Toward a minimum data set for assessing the risks of activities involved with nanomaterials
Source abstract
Abstract
Despite their applications in various industries, researches have shown that nanomaterials can interact adversely with human body and the environment. So, it is necessary to assess the risks of activities involving these materials. An important step of each risk assessment process is to identify the main factors influencing the process. Firstly, factors possibly influencing risk assessment of nanomaterials were extracted from the literature. A questionnaire was designed using these factors and validated by experts in occupational health, environmental health, medical nanotechnology and health education. The questionnaire was then sent to 30 experts and they were asked to score each factor 1 to 5. Twenty-four factors affecting the risk assessment of nanomaterials were identified and divided into four groups: “nanomaterial properties”, “parent-materials properties”, “work properties” and “workplace properties”. The factors with the highest scores in each of the areas of “health”, “safety” and “the environment” were “toxicity of nanomaterial”, “reactivity of nanomaterial”, and “solubility (or stability, or biopersistency) of nanomaterial”, respectively. Based on the results, the “properties of nanomaterials” should play the most important role in assessing the risks of nanomaterials; “work properties” and “workplace characteristics” are in the next degree of importance. Accordingly, a combination of different factors (nanomaterial properties, parent-materials properties, work properties and workplace properties) seems to be appropriate to assess the risks of activities involved with nanomaterials. But which factor should be more influential in risk assessment and which one less, requires further studies.
Source: expertdata · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Nanoparticles: synthesis and applications · Recycling and Waste Management Techniques · Nanotechnology research and applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (68)
Show source-provided references
1. Khan WS, Asmatulu R (2013) Chapter 1 - nanotechnology emerging trends, markets, and concerns. In: Asmatulu R (ed) Nanotechnology safety. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-59438-9.00001-110.1016/B978-0-444-59438-9.00001-1 ↗
2. Creutzenberg O (2012) Biological interactions and toxicity of nanomaterials in the respiratory tract and various approaches of aerosol generation for toxicity testing. Arch Toxicol 86(7):1117–1122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-012-0833-310.1007/s00204-012-0833-3 ↗
3. Shannahan JH, Kodavanti UP, Brown JM (2012) Manufactured and airborne nanoparticle cardiopulmonary interactions: a review of mechanisms and the possible contribution of mast cells. Inhal. Toxicol 24:320–339. https://doi.org/10.3109/08958378.2012.66822910.3109/08958378.2012.668229 ↗
4. Simkó M, Mattsson MO (2014) Interactions between nanosized materials and the brain. Curr Med Chem 21(37):4200–4214. https://doi.org/10.2174/092986732166614071610044910.2174/0929867321666140716100449 ↗
5. Westmeier D, Knauer SK, Stauber RH, Docter D (2017) Chapter 1 - bio–nano interactions. In: Fadeel B, Pietroiusti A, Shvedova AA (eds) Adverse effects of engineered nanomaterials, Second edn. Academic Press, pp 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809199-9.00001-X10.1016/B978-0-12-809199-9.00001-X ↗
6. Omari Shekaftik S, Nasirzadeh NJN (2021) 8-Hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG) as a biomarker of oxidative DNA damage induced by occupational exposure to nanomaterials: a systematic review. Nanotoxicology 15(6):850–864. https://doi.org/10.1080/17435390.2021.193625410.1080/17435390.2021.1936254 ↗
7. Ghafari J, Moghadasi N, Omari Shekaftik S (2020a) Oxidative stress induced by occupational exposure to nanomaterials: a systematic review. Ind. Health 58(6):492–502. https://doi.org/10.2486/indhealth.2020-007310.2486/indhealth.2020-0073 ↗
8. McShane HVA, Sunahara GI (2015) Chapter 2.4 - environmental perspectives. In: Dolez PI (ed) Nanoengineering. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 257–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-62747-6.00009-910.1016/B978-0-444-62747-6.00009-9 ↗
9. Mo Y, Gu A, Tollerud DJ, Zhang Q (2016) Nanoparticle toxicity and environmental impact. In: Thomas Dziubla DAB (ed) Oxidative stress and biomaterials. Academic Press, new york, pp 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803269-5.00005-X10.1016/B978-0-12-803269-5.00005-X ↗
10. Omari Shekaftik S, Ashtarinezhad A, Shirazi FH, Hosseini A, Yarahmadi R (2019a) Assessing the risk of main activities of nanotechnology companies by the NanoTool method. Int J Occup Saf Ergon 27(4):1145–1153. https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2019.169377810.1080/10803548.2019.1693778 ↗
11. Omari Shekaftik S, Yarahmadi R, Moghadasi N, Sedghi Noushabadi Z, Hosseini AF, Ashtarinezhad A (2020a) Investigation of recommended good practices to reduce exposure to nanomaterials in nanotechnology laboratories in Tehran, Iran. J Nanopart Res 22(3):59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-020-4764-210.1007/s11051-020-4764-2 ↗
12. Ghafari J, Moghadasi N, Omari Shekaftik S (2020b) Oxidative stress induced by occupational exposure to nanomaterials: a systematic review. Ind Health 58(6):492–50210.2486/indhealth.2020-0073 ↗
13. EPA (2013) ChemSTEER-Chemical Screening Tool for Exposures and Environmental Releases. Environmental Protection Agency, USA
14. EPA (2014) E-FAST-Exposure and Fate Assessment Screening Tool Version 2014. Environmental Protection Agency, USA
15. EPA (2017) Consumer Exposure Model (CEM) Version 2.0 User's Guide. In: Danish Environmental Protection Agency, USA
16. Botos Á, Graham JD, ZJJoRR I (2019) Industrial chemical regulation in the European Union and the United States: a comparison of REACH and the amended TSCA. J. Risk Res 22(10):1187–1204. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2018.145449510.1080/13669877.2018.1454495 ↗
17. Warheit DB (2018) Hazard and risk assessment strategies for nanoparticle exposures: how far have we come in the past 10 years? F1000Res 26(7):376. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12691.110.12688/f1000research.12691.1 ↗
18. Fierz M, Houle C, Steigmeier P, Burtscher HJAS (2011) Design, calibration, and field performance of a miniature diffusion size classifier. Aerosol Sci Technol 45(11):1–1010.1080/02786826.2010.516283 ↗
19. Marra J, Voetz M,Kiesling H-JJJoNR (2010) Monitor for detecting and assessing exposure to airborne nanoparticlesJ Nanopart Res 12:21-3710.1007/s11051-009-9695-x ↗
20. Fierz M, Meier D, Steigmeier P, Burtscher HJAS (2014) Aerosol Measurement by Induced Currents. Aerosol Sci Technol 48(4):350–35710.1080/02786826.2013.875981 ↗
21. Ryan PH, Son SY, Wolfe C, Lockey J, Brokamp C, GJSotTE LM (2015) A field application of a personal sensor for ultrafine particle exposure in children. Sci Total Environ 508:366–37310.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.11.061 ↗
22. Asbach C et al (2017) Review of measurement techniques and methods for assessing personal exposure to airborne nanomaterials in workplaces. Sci Total Environ 603-604:793–80610.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.049 ↗
23. Faure B, Dozol H, Brouard C, Guiot A, Clavaguera S Assessment of personal exposure to airborne nanomaterials: evaluation of a novel sampler. In: Journal of Physics: Conference Series (2017) vol 1. IOP Publishing, p 012006
24. Cena LG, Anthony TR, Peters TMJEs, technology (2011) A personal nanoparticle respiratory deposition (NRD) Environ Sci Technol 45:156483-649010.1021/es201379a ↗
25. Miller A, Frey G, King G, Sunderman CJAS (2010) A handheld electrostatic precipitator for sampling airborne particles and nanoparticles. Aerosol Sci Technol 44:417–42710.1080/02786821003692063 ↗
26. Savolainen K, Pietroiusti A (2017) Chapter 5 - exposure assessment. In: Fadeel B, Pietroiusti A, Shvedova AA (eds) Adverse effects of engineered nanomaterials, Second edn. Academic Press, pp 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809199-9.00005-710.1016/B978-0-12-809199-9.00005-7 ↗
27. Zalk DM, Paik SY, Swuste P (2009) Evaluating the control banding nanotool: a qualitative risk assessment method for controlling nanoparticle exposures. J Nanopart Res 11(7):1685–170410.1007/s11051-009-9678-y ↗
28. Ostiguy C, Riediker M, Triolet J, Troisfontaines P, Vernez D (2012, 2012) Development of a specific control banding tool for nanomaterials French Agency for food, environmental and occupational health and safety (ANSES). J. Nanomater10.1155/2012/879671 ↗
29. Höck J et al (2008) Guidelines on the precautionary matrix for synthetic nanomaterials Federal Office for Public Health and Federal Office for the Environment, Berne
