Occupational Exposure to Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Inoue K, Takano H, Koike E, Yanagisawa R,Sakurai M, Tasaka S, Ishizaka A, Shimada A[2008]. Effects of pulmonary exposure to carbonnanotubes on lung and systemic inflammationwith coagulatory disturbance induced by lipopolysaccharidein mice. Exp Biol Med (Maywood)233(12):1583–1590 [Epub ahead of print].Invernizzi N [2011]. Nanotechnology betweenthe lab and the shop floor: what are the effectson labor? J Nanopart Res 13(6):2249–2268.IPA [2013]. Safe handling of polyacrylate dusts.Prepared by IPA, EDANA, and ASPIA. Contact:CT Helmes, Institute for Polyacrylate Absorbents.Tel 202-296-8120.ISO [1995]. Air quality—particle size fractiondefinitions for health-related sampling. Geneva,Switzerland: International Organization forStandardization, ISO Report No. ISO 7708.ISO/TS [2008]. Nanotechnologies: terminologyand definitions for nano-object; nanoparticle,nanofibre and nanoplate. ISO/TS 27687:2008.Vienna, Austria: International Organization forStandardization.ISPE [2007]. Baseline guide volume 1, 2nd edition:Active pharmaceutical ingredients revision tobulk pharmaceutical chemicals [http://www.ispe.org/baseline-guides/active-pharmaceutical-ingredients].Johnson DR, Methner MM, Kennedy AJ, SteevensJA [2010]. Potential for occupational exposure toengineered carbon-based nanomaterials in environmentallaboratory studies. Environ Health Perspect118(1):49–54.Kagan VE, Tyurina YY, Tyurina VA, Konduru NV,Potapovich AI, Osipov AN, Kisin ER, Schwegler-Berry D, Mercer R, Castranova V, Shvedova AA[2006]. Direct and indirect effects of single walledcarbon nanotubes on RAW 264.7 macrophages:role of iron. Toxicol Lett 165(1):88–100.Kagan VE, Konduru NV, Feng W, Allen BL, ConroyJ, Volkov Y, Vlasova II, Belikova NA, YanamalaN, Kapralov A, Tyurina YY, Shi J, Kisin ER, MurrayAR, Franks J, Stoiz D, Gou P, Klein-SeetharamanJ, Fadeel B, Star A, Shvedova AA [2010]. Carbonnanotubes degraded by neutrophil myeloperoxidaseinduce less pulmonary inflammation. NatNanotechnol 5:354–358.Kennedy ER, Fischbach TJ, Song R, Eller PM, ShulmanSA [1995]. Guidelines for air sampling and analyticalmethod development and evaluation. Cincinnati,OH: U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,National Institute for Occupational Safety andHealth, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 95–117.Kim JS, Lee K, Lee YH, Cho HS, Kim KH, Choi KH,Lee SH, Song KS, Kang CS, Yu IJ [2011]. Aspect ratiohas no effect on genotoxicity of multi-wall carbonnanotubes. Arch Toxicol 85(7):775–786.Kirchstetter TW, Corrigan CE, Novakov T [2001].Laboratory and field investigation of the adsorptionof gaseous organic compounds onto quartz filters.Atmos Environ 35(9):1663–1671.Kisin ER, Murray AR, Keane MJ, Shi ZC, Schwegler-BerryD, Gorelik O, Arepalli S, Castranova V,Wallace WE, Kagan VE, Shvedova AA [2007]. Single-walledcarbon nanotubes: geno- and cytotoxiceffects in lung fibroblast V79 cells J Toxicol EnvironHealth Part A 70(24):2071–2079.Kisin ER, Murray AR, Sargent L, Lowry D, ChirilaM, Siegrist KJ, Schwegler-Berry D, Leonard S,Castranova V, Fadeel B, Kagan VE, Shvedova AA[2011]. Genotoxicity of carbon nanofibers: are theypotentially more or less dangerous than carbonnanotubes or asbestos? Toxicol Appl Pharmacol252(1):1–10.Kobayashi N, Naya M, Ema M, Endoh S, Maru J,Mizuno K, Nakanishi J [2010]. Biological responseand morphological assessment of individually dispersedmulti-wall carbon nanotubes in the lungafter intratracheal instillation in rats. Toxicology276(3):143–153.78 NIOSH CIB 65 • Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers
Kobayashi N, Naya M, Mizuno K, Yamamoto K,Ema M, Nakanishi J [2011]. Pulmonary and systemicresponses of highly pure and well-dispersedsingle-wall carbon nanotubes after intratrachealinstillation in rats. Inhal Toxicol 23(13):814–828.Kromhout H [2009]. Design of measurement strategiesfor workplace exposures. Occup Environ Med59(5):349–354.Ku B-K, Emery MS, Maynard AD, StolzenburgMR, McMurry PH [2006]. In situ structure characterizationof airborne carbon nanofibres by atandem mobility-mass analysis. Nanotechnology17:3613–3621.Kuempel ED [2000]. Comparison of human and rodentlung dosimetry models for particle clearanceand retention. Drug Chem Toxicol 23(1):203–222.Kuempel ED, O’Flaherty EJ, Stayner LT, Smith RJ,Green FHY, Vallyathan V [2001a]. A biomathematicalmodel of particle clearance and retention in thelungs of coal miners: Part I. Model development.Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 34(1):69–87.Kuempel ED, Tran CL, Smith RJ, Bailer AJ [2001b].A biomathematical model of particle clearance andretention in the lungs of coal miners. Part II. Evaluationof variability and uncertainty. Reg ToxicolPharmacol 1(34):88–101.Kuempel ED, Tran CL, Castranova V, Bailer AJ[2006]. Lung dosimetry and risk assessment ofnanoparticles: evaluating and extending currentmodels in rats and humans. Inhal Toxicol18(10):717–724.Kulinowski K, Lippy B [2011]. Training workerson risks of nanotechnology. Washington, DC:National Clearinghouse for Worker Safety andHealth Training. National Institute of EnvironmentalHealth Sciences (NIEHS) Worker Education andTraining Program (WETP) [http://tools.niehs.nih.gov/wetp/index.cfm?id=537].Kulkarni P, Sorensen CM, Baron PA, Harper M [2011].Nonspherical particle measurements: shape factor,fractals, and fibers, In: Kulkarni P, Baron PA, WillekeK, eds. Aerosol measurement: principles, techniques,and applications. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Lam CW, James JT, McCluskey R, Hunter RL[2004]. Pulmonary toxicity of single-wall carbonnanotubes in mice 7 and 90 days after intratrachealinstillation. Toxicol Sci 77(1):126–134.Lee JH, Lee SB, Bae GN, Jeon KS, Yoon JU, Ji JH,Sung JH, Lee BG, Lee JH, Yang JS, Kim HY, KangCS, Yu IJ [2010]. Exposure assessment of carbonnanotube manufacturing workplaces. InhalationToxicology 22(5):369–381.Legramante JM, Valentini F, Magrini A, PalleschiG, Iavicoli I, Pallante M, Moscone D, GalanteA, Bergamashi E, Bergamashi A, Pietroiusti A[2009]. Cardiac autonomic regulation after lungexposure to carbon nanotubes. Hum Exp ToxicolJune(28):369–375.Leidel NA, Busch KA [1994]. Statistical design anddata analysis requirements. Chapter 10. In: HarrisRL, Cralley LJ, Cralley LV, eds. Patty’s industrialhygiene and toxicology. 3rd ed. Vol. 3 Part A. NewYork: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 453–582.Li S, He P, Dong J, Guo Z, Dai L [2005]. DNAdirectedself-assembling of carbon nanotubes. JAm Chem Soc 127(1):14–15.Li JG, Li WX, Xu JY, Cai XQ, Liu RL, Li YJ, Zhao QF,Li QN [2007]. Comparative study of pathologicallesions induced by multiwalled carbon nanotubesin lungs of mice by intratracheal instillation and inhalation.Environ Toxicol 22(4):415–421.Li Z, Hulderman T, Salmen R, Chapman R, LeonardSS, Shvedova A, Luster MI, Simeonova PP[2007]. Cardiovascular effects of pulmonary exposureto single-wall carbon nanotubes. EnvironHealth Perspect 3(115):77–82.Liang G, Yin L, Zhang J, Liu R, Zhang T, Ye B, PuY [2010]. Effects of subchronic exposure to multiwalledcarbon nanotubes in mice. J Toxicol EnvironHealth A 73(7):463–470.Lindberg H, Falck GC, Suhonen S, Vippola M, VanhalaE, Catalan J, Savolainen K, Norppa H [2009].NIOSH CIB 65 • Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers79
Page 1 and 2:
CURRENT INTELLIGENCE BULLETIN 65Occ
Page 3 and 4:
Current Intelligence Bulletin 65Occ
Page 5 and 6:
ForewordThe Occupational Safety and
Page 7 and 8:
Executive SummaryOverviewCarbon nan
Page 9 and 10:
2009; Pauluhn 2010a; Porter et al.
Page 11 and 12:
neurogenic sig nals from sensory ir
Page 13 and 14:
possible. Until the results from an
Page 15 and 16:
••Follow exposure and hazard as
Page 17 and 18:
Periodic Evaluations••Evaluatio
Page 19 and 20:
ContentsForeword ..................
