Search

Objectives: Control banding (CB) is a risk management strategy that has been used to identify and recommend exposure control measures to potentially hazardous substances for which toxicological information is limited. The application of CB and level of expertise required for implementation and management can differ depending on knowledge of the hazard potential, the likelihood of exposure, and the ability to verify the effectiveness of exposure control measures. A number of different strategies have been proposed for using CB in workplaces where exposure to engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) can occur. However, it is unclear if the use of CB can effectively reduce worker exposure to nanomaterials. A systematic review of studies was conducted to answer the question "can control banding be useful to ensure adequate controls for the safe handling of nanomaterials.", Methods: A variety of databases were searched to identify relevant studies pertaining to CB. Database search terms included 'control', 'hazard', 'exposure' and 'risk' banding as well as the use of these terms in the context of nanotechnology or nanomaterials. Other potentially relevant studies were identified during the review of articles obtained in the systematic review process. Identification of studies and the extraction of data were independently conducted by the reviewers. Quality of the studies was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS). The quality of the evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)., Results: A total of 235 records were identified in the database search in which 70 records were determined to be eligible for full-text review. Only two studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. These studies evaluated the application of the CB Nanotool in workplaces where ENMs were being handled. A total of 32 different nanomaterial handling activities were evaluated in these studies by comparing the recommended exposure controls using CB to existing exposure controls previously recommended by an industrial hygienist. It was determined that the selection of exposure controls using CB were consistent with those recommended by an industrial hygienist for 19 out of 32 (59.4%) job activities. A higher level of exposure control was recommended for nine out of 32 (28.1%) job activities using CB while four out of 32 (12.5%) job activities had in place exposure controls that were more stringent than those recommended using CB. After evaluation using GRADE, evidence indicated that the use of CB Nanotool can recommend exposure controls for many ENM job activities that would be consistent with those recommended by an experienced industrial hygienist., Conclusion: The use of CB for reducing exposures to ENMs has the potential to be an effective risk management strategy when information is limited on the health risk to the nanomaterial and/or there is an absence of an occupational exposure limit (OEL). However, there remains a lack of evidence to conclude that the use of CB can provide adequate exposure control in all work environments. Additional validation work is needed to provide more data to support the use of CB for the safe handling of ENMs.

Objective: Capitalizing on phenomena at the nanoscale may present great benefits to society. Nevertheless, until the hazards and risks of engineered nanoparticles are determined, the technological products and advances of nanotechnology may be impeded by the societal concerns. Although animal data provide the necessary first step in hazard and risk assessment, ultimately epidemiological studies will be required, especially studies of workers exposed to engineered nanoparticles. It may be too soon to conduct informative epidemiological studies but it is now appropriate to identify issues that will be pertinent and prepare strategies to address them., Methods: The published scientific literature on incidental and engineered nanoparticles and air pollution were reviewed to identify issues in the conduct of epidemiological studies of workers exposed to engineered nanoparticles., Results: Twelve important issues were identified-the most critical pertaining to particle heterogeneity, temporal factors, exposure characterization, disease endpoints, and identification of the study population., Conclusion: Consideration of these issues provides the foundation for initiating epidemiologic research on workers exposed to engineered nanoparticles.

Increasing numbers of workers are involved with the production, use, distribution, and disposal of nanomaterials. At the same time, there is a growing number of reports of adverse biological effects of engineered nanoparticles in test systems. It is useful, at this juncture, to identify critical questions that will help address knowledge gaps concerning the potential occupational hazards of these materials. The questions address (i) hazard classification of engineered nanoparticles, (ii) exposure metrics, (iii) the actual exposures to the different engineered nanoparticles in the workplace, (iv) the limits of engineering controls and personal protective equipment with respect to engineered nanoparticles, (v) the kinds of surveillance programs that may be required at workplaces to protect potentially exposed workers, (vi) whether exposure registers should be established for workers potentially exposed to engineered nanoparticles, and, (vii) whether engineered nanoparticles should be treated as "new" substances and evaluated for safety and hazards?

The earliest and most extensive societal exposures to engineered nanoparticles are likely to occur in the workplace. Until toxicologic and health effects research moves forward to characterize more broadly the potential hazards of nanoparticles and to provide a scientific basis for appropriate control of nanomaterials in the workplace, current and future workers may be at risk from occupational exposures. This article reviews a conceptual framework for occupational risk management as applied to engineered nanomaterials and describes an associated approach for controlling exposures in the presence of uncertainty. The framework takes into account the potential routes of exposure and factors that may influence biological activity and potential toxicity of nanomaterials; incorporates primary approaches based on the traditional industrial hygiene hierarchy of controls involving elimination or substitution, engineering controls, administrative controls, and use of personal protective equipment; and includes valuable secondary approaches involving health surveillance and medical monitoring.

To evaluate the possible health effects of occupational exposure to a nonasbestos mineral fiber, a cohort of 2,302 males employed for at least 1 month between 1940 and 1975 at an attapulgite (clay fiber) mining and milling facility was followed through 1975. A significant deficit of mortality (SMR = 43, 90% CI 23-76) from nonmalignant respiratory disease (NMRD) was observed for the cohort based on age-, calendar year-, and race-specific rates for U.S. males. A marked deficit of NMRD was seen regardless of presumed dust exposure level, induction-latency period, or duration employed. A statistically significant excess of mortality from lung cancer was observed among whites (SMR = 193, 90% CI 121-293), but a deficit occurred among nonwhites (SMR = 53, 90% CI 21-112). Lung cancer risk in either race was not altered substantially with presumed dust exposure level, induction-latency period, or duration employed with one exception-those employed for at least 5 years in high-exposure-level jobs.

To evaluate a reported five-fold increase in leukaemia mortality among workers exposed to ionising radiation at Portsmouth (New Hampshire) Naval Shipyard (PNS), a retrospective cohort mortality study of all PNS civilian workers employed from 1952 to 1977 was done. Three subcohorts were identified: 7615 workers with radiation exposure of 0.001 to 91.414 rem (mean 2.779 rem, median 0.545 rem), 15 585 non-radiation workers, and 1345 workers selected for radiation work who received no measurable exposures. Vital status on 96% of the workers was ascertained and observed mortality due to all causes, all malignant neoplasms, and malignant neoplasms of the lymphatic and haematopoietic tissues, including leukaemia, was compared with that expected from mortality-rates for United States White males. Leukaemia mortality in radiation and non-radiation workers at PNS was also compared. Although the study had a power of greater than 99% to detect statistically a five-fold increase in leukaemia mortality among the radiation workers, and a power of 67% to detect a two-fold increase, there was no excess due to leukaemia or any other cause. The standardised mortality ratio for leukaemia among radiation workers was 84 (95% confidence interval, 34--174). There was no dose-response relation with radiation or any increased mortality in radiation over non-radiation workers. The study was, however, limited by short latency (time since first radiation); only 53% of the workers had less than 15 years' latency.