30. Van Duuren-Stuurman B et al (2012) Stoffenmanager nano version 1.0: a web-based tool for risk prioritization of airborne manufactured nano objects. Ann Occup Hyg 56(5):525–541
31. Eastlake AC, Fontana L, Iavicoli I (2020) Monitoring nanomaterials in the workplace. In: Allergy and immunotoxicology in occupational health-the next step. Springer, pp 57–7410.1007/978-981-15-4735-5_5 ↗
32. Zalk DM, Paik SY (2016) Chapter 6 - risk assessment using control banding. In: Ramachandran G (ed) Assessing nanoparticle risks to human health, (Second Edition). edn. William Andrew Publishing, Oxford, pp 121–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-35323-6.00006-210.1016/B978-0-323-35323-6.00006-2 ↗
33. Omari Shekaftik S, Ashtarinezhad A, Yarahmadi R, Rasouli M, Soleimani M, Hosseini Shirazi F (2020) Relationship between chemical composition and physical state of used nanomaterials in nanotechnology companies with type and prevalance of symptoms of employees of these companies in Tehran Iran. Iran Occup. Health 17:936–950
34. van Leeuwen CJ, Vermeire TG (2007) Risk assessment of chemicals: an introduction. Springer Science & Business Media10.1007/978-1-4020-6102-8 ↗
35. Omari Shekaftik SH, Shirazi FH, Yarahmadi R, Rasouli M, Solaymani Dodaran M, Ashtarinezhad A (2019) Exploratory study of nanoworkers’ symptoms & work-relatedness of these symptoms. Iran University of medical sciences
36. Brouwer DH (2012) Control banding approaches for nanomaterials. Ann Occup Hyg 56(5):506–514
37. Dimou K, Emond C Nanomaterials, and occupational health and safety—a literature review about control banding and a semi-quantitative method proposed for hazard assessment. In: Journal of Physics: Conference Series (2017) vol 1. IOP Publishing, p 012020
38. Ahmadi Kanrash F, Omari Shekaftik S, Aliakbar A, Soleimany F, Haghighi Asl A, Ebrahimi W, Amini Ravandi S (2021) Comparative risk assessment of tasks involved with nanomaterials using nanotool and Guidance Methods. J. Chem. Health Risks 12(3):371–378. https://doi.org/10.22034/jchr.2021.1909971.118510.22034/jchr.2021.1909971.1185 ↗
39. Jensen KA, Saber AT, Kristensen HV, Koponen IK, Liguori B, Wallin H (2013) NanoSafer vs. 1.1-nanomaterial risk assessment using first order modeling. In: 6th International Symposium on Nanotechnology, Occupational and Environmental Health, vol 120
40. Eastlake A, Zumwalde R, Geraci C (2016) Can control banding be useful for the safe handling of nanomaterials? A systematic review. J Nanopart Res 18:16910.1007/s11051-016-3476-0 ↗
41. Iavicoli I, Leso V, Ricciardi W, Hodson LL, Hoover MD (2014) Opportunities and challenges of nanotechnology in the green economy. Environ Health 13:7810.1186/1476-069X-13-78 ↗
42. Popova LV, Popkova EG, Dubova YI, Natsubidze AS, Litvinova TN (2016) Financial mechanisms of nanotechnology development in developing countries. J Appl Econ Sci 11:584–590
43. Duuren-Stuurman B et al (2011) Stoffenmanager nano: description of the conceptual control banding model, The Netheralands TNO2011 Report
44. 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
45. Almeida L, Felzenszwalb I, Marques M, Cruz C (2020) Nanotechnology activities: environmental protection regulatory issues data. Heliyon 6(10):e0530310.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05303 ↗
46. Roco MC (2011) The long view of nanotechnology development: the National Nanotechnology Initiative at 10 years. Springer
47. Yarahmadi R, Dizaji RA, Farshad AA, Teimuri F, Soleimani M (2013) Occupational risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials by control banding method in chemistry laboratories. Am. J. Sci 9(6s)
48. Golbabai F, Haydarnzhad N, Sharfi K, Shaahamdi F, Hanifi SM, Harati B (2015) Occupational exposure risk assessment of engineered nanomaterial’s by CB Nano tool in a Nano, research laboratory. Tech J Eng Appl Sci 5(3):133–138
49. Balas F, Arruebo M, Urrutia J, Santamaria J (2010) Reported nanosafety practices in research laboratories worldwide. Nat Nanotechnol 5:9310.1038/nnano.2010.1 ↗
50. Gibbs L, Lamba F, Stoxkmeier B, Kojola W (2012) General safe practices for working with engineered nanomaterials in research laboratories National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
51. Simkó M, Mattsson M-O, Yokel RA (2017) Chapter 12 - Neurological System. In: Fadeel B, Pietroiusti A, Shvedova AA (eds) Adverse effects of engineered nanomaterials, Second edn. Academic Press, pp 275–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809199-9.00012-410.1016/B978-0-12-809199-9.00012-4 ↗
