A tool for preliminary health and safety risk assessment of activities involved with nanomaterials: design and validation
Source abstract
Abstract
The study aimed to develop a comprehensive health and safety risk assessment tool tailored for activities involving nanomaterials, given their unique properties and the emerging risks they pose in various industrial sectors. Firstly, a tool item bank was prepared based on the results of a literature review of papers, guidelines, and standards and interviews with stakeholders (workers, employers, health and safety experts, and researchers active in this field). Then a tool was designed using these items. The logical validity of the tool was checked based on the opinions of 20 experts in different fields by using the Lawshe method. Its reliability was checked by using the method of agreement between participants and the kappa coefficient. The data was analyzed by SPSS.24 software. A total of 53 items underwent rigorous evaluation to assess their clarity and simplicity in face validity, resulting in the exclusion of three items. Subsequently, the remaining items were subjected to a comprehensive evaluation, including the Content Validity Index (CVI) and Content Validity Ratio (CVR). To assess reliability, the tool was administered to four evaluators across six companies involved in the production and utilization of nanomaterials, with the kappa coefficient being calculated. Companies used nanoparticles mostly under 100 nm. The final instrument comprised 47 questions. The findings underscore the tool’s robust validity, establishing its suitability for assessing the health and safety status within factories engaged in nanomaterial production and usage. It serves as a valuable resource to identify weaknesses within these industries and formulate essential corrective action plans.
Source: expertdata · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Occupational Health and Safety Research · Risk and Safety Analysis · Quality Function Deployment in Product Design
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (32)
Show source-provided references
1. Asha AB, Narain R (2020) Nanomaterials properties. Polym Sci. Elsevier. 343–35910.1016/B978-0-12-816806-6.00015-7 ↗
2. Baig N, Kammakakam I, Falath W (2021) Nanomaterials: a review of synthesis methods, properties, recent progress, and challenges. Mater Adv 2(6):1821–187110.1039/D0MA00807A ↗
3. Lahiani MH et al (2015) Interaction of carbon nanohorns with plants: uptake and biological effects. Carbon 81(1):607–61910.1016/j.carbon.2014.09.095 ↗
4. Westmeier D, Knauer SK, Stauber RH, Docter D (2017) Bio–Nano Interactions. In Adverse Effects of Engineered Nanomaterials (pp. 1–12). Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-809199-9.00001-X ↗
5. Roco MC (2011) The long view of nanotechnology development: the National Nanotechnology Initiative at 10 years. J Nanopart Res (13):427–44510.1007/s11051-010-0192-z ↗
6. Brouwer D (2010) Exposure to manufactured nanoparticles in different workplaces. Toxicol 269(2–3):120–12710.1016/j.tox.2009.11.017 ↗
7. Schulte PA, Trout DB (2011) Nanomaterials and worker health: medical surveillance, exposure registries, and epidemiologic research. J Occup Environ Med S3–S710.1097/JOM.0b013e31821b1b28 ↗
8. Andrade LRB, Amaral FG (2012) Methodological proposal for occupational health and safety actions in research laboratories with nanotechnologies activities. Work 41(Supplement 1):3174–318010.3233/WOR-2012-0579-3174 ↗
9. Bekker C et al (2016) The validity and applicability of using a generic exposure assessment model for occupational exposure to nano-objects and their aggregates and agglomerates. Ann Occup Hyg 60(9):1039–104810.1093/annhyg/mew048 ↗
10. Zhao F et al (2011) Cellular uptake, intracellular trafficking, and cytotoxicity of nanomaterials. Small. 7(10):1322–133710.1002/smll.201100001 ↗
11. Zhao Y, Zhang Z, Pan Z, & Liu Y (2021) Advanced bioactive nanomaterials for biomedical applications. Explor 1(30):2021008910.1002/EXP.20210089 ↗
