning vision into reality. BIAC website. http://www.member.biac.org/statements/nanotech/FIN09-01_Nanotechnology_Vision_Paper.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2015

  19. National Institutes of Health, Office of Research Service, Division of Occupational Health and Safety (2014) Nanotechnology safety and health program. NIH website. http://www.ors.od.nih.gov/sr/dohs/Documents/Nanotechnology Safety and Health Program.pdf . Accessed 20 July 2015

  20. Gerritzen G, Huang l-C, Killpack K, Mircheva M, Conti J (2006) A review of current practices in the Nanotechnology Industry. Phase two report: survey of current practices in the Nanotechnology workplace. ICON Report. Icon and University of California, Santa Barbara

  21. Schulte PA, Salamanca-Buentello F (2007) Ethical and scientific issues of nanotechnology in the workplace. J Environ Health Perspect 12(5):1319–1332

    Google Scholar 

  22. Pope CA III, Thun MJ, Namboodiri MM, Dockery DW, Evans JS, Speizer FE, Heath CW Jr (1995) Particulate air pollution as a predictor of mortality in a prospective study of US adults. Am J Resp Crit Care 151(3):669–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Seaton A, Tran L, Aitken R, Donaldson K (2010) Nanoparticles, human health hazard and regulation. J R Soc Interface 7(Suppl 1):S119–S129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Schulte PA, Geraci C, Murashov V, Kuempel E, Zumwalde R, Castranova V, Hoover M, Hodson L, Martinez K (2014) Occupational safety and health criteria for responsible development of nanotechnology. J Nanoparticle Res 16(1):1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Beaudrie CE, Kandlikar M, Satterfield T (2013) From cradle-to-grave at the nanoscale: Gaps in US regulatory oversight along the nanomaterial life cycle. Environ Sci Technol 47(11):5524–5534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Balbus JM, Florini K, Denison RA, Walsh SA (2007) Protecting workers and the environment: an environmental NGO’s perspective on nanotechnology. J Nanoparticle Res 9(1):11–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kuzma J, Besley J (2008) Ethics of risk analysis and regulatory review: from bio- to nanotechnology. NanoEthics 2(2):149–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bowman DM, Gilligan G (2010) The private dimension in the regulation of nanotechnologies: developments in the industrial chemicals sector. UCLA J Environ Law Policy 28(1):77–133

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kreider T, Halperin W (2011) Engineered nanomaterials: learning from the past, planning for the future. J Occup Environ Med 53:S108–S112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Nel A, Xia T, Mädler L, Li N (2006) Toxic potential of materials at the nanolevel. Science 311(5761):622–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bello D, Hart AJ, Ahn K, Hallock M, Yamamoto N, Garcia EJ, Ellenbecker MJ, Wardle BL (2008) Particle exposure levels during CVD growth and subsequent handling of vertically-aligned carbon nanotube films. Carbon 46(6):974–977

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Bello D, Wardle BL, Yamamoto N, Guzman DeVilloria R, Garcia EJ, Hart AJ, Ahn K, Ellenbecker MJ, Hallock M (2009) Exposure to nanoscale particles and fibers during machining of hybrid advanced composites containing carbon nanotubes. J Nanoparticle Res 11(1):231–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Han JH, Lee EJ, Lee JH, So KP, Lee YH, Bae GN, Lee S-B, Ji JH, Cho MH, Yu IJ (2008) Monitoring multiwalled carbon nanotube exposure in carbon nanotube research facility. Inhal Toxicol 20(8):741–749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Maynard AD, Baron PA, Foley M, Shvedova AA, Kisin ER, Castranova V (2004) Exposure to carbon nanotube material: aerosol release during the handling of unrefined single-walled carbon nanotube material. J Toxic Environ Health A 67(1):87–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mazzuckelli LF, Methner MM, Birch ME, Evans DE, Ku B-K, Crouch K, Hoover MD (2007) Identification and characterization of potential sources of worker exposure to carbon nanofibers during polymer composite laboratory operations. J Occup Environ Hyg 4(12):D125–D130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Conti JA, Killpack K, Gerritzen G, Huang L, Mircheva M, Delmas M, Harthorn BH, Appelbaum RP, Holden PA (2008) Health and safety practices in the nanomaterials workplace: results from an international survey. Environ Sci Technol 42(9):3155–3162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Balas F, Arruebo M, Urrutia J, Santamaria J (2010) Reported nanosafety practices in research laboratories worldwide. Nat Nanotechnol 5(2):93–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Rothwell R (1992) Industrial innovation and government environmental regulation: some lessons from the past. Technovation 12(7):447–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Szasz A (1986) The reversal of federal policy toward worker safety and health. Sci Soc 50(1):25–51

    Google Scholar 

  40. Nilstun T, Øvretveit J (2004) Ethical analysis. In: Westerholm P, Nilstun T, Øvretveit J (eds) Practical Ethics in Occupational Health. Radcliffe Medical Press, San Francisco, pp 37–47

    Google Scholar 

  41. Pelley J, Saner MA (2009) International approaches to the regulatory governance of nanotechnology: Regulatory Governance Initiative. Carleton University website. http://www.regulatorygovernance.ca/publication/regulation-paper-nanotechnology-regulation-paper/wppa_open/. Accessed 20 July 2015

  42. Groso A, Petri-Fink A, Magrez A, Riediker M, Meyer T (2010) Management of nanomaterials safety in research environment. Part Fibre Toxicol 7(1):40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2015) Potential risks of nanomaterials and how to safely handle materials of uncertain toxicity. MIT website. http://ehs.mit.edu/site/content/nanomaterials-toxicity . Accessed 20 July 2015

  44. Brock, B (2009) Containment hierarchy of controls. (ISPE KB-0013-Oct09). The International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering website. http://www.ispe.org/knowledge-briefs/containment-hierarchy-of-controls.pdf . Accessed 20 July 2015

  45. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (2011) Laboratory safety guidance (OSHA 3404-11R). OSHA website. https://www.osha.gov/Publications/laboratory/OSHA3404laboratory-safety-guidance.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2015

  46. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2012) General safe practices for working with engineered nanomaterials in research laboratories (DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2012-147). NIOSH website http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2012-147/pdfs/2012-147.pdf . Accessed 20 July 2015

  47. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2013) Current strategies for engineering controls in nanomaterial production and downstream handling processes. (Publication No. 2014-102). NIOSH website. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2014-102/pdfs/2014-102.pdf . Accessed 20 July 2015

  48. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (2015) Hierarchy of controls. OSHA website. https://www.osha.gov/dte/grant_materials/fy10/sh-20839-10/hierarchy_of_controls.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2015

  49. Texas A & M (2011) Interim guideline for working safely with nanotechnology. TAMU website. http://oes.tamu.edu/web/guidelines/NANO_SafeGuideline_FY-2011.pdf . Accessed 20 July 2015

  50. Brown SW, Swartz TA (1989) A gap analysis of professional service quality. J Mark 53(2):92–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Kotabe M, Czinkota MR (1992) State government promotion of manufacturing exports: a gap analysis. J Int Bus Stud 23(4):637–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Grundy T, Brown L (2002) Strategic project management: creating organizational breakthroughs. Thompson Learning, London

  53. Lucas J, Bulbul T, Anumba C (2012) Gap analysis on the ability of guidelines and standards to support the performance of healthcare facilities. J Perform Constr Facil 27(6):748–755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. LaBay DG, Comm CL (2003) A case study using gap analysis to assess distance learning versus traditional course delivery. Int J Educ Manag 17(7):312–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Wolfson JR (2003) Social and ethical issues in nanotechnology: lessons from biotechnology and other high technologies. Biotechnology Law Report 22(4):376–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Iavicoli S, Rondinone BM, Boccuni F (2009) Occupational safety and health’s role in sustainable, responsible nanotechnology: gaps and needs. Hum Exp Toxicol 28(6-7):433–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Ariss SS (2003) Employee involvement to improve safety in the workplace: an ethical imperative. Am J Bus 18(2):9–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Clayton A (2003) Regulating occupational health and safety: the need for a new paradigm. Saf Sci Monit 7(1):1–16

    Google Scholar 

  59. Ladd J (1987) The task of ethics. In: Reich WT (ed) Encyclopedia of Bioethics. Free Press, New York, pp 400–407

    Google Scholar 

  60. Westerholm P (2007) Professional ethics in occupational health: Western European perspectives. Ind Health 45(1):19–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Soskolne CL (1997) Ethical, social, and legal issues surrounding studies of susceptible populations and individuals. Environ Health Perspect 105(Suppl 4):837–841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Ebbesen M, Andersen S, Besenbacher F (2006) Ethics in nanotechnology: starting from scratch? B Sci Technol Soc 26(6):451–462

