Occupational Exposure to Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers

More documents

Recommendations

Info

NRnot reportedNTRC Nanotechnology Research CenterOCorganic carbonOELoccupational exposure limitOSHA Occupational Safety and Health AdministrationPApharyngeal aspirationPBZpersonal breathing zonePMN polymorphonuclear neutrophilsPOD point of departurePPEpersonal protective equipmentRELrecommended exposure limitROSreactive oxygen speciesRPDrelative percent differenceRSDrelative standard deviationRTretention half-timeSDstandard deviationSDSSafety Data SheetsSEMscanning electron microscopySMPS scanning mobility particle sizerSWCNT single-walled carbon nanotubesTCtotal carbonTDtoxicodynamicTEM transmission electron microscopyTKtoxicokineticTPthermal precipitatorTWA time-weighted averageUFuncertainty factorµg microgram(s)µg/m 3 micrograms per cubic meterµm micrometer(s)UCLupper confidence limitU.S.United StatesVEventilation ratewkweekYyttriumyryear% percentxxiiNIOSH CIB 65 • Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers
AcknowledgementsThis Current Intelligence Bulletin (CIB) was developed by the scientists and staff of the NationalInstitute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) who participate in the NIOSHNanotechnology Research Center (NTRC). Paul Schulte is the manager, and Charles Geraciis the coordinator of the NIOSH National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) nanotechnologycross-sector program. The document manager was Ralph Zumwalde. The documentwriting team was Ralph Zumwalde, Eileen Kuempel, Eileen Birch, Douglas Trout, andVincent Castranova. The data analyses were performed by Eileen Kuempel, Randall Smith,Ralph Zumwalde, and Eileen Birch. Document internal review was conducted by ThomasLentz, Faye Rice, John Bailer, David Dankovic, Christine Sofge, Leonid Turkevich, DouglasEvans, Ronald Shaffer, Mary Schubauer-Berigan, Aleksandr Stefaniak, Charles Geraci, andPaul Schulte.Special thanks goes to NIOSH researchers who provided rodent dose-response data usedin the risk assessment and contributed to the interpretation of the pulmonary response andaerosol data: Ann Hubbs, Robert Mercer, Elena Kisin, