Occupational Exposure to Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure A–3. Benchmark dose model fit to rodent dose-response data from short-term studies with continuousresponse: Shvedova et al. [2005] (SWCNT, mouse, pharyngeal aspiration; response: alveolar connectivetissue thickening) (P value is 0.23) (polynomial model, degree 2, coefficients restricted to non-negative—fitto all data except top dose group due to nonhomogeneous variance); and Shvedova et al. [2008] (SWCNT,mouse, inhalation; response: alveolar connective tissue thickening) (P value is not applicable, linear). Benchmarkresponse level: 1.1 standard deviations about the control mean response.108 NIOSH CIB 65 • Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers
Figure A–3 (continued). Benchmark dose model fit to rodent dose-response data from short-term studieswith continuous response: Muller et al. [2005] (MWCNT, rat, intratracheal instillation; response: hydroxyprolineamount) (P value is 0.67); Mercer et al. [2011] (MWCNT, mouse, pharyngeal aspiration response:alveolar connective tissue thickening) (P value is 0.35). Benchmark response level: 1.1 standard deviationsabout the control mean response.NIOSH CIB 65 • Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers109
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 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: Figure A-2. Benchmark dose model (m
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?