12. Praphawatvet T, Peters JI, Williams RO III (2020) Inhaled nanoparticles–an updated review. Int J Pharm 587:11967110.1016/j.ijpharm.2020.119671 ↗
13. EFSA Scientific Committee, More S, Bampidis V, Benford D, Bragard C, Halldorsson T, Schoonjans R (2021) Guidance on risk assessment of nanomaterials to be applied in the food and feed chain: Human and animal health. Efsa J 19(8):e0676810.2903/j.efsa.2021.6768 ↗
14. Nasirzadeh N, Golbabaei F, Shekaftik SO (2023) Laboratory activities involving nanomaterials: risk assessment and investigating researchers symptoms. Nanoscale 15(6):2674–268910.1039/D2NR06118J ↗
15. Ji Z et al (2021) Nanomaterial databases: data sources for promoting design and risk assessment of nanomaterials. Nanomater 11(6):159910.3390/nano11061599 ↗
16. Avino P et al (2015) Submicron particles during macro- and micro-weldings procedures in industrial indoor environments and health implications for welding operators. Metals 5(2):1045–106010.3390/met5021045 ↗
17. Iavicoli I et al (2019) An exploratory assessment of applying risk management practices to engineered nanomaterials. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16(18):329010.3390/ijerph16183290 ↗
18. Rasmussen K et al (2019) Developing OECD test guidelines for regulatory testing of nanomaterials to ensure mutual acceptance of test data. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 104:74–8310.1016/j.yrtph.2019.02.008 ↗
19. Sousa M, Arezes P, Silva F (2019). Nanomaterials exposure as an occupational risk in metal additive manufacturing. J Phys: Conference Series 1323(1):012013. IOP Publishing10.1088/1742-6596/1323/1/012013 ↗
20. Ramos D, Almeida L (2022) Overview of Standards Related to the Occupational Risk and Safety of Nanotechnologies. Standards 2(1):83–8910.3390/standards2010007 ↗
21. Omari Shekaftik S, Nasirzadeh N (2022) Iranian national standards regarding safety, health and environmental aspects of nanotechnology: a review. J J Occup Hyg Eng 8(4):1–1310.52547/johe.8.4.1 ↗
22. Abbott LC, Maynard AD (2010) Exposure assessment approaches for engineered nanomaterials. Risk Anal Int J 30(11):1634–164410.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01446.x ↗
23. Mohammadbeigi A, Mohammadsalehi N, Aligol M (2015) Validity and reliability of the instruments and types of measurements in health applied researches. J Rafsanjan Univ Med Sci Health Serv 13(12):1153–1170
24. Dahm MM et al (2012) Occupational exposure assessment in carbon nanotube and nanofiber primary and secondary manufacturers. Ann Occup Hyg 56(5):542–556
25. Omari Shekaftik S et al (2022) Investigating the relationship between occupational exposure to nanomaterials and symptoms of nanotechnology companies’ employees. Arch Environ Occup Health 77(3):209–21810.1080/19338244.2020.1863315 ↗
26. Shekaftik SO, Shirazi FH, Yarahmadi R (2019) Preliminary investigation of the symptoms of nanotechnology companies employees in Tehran, Iran, 2018. J Occup Hyg Eng 6(2):61–7010.52547/johe.6.2.61 ↗
27. Fadeel B et al (2018) Advanced tools for the safety assessment of nanomaterials. Nat Nanotechnol 13(7):537–54310.1038/s41565-018-0185-0 ↗
28. Fitzner K (2007) Reliability and validity a quick review. Diabetes Educ 33(5):775–78010.1177/0145721707308172 ↗
29. Schutz AL, Counte MA, Meurer S (2007) Development of a patient safety culture measurement tool for ambulatory health care settings: analysis of content validity. Health Care Manag Sci 10(2):139–14910.1007/s10729-007-9014-y ↗
30. Marsteller JA et al (2017) Assessing content validity and user perspectives on the Team Check-up Tool: expert survey and user focus groups. BMJ Qual Saf 26(4):288–29510.1136/bmjqs-2015-004635 ↗
31. Motamedzade M et al (2014) Reliability assessment of Washington States Ergonomic Checklist using agreement method between the observers of two groups of ergonomic specialist and non-specialist. J Occup Hyg Eng 1(2):67–73
32. Booth ML et al (2001) The reliability and validity of the physical activity questions in the WHO health behaviour in schoolchildren (HBSC) survey: a population study. Br J Sports Med 35(4):263–26710.1136/bjsm.35.4.263 ↗