  63. Ashford NA (1994) Monitoring the worker and the community for chemical exposure and disease: legal and ethical considerations in the US. Clin Chem 40(7):1426–1437

    Google Scholar 

  64. Jonsen AR (1991) Ethical considerations and responsibilities when communicating health risk information. J Clin Epidemiol 44(1):69s–72s

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Spagnolo AG, Daloiso V (2009) Outlining ethical issues in nanotechnologies. Bioethics 23(7):394–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Weil V (2001) Ethical issues in nanotechnology. In: National Science Foundation (ed.) Social Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. WTEC, Arlington pp 193–198

  67. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (1994) Principles of biomedical ethics, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  68. Gert B, Culver CM, Clouser KD (1997) Bioethics: a return to fundamentals. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  69. Gewirth A (1978) Reason and morality. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  70. Gewirth A (1986) Human rights in the workplace. Am J Ind Med 9(1):31–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Shrader-Frechette KS (1994) Ethics of scientific research. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  72. Council IRG (2007) Nanotechnology risk governance: recommendations for a global, coordinated approach to the governance of potential risk., IRGC website, http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/PB_nanoFINAL2_2_.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  73. U.S. Department of Energy, Nanoscale Science Research Center (2008) Approach to nanomaterial ES & H. DOE-NSRC website. http://science.energy.gov/~/media/bes/pdf/doe_nsrc_approach_to_nanomaterial_esh.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2015

  74. Ellenbecker M, Tsai S (2008) Interim best practices for working with nanoparticles. University of Massachusetts-Lowell website. http://eprints.internano.org/34/1/Best_Practices_for_Working_with_Nanoparticles_Version_1.pdf . Accessed 20 July 2015

  75. Hambach R, Mairiaux P, François G, Braeckman L, Balsat A, Van Hal G, Vandoorne C, Van Royen P, Van Sprundel M (2011) Workers’ perception of chemical risks: a focus group study. Risk Anal 31(2):335–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Halperin WE, Ratcliffe J, Frazier TM, Wilson L, Becker SP, Schulte PA (1986) Medical screening in the workplace: proposed principles. J Occup Environ Med 28(8):547–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Harber P, Conlon C, McCunney RJ (2003) Occupational medical surveillance. In: McCunney RJ (ed) A practical approach to occupational and environmental medicine. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 582–599

  78. Mowatt G, Thomson MA, Grimshaw J, Grant A (1998) Implementing early warning messages on emerging health technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 14(4):663–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2009) Current intelligent bulletin 60: Interim guidance for medical screening and hazard surveillance for workers potentially exposed to engineered nanoparticles (DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2009-116). NIOSH website. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2009-116/pdfs/2009-116.pdf . Accessed 20 July 2015

  80. Kern R (2015) Proposal for CPSC Nanotechnology Center would study consumer health risks., The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies website, http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/9244/bloomberg_bna_article.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  81. Sargent Jr JF (2013) The National Nanotechnology Initiative: overview, reauthorization, and appropriations issues. Congressional Research Service. http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA584294. Accessed 20 July 2015

  82. Bicos S (1990) Employee participation without pain. HR Mag 35(4):89–92

    Google Scholar 

  83. Reichow A, Dorbeck-Jung B (2013) Discovering specific conditions for compliance with soft regulation related to work with nanomaterials. NanoEthics 7(1):83–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University, 411 N. Central Avenue, Suite 450, Mail Code 3720, Phoenix, AZ, 85004-0687, USA

    Jeong Joo Ahn, Youngjae Kim & Elizabeth A. Corley

  2. John E. Ross Professor, Department of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 309 Hiram Smith Hall, 1545 Observatory Drive, Madison, WI, 53706-1215, USA

    Dietram A. Scheufele

Authors
  1. Jeong Joo Ahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Youngjae Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elizabeth A. Corley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dietram A. Scheufele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeong Joo Ahn.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

There is no funding attached to this study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ahn, J.J., Kim, Y., Corley, E.A. et al. Laboratory Safety and Nanotechnology Workers: an Analysis of Current Guidelines in the USA. Nanoethics 10, 5–23 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-016-0250-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-016-0250-9

Keywords

  • Ethical issues
  • Ethics
  • Nanotechnology
  • Worker safety
  • Regulation
  • Occupational safety and health