Occupational Exposure to Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers

More documents

Recommendations

Info

each the subpleural tissue in mice. Nat Nanotechnol4(11):747–751. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/NNANO.2009.305].Sager TM, Wolfarth M, Porter D, Castranova V, WuN, Holian A [2011]. Effect of surface modificationon the bioavailability and inflammatory potentialof multi-walled carbon nanotubes. The Toxicologist120:A1178.Sanchez VC, Pietruska JR, Miselis NR, Hurt RH,Kane AB [2009]. Biopersistence and potential adversehealth impacts of fibrous nanomaterials: whathave we learned from asbestos? Nanomed Nanobiotechnol5(1):511–529.Sargent LM, Shvedova AA, Hubbs AF, SalisburyJL, Benkovic SA, Kashon ML, Lowry DT, MurrayAR, Kisin ER, Friend S, McKinstry KT, Battelli L,Reynolds SH [2009]. Induction of aneuploidy bysingle-walled carbon nanotubes. Environ Mol Mutagen50(8):708–717.Sargent LM, Hubbs AF, Young SH, Kashon ML,Dinu CZ, Salisbury JL, Benkovic SA, Lowry DT,Murray AR, Kisin ER, Siegrist KJ, Battelli L, MastovichJ, Sturgeon JL, Bunker KL, Shvedova AA, ReynoldsSH [2011]. Single-walled carbon nanotube-inducedmitotic disruption. Mutat Res: Genetic Toxicologyand Environment, Dec 8. [Epub ahead of print].Sayes CM, Fortner J, Guo W, Lyon D, Boyd AM,Ausman KD, Tao YJ, Sitharaman B, Wilson LJ,Hughes JB, West JL, Colvin VL [2004]. The differentialcytotoxicity of water soluble fullerenes. NanoLett 4(10):1881–1887.Sayes CM, Liang F, Hudson JL, Mendez J, Guo W,Beach JM, Moore VC, Doyle CD, West JL, BillupsWE, Ausman KD, Colvin VL [2006]. Functionalizationdensity dependence of single-walled carbonnanotubes cytotoxicity in vitro. Toxicol Lett161(2):135–142.Schauer JJ, Kleeman MJ, Cass GR, Simoneit BR[1999]. Measurement of emissions from air pollutionsources. 2. C-1 through C-30 organic compoundsfrom medium duty diesel trucks. EnvironSci Technol 33(10):1578–1587.Schauer JJ, Mader BT, DeMinter JT, Heidemann G,Bae MS, Seinfeld JH, Flagan RC, Cary RA, Smith D,Huebert BF, Bertram T, Howell S, Kline JT, QuinnP, Bates T, Turpin B, Lim HJ, Yu JZ, Yang H, KeywoodMD [2003]. ACE-Asia intercomparison of athermal-optical method for the determination ofparticle-phase organic and elemental carbon. EnvironSci Technol 37(5):993–1001.Schubauer-Berigan MK, Dahm MM, YenchenMS [2011]. Engineered carbonaceous nanomaterialsmanufacturers in the United States: workforcesize, characteristics, and feasibility of epidemiologicstudies. J Occup Environ Med 53(Suppl6):S62–S67.Schulte PA, Salamanca-Buentello [2007]. Ethicaland scientific issues of nanotechnology in theworkplace. Environ Health Perspect 115(1):5–12.Schulte P, Geraci C, Zumwalde R, Hoover M, KuempelE [2008]. Occupational risk management ofengineered nanoparticles. J Occup Environ Hyg5:239–249.Schulte PA, Murashov V, Zumwalde R, KuempelED, Geraci CL [2010]. Occupational exposurelimits for nanomaterials: state of the art. J NanopartRes 12:1971–1987.Schulte PA, Kuempel ED, Zumwalde RD, GeraciCL, Schubauer-Berigan MK, Castranova V, HodsonL, Murashov V, Dahm MM, Ellenbecker M[2012]. Focused actions to protect carbon nanotubeworkers. Am J Ind Med 55(5):395–411. [Epub2012 Mar 5].Shaffer RE, Rengasamy S [2009]. Respiratory protectionagainst airborne nanoparticles: a review.J Nanopart Res 11(7):1661–1672 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11051-009-9649-3].Sheesley RJ, Schauer JJ, Smith TJ, Garshick E,Laden F, Marr LC, Molina LT [2008]. Assessmentof diesel particulate matter exposure in the workplace:freight terminals. J Environ Monit [http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/b715429a].Shvedova AA, Castranova V, Kisin ER, Schwegler-Berry D, Murray AR, Gandelsman VZ, Maynard86 NIOSH CIB 65 • Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers
AD, Baron PA [2003]. Exposure to carbon nanotubematerial: assessment of the biological effectsof nanotube materials using human keratinocytecells. J Toxicol Environ Health A 66(20):1901–1918.Shvedova AA, Kisin ER, Mercer R, Murray AR,Johnson VJ, Potapovich AI, Tyurina YY, GorelikO, Arepalli S, Schwegler-Berry D, Hubbs AF, AntoniniJ, Evans DE, Ku B-K, Ramsey D, Maynard A,Kagan VE, Castranova V, Baron P [2005]. Unusualinflammatory and fibrogenic pulmonary responsesto single-walled carbon nanotubes in mice. Am JPhysiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 289(5):L698–L708.Shvedova AA, Sager T, Murray A, Kisin E, PorterDW, Leonard SS, Schwegler-Berry D, Robinson V,Castranova V [2007]. Critical issues in the evaluationof possible effects resulting from airbornenanoparticles. In: Monteiro-Riviere N, Tran L, eds.Nanotechnology: characterization, dosing, andhealth effects. Chapter 14. Philadelphia: InformaHealthcare, pp. 221–232.Shvedova AA, Kisin E, Murray AR, Johnson VJ,Gorelik O, Arepalli S, Hubbs AF, Mercer RR, KeohavongP, Sussman N, Jin J, Stone S, Chen B, DeyeG, Maynard A, Castranova V, Baron PA, Kagan V[2008]. Inhalation versus aspiration of single walledcarbon nanotubes in C57BL/6 mice: inflammation,fibrosis, oxidative stress and mutagenesis. Am JPhysiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 295(4):L552−L565.Snipes MB [1989]. Long-term retention and clearanceof particles inhaled by mammalian species.Crit Rev Toxicol 20(3):175–211.Sriram K, Porter D, Tsuruoka S, Endo M, JeffersonA, Wolfarth W, Rogers GM, Castranova V, LusterMI [2007]. Neuroinflammatory responses followingexposure to engineered nanomaterials. TheToxicologist 96(1):A1390.Sriram K, Porter DW, Jefferson AM, Lin GX,Wolfarth MG, Chen BT, McKinney W, Frazer DG,Castranova V [2009]. Neuroinflammation andblood-brain barrier changes following exposureto engineered nanomaterials. The Toxicologist108(1):A2197.Stapleton PA, Minarchick V, Cumpston A, McKinneyW, Chen BT, Frazer D, Castranova V, NurkiewiczTR [2011]. Time-course of improved coronaryarteriolar endothelium-dependent dilationafter multi-walled carbon nanotube inhalation. TheToxicologist (120):A194.Stockstill BL, Chang LY, Ménache MG, MellickPW, Mercer RR, Crapo JD [1995]. Bronchiolarizedmetaplasia and interstitial fibrosis in rat lungschronically exposed to high ambient levels ofozone. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 134(2):251–263.Stone KC, Mercer RR, Freeman BA, Chang LY,Crapo JD [1992]. Distribution of lung cell numbersand volumes between alveolar and nonalveolar tissue.Am Rev Respir Dis 146(2):454–456.Stueckle TA, Mirshra A, Derk R, Rojanasakul Y,Castranova V, Wang L [2011]. In vitro assessmentof potential tumorigenicity of chronic SWCNT andMWCNT exposure to lung epithelium. The Toxicologist120:A1182.Sturm R, Hofmann W [2009]. A theoretical approachto the deposition and clearance of fiberswith variable size in the human respiratory tract. JHazard Mater 170(1):210–218.Subramanian R, Khlystov AY, Cabada JC, RobinsonAL [2004]. Positive and negative artifacts inparticulate organic carbon measurements with denudedand undenuded sampling configurations.Aerosol Sci Technol 38:27–48.Tabet L, Bussy C, Setyan A, Simon-Deckers A,Rossi MJ, Boczkowski J, Lanone S [2011]. Coatingcarbon nanotubes with a polystyrene-based polymerprotects against pulmonary toxicity. Part FibreToxicol 8:3.Takagi A, Hirose A, Nishimura T, Fukumori N,Ogata A, Ohashi N, Kitajima S, Kanno J [2008].Induction of mesothelioma in p53+/− mouse byintraperitoneal application of multi-wall carbonnanotube. J Toxicol Sci 33(1):105–116.Thostenson ET, Ren ZF, Chou TW [2001]. Advancein the science and technology of carbon nanotubesNIOSH CIB 65 • Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers87
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 and 110: Human Services, Centers for Disease
Page 111: Piegorsch WW, Bailer AF [2005]. Qua
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?