Page 21 and 22:
A.3.2 Comparison of Short-term and
Page 23 and 24:
ESPFeFMPSFPSSgGMGSDHCLHECHEPAhrISOI
Page 25 and 26:
AcknowledgementsThis Current Intell
Page 27 and 28:
1 IntroductionMany nanomaterial-bas
Page 29:
2 Potential for ExposureThe novel a
Page 32 and 33:
CNMs, with MWCNT agglomerates obser
Page 34 and 35:
composite materials with local exha
Page 36 and 37:
information on air contaminants. Sa
Page 39 and 40:
3 Evidence for Potential Adverse He
Page 41 and 42:
decreasing agglomerate size increas
Page 43 and 44:
examined up to 60 days post-exposur
Page 45 and 46:
3.3 SWCNT and MWCNTIntraperitoneal
Page 47 and 48:
The same potency sequence was obser
Page 49 and 50:
Table 3-3. Findings from published
Page 51 and 52:
Table 3-5. Findings from published
Page 53 and 54: Table 3-6. Findings from published
Page 55 and 56: Table 3-7 (Continued). Findings fro
Page 57: Table 3-8. Findings from published
Page 60 and 61: length, respectively) [Muller et al
Page 63 and 64: 5 CNT Risk Assessment and Recommend
Page 65 and 66: A-6). Risk estimates derived from o
Page 67 and 68: Table 5-4. Factors, assumptions, an
Page 69 and 70: and analytical methods. NIOSH is re
Page 71 and 72: Table 5-5. Recommended occupational
Page 73 and 74: deficits in animals or clinically s
Page 75: (3) Rat lung dose estimationIn the
Page 78 and 79: tasks where worker exposures exceed
Page 80 and 81: As part of the evaluation of worker
Page 82 and 83: Table 6-1. EC LODs and LOQs for 25-
Page 84 and 85: 6.2 Engineering ControlsOne of the
Page 86 and 87: Table 6-6 (Continued). Examples of
Page 88 and 89: Table 6-7 (Continued). Engineering
Page 90 and 91: exposure estimates for SWCNT on ind
Page 92 and 93: Table 6-8. Respiratory protection f
Page 94 and 95: ••Workers in areas or in jobs w
Page 97 and 98: 7 Research NeedsAdditional data and
Page 99 and 100: ReferencesACGIH [1984]. Particle si
Page 101 and 102: Bolton RE, Vincent HJ, Jones AD, Ad
Page 103: eport issued on July 22, 2011. NEDO
Page 107 and 108: Methner M, Hodson L, Geraci C [2010
Page 109 and 110: Human Services, Centers for Disease
Page 111 and 112: Piegorsch WW, Bailer AF [2005]. Qua
Page 113 and 114: AD, Baron PA [2003]. Exposure to ca
Page 115: Varga C, Szendi K [2010]. Carbon na
Page 119 and 120: ContentsA.1 Introduction ..........
Page 121 and 122: A.1 IntroductionThe increasing prod
Page 123 and 124: provide an informal check on the es
Page 125 and 126: these same dose groups; this effect
Page 127 and 128: Table A-1. Rodent study information
Page 129 and 130: the deposited (no clearance) and th
Page 131 and 132: The other BMDS models failed to con
Page 133 and 134: Figure A-2. Benchmark dose model (m
Page 135 and 136: Figure A-3 (continued). Benchmark d
Page 137 and 138: Table A-3. Benchmark dose estimates
Page 139 and 140: Table A-5. Benchmark dose estimates
Page 141 and 142: histopathology grade 2 or higher lu
Page 143 and 144: Table A-8. Working lifetime percent
Page 145 and 146: developing early-stage adverse lung
Page 147 and 148: Figure A-4. Dose-response relations
Page 149 and 150: cell surface area). However, the wo
Page 151 and 152: purified or unpurified (with differ
Page 153 and 154: Table A-9. Comparison of rat or hum
Page 155 and 156:
A.6.1.3 Pulmonary Ventilation RateT
Page 157 and 158:
used as the effect levels in evalua
Page 159 and 160:
the DF estimate, although a larger
Page 161 and 162:
or overloading, of particle clearan
Page 163 and 164:
Table A-13. Human-equivalent retain
Page 165 and 166:
A.7.1 Particle CharacteristicsBoth
Page 167 and 168:
and density. The following MMAD and
Page 169:
Table A-15. CNT lung dose normalize
Page 172 and 173:
B.1 Key Terms Related toMedical Sur
Page 175 and 176:
APPENDIX CNIOSH Method 5040
Page 177 and 178:
filter. In the method evaluation, d
Page 179 and 180:
Most of the studies on sampling art
Page 181 and 182:
e analyzed to determine the onset o
Page 184:
Delivering on the Nation’s promis
show all

Occupational Exposure to Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?