Occupational Exposure to Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers

More documents

Recommendations

Info

outcomes. A review of information published since1995. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services, Centers for Disease Control,National Institute for Occupational Safety andHealth, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2011–172.NIOSH [2012]. General safe practices for workingwith engineered nanomaterials in research laboratories.Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services, Centers for Disease Control,National Institute for Occupational Safety andHealth, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2012–147.Noll JD, Birch ME [2008]. Effects of sampling artifactson occupational samples of diesel particulatematter. Environ Sci Technol 42(14):5223–5228.NRC [2009]. Science and decisions: advancing riskassessment. Committee on Improving Risk AnalysisApproaches Used by the U.S. EPA, Board on EnvironmentalStudies and Toxicology, Division onEarth and Life Studies, National Research Councilof the National Academies. Washington, DC: TheNational Academies Press.Nurkiewicz TR, Porter DW, Barger M, MillecchiaL, Rao KM, Marvar PJ, Hubbs AF, Castranova V[2006]. Systemic microvascular dysfunction andinflammation after pulmonary particulate matterexposure. Environ Health Perspect 3(114):412–419.Nurkiewicz TR, Porter DW, Hubbs AF, Stone S,Chen BT, Frazer DG, Boegehold MA, CastranovaV [2009]. Pulmonary nanoparticle exposuredisrupts systemic microvascular nitric oxide signaling.Toxicol Sci 1(110):191–203.Oberdörster G, Ferin J, Morrow PE [1992]. Volumetricloading of alveolar macrophages (AM): Apossible basis for diminished AM-mediated particleclearance. Exp Lung Res 18:87–104.Oberdörster G, Oberdörster E, Oberdörster J [2005b].Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolvingfrom studies of ultrafine particles. Environ HealthPerspect 113(7):823–839.Oyabu T, Myojo T, Morimoto Y, Ogami A, HirohashiM, Yamamoto M, Todoroki M, Mizuguchi Y,Hashiba M, Lee BW, Shimada M, Wang WN, UchidaK, Endoh S, Kobayashi N, Yamamoto K, FujitaK, Mizuno K, Inada M, Nakazato T, Nakanishi J,Tanaka I [2011]. Biopersistence of inhaled MW-CNT in rat lungs in a 4-week well-characterizedexposure. Inhal Toxicol 23(13):784–791.Old L, Methner M [2008]. Effectiveness of localexhaust ventilation (LEV) in controlling engineerednanomaterial emissions during reactor cleanoutoperations. J Occup Environ Hyg 5(6):D63–D69.Olson DA, Norris GA [2005]. Sampling artifacts inmeasurement of elemental organic carbon: Lowvolumesampling in indoor and outdoor environments.Atmos Environ 39(30):5437–5445.OSHA, NIOSH [2011]. OSHA NIOSH infosheet:maximize your spirometry screening and surveillanceresources. OSHA Publication No. 3415-1-11. Washington, DC: Occupational Safety andHealth Administration (OSHA) and Cincinnati,OH: National Institute for Occupational Safety andHealth (NIOSH) [http://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3415.html].Osmond-McLeod MJ, Poland CA, Murphy F, WaddingtonL, Morris H, Hawkins SC, Clark S, AitkenR, McCall MJ, Donaldson K [2011]. Durability andinflammogenic impact of carbon nanotubes comparedwith asbestos fibres. Part Fibre Toxicol 8:15.Pacurari M, Yin XJ, Zhao J, Ding M, LeonardSS, Schwegler-Berry D, Ducatman BS, Sbarra D,Hoover MD, Castranova V, Vallyathan V [2008].Raw Single-wall carbon nanotubes induce oxidativestress and activate MAPKs, AP-1, NF-kappaB, andAkt in normal and malignant human mesothelialcells. Environ Health Perspect 116(9):1211–1217.Pauluhn J [2010a]. Subchronic 13-week inhalationexposure of rats to multiwalled carbon nanotubes:Toxic effects are determined by density of agglomeratestructures, not fibrillar structures. Toxicol Sci113(1):226–242.Pauluhn J [2010b]. Multi-walled carbon nanotubes(Baytubes): approach for derivation of occupationalexposure limit. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2009.12.012].84 NIOSH CIB 65 • Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers
Piegorsch WW, Bailer AF [2005]. Quantitative riskassessment with stimulus-response data. Chapter4. In: Analyzing Environmental Data. Chichester,West Sussex, England: John Wiley and Sons.Poland CA, Duffin R, Kinloch I, Maynard A, WallaceWA, Seaton A, Stone V, Brown S. Macnee W,Donaldson K [2008]. Carbon nanotubes introducedinto the abdominal cavity of mice showasbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study. NatNanotechnol 3(7):423−428.Porter DW, Sriram K, Wolfarth M, Jefferson A,Schwegler-Berry D, Andrew M, Castranova V [2008].A biocompatible medium for nanoparticle dispersion.Nanotoxicol 2(3):144–154.Porter DW, Wolfarth MG, Chen BT, McKinneyW, Hubbs AF, Battelli L, Andrews M, Frazer D,Castranova V [2009]. Pulmonary toxicity of inhaledmulti-walled carbon nanotubes. The Toxicologist108:A2193.Porter DW, Hubbs AF, Mercer RR, Wu N, WolfarthMG, Sriram K, Leonard SS, Battelli L, Schwegler-Berry D, Friend S, Andrew M, Chen BT, TsuruokaS, Endo M, Castranova V [2010]. Mouse pulmonarydose- and time course-responses induced byexposure to multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Toxicology269(2–3):136–147.Pulskamp K, Diabaté S, Krug HF [2007]. Carbonnanotubes show no sign of acute toxicity but induceintracellular reactive oxygen species in dependenceon contaminants. Toxicol Lett 168(1):58–74.Raabe OG, Al-Bayati MA, Teague SV, Rasolt A[1988]. Regional deposition of inhaled monodispersecoarse and fine aerosol particles in small laboratoryanimals. Ann Occup Hyg 32:53–63.Ramachandran G, Ostraat M, Evans DE, MethnerMM, O’Shaughnessy P, D’Archy J, Geraci CL,Stevenson E, Maynard A, Rickabaugh K [2011].A strategy for assessing workplace exposures tonanomaterials. JOEH 8(11):673–685.Rappaport SM, Lyles RH, Kupper LL [1995]. An exposure-assessmentstrategy accounting for within—and between—worker sources of variability. AnnOccup Hyg 39(4):469–495.Rengasamy S, Verbofsky R, King WP, Shaffer RE[2007]. Nanoparticle penetration through NIOSHapprovedN95 filtering-facepiece respirators. J IntSoc Respir Protect 24:49–59.Rengasamy S, King WP, Eimer B, Shaffer RE [2008].Filtration performance of NIOSH-approved N95and P100 filtering-facepiece respirators against4-30 nanometer size nanoparticles. J Occup EnvironHyg 5(9):556–564.Rengasamy S, Eimer BC, Shaffer RE [2009]. Comparisonof nanoparticle filtration performanceof NIOSH-approved and CE-marked particulatefiltering facepiece respirators. Ann Occup Hyg53(2):117–128.Rengasamy S, Eimer BC [2011]. Total inward leakageof nanoparticles through filtering facepiece respirators.Ann Occup Hyg 55(3):253–263.Rom WN, Markowitz S [2006]. Environmental andOccupational Medicine. 4th ed. Lippincott Williams& Wilkins.Rouse JG, Yang J, Ryman-Rasmussen JP, Barron AR,Monteiro-Riviere NA [2007]. Effects of mechanicalflexion on the penetration of fullerene aminoacid-derivatized peptide nanoparticles throughskin. Nano Lett 7(1):155–160.Ryman-Rasmussen JP, Riviere JE, Monteiro-RiviereNA [2006]. Penetration of intact skin by quantumdots with diverse physicochemical properties. ToxicolSci 91(1):159–165.Ryman-Rasmussen JP, Tewksbury EW, Moss OR,Cesta ME, Wong BA, Bonner JC [2009a]. Inhaledmultiwalled carbon nanotubes potentiate airway fibrosisin murine allergic asthma, Am J Respir CellMol Biol 40(3):349–358 [Epub ahead of print].Ryman-Rasmussen JP, Cesta MF, Brody AR,Shipley-Phillips JK, Everitt JI, Tewksbury EW,Moss OR, Wong BA, Dodd DE, Andersen ME,Bonner JC [2009b]. Inhaled carbon nanotubesNIOSH CIB 65 • Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers85
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:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Table 3-7 (Continued). Findings fro
Page 57:
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 and 104: eport issued on July 22, 2011. NEDO
Page 105 and 106: Kobayashi N, Naya M, Mizuno K, Yama
Page 107 and 108: Methner M, Hodson L, Geraci C [2010
Page 109: Human Services, Centers for Disease
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?