52. Monteiro-Riviere NA, Filon FL (2017) Chapter 15 - skin. In: Fadeel B, Pietroiusti A, Shvedova AA (eds) Adverse effects of engineered nanomaterials, (Second Edition) edn. Academic Press, pp 357–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809199-9.00015-X10.1016/B978-0-12-809199-9.00015-X ↗
53. Jepson MA, Bouwmeester H (2017) Chapter 16 - gastrointestinal system. In: Fadeel B, Pietroiusti A, Shvedova AA (eds) Adverse effects of engineered nanomaterials, (second edition) edn. Academic Press, pp 381–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809199-9.00016-110.1016/B978-0-12-809199-9.00016-1 ↗
54. Alenius H, Shurin MR, Shurin GV, Beezhold D, Shvedova AA (2017) Chapter 10 - respiratory system, part two: allergy and asthma. In: Fadeel B, Pietroiusti A, Shvedova AA (eds) Adverse effects of engineered nanomaterials, second edn. Academic Press, pp 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809199-9.00010-010.1016/B978-0-12-809199-9.00010-0 ↗
55. Omari Shekaftik SH, Shirazi F, Yarahmadi R, Rasouli M, Ashtarinezhad A (2022) Investigating the relationship between occupational exposure to nanomaterials and symptoms of nanotechnology companies' employees. Arch Environ Occup Health 77(3):209–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/19338244.2020.186331510.1080/19338244.2020.1863315 ↗
56. Omari Shekaftik S, Ashtarinezhad A, Yarahmadi R, Rasouli M, Soleimani M, Hosseini Shirazi F (2020c) Relationship between chemical composition and physical state of used nanomaterials in nanotechnology companies with type and prevalance of symptoms of employees of these companies in Tehran. Health, Iran Iran Occupational
57. Díaz-Soler BM, López-Alonso M, Martínez-Aires MD (2017) Nanosafety practices: results from a national survey at research facilities. J Nanopart Res 19(5):16910.1007/s11051-017-3867-x ↗
58. Landsiedel R, Sauer UG, de Jong WH (2017) Chapter 8 - risk assessment and risk management. In: Fadeel B, Pietroiusti A, Shvedova AA (eds) Adverse effects of engineered nanomaterials, (second edition) edn. Academic Press, pp 189–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809199-9.00008-210.1016/B978-0-12-809199-9.00008-2 ↗
59. Shepard MN (2014) Exposure assessment and risk management of engineered nanoparticles: investigation in semiconductor wafer processing. University at Albany, State University of New York
60. Asbach C (2015) Chapter 3.3 - exposure measurement at workplaces. In: Dolez PI (ed) Nanoengineering. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 523–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-62747-6.00016-610.1016/B978-0-444-62747-6.00016-6 ↗
61. Brouwer D, van Duuren-Stuurman B, Berges M, Jankowska E, Bard D, Mark D (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(8):186710.1007/s11051-009-9772-1 ↗
62. Zalk D (2010) Control Banding: a simplified, qualitative strategy for the assessment of occupational risks and selection of solutions. TU Delft publisher, Delft (Netherlands)
63. Bouillard JX (2015) Chapter 1.5 - fire and explosion of nanopowders. In: Dolez PI (ed) Nanoengineering. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 111–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-62747-6.00005-110.1016/B978-0-444-62747-6.00005-1 ↗
64. CKMNT (2012) Guidelines and best practices for safe handling of nanomaterials in research laboratories and industries, India
65. Westerhoff P, Nowack B (2013) Searching for global descriptors of engineered nanomaterial fate and transport in the environment. Acc Chem Res 46:844–85310.1021/ar300030n ↗
66. Louie SM, Ma R, Lowry GV (2014) Transformations of nanomaterials in the environment. In: Frontiers of Nanoscience, vol 7. Elsevier, pp 55–8710.1016/B978-0-08-099408-6.00002-5 ↗
67. Omari Shekaftik S, Hosseini Shirazi F, Yarahmadi R, Rasouli M, Soleimani Dodaran M (2018) Ashtarinezhad A (2019c) Preliminary investigation of the symptoms of nanotechnology companies employees in Tehran, Iran. J. Occup. Hyg. Eng 6:61–70. https://doi.org/10.29252/johe.6.2.6110.29252/johe.6.2.61 ↗
68. FNV, VNO-NCW, CNV Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, Cornelissen R, Jongeneelen F, van Broekhuizen P, van Broekhuizen F (2011) Guidance working safely with nanomaterials and nanoproducts the guide for employers and employees-Version 1.0, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Document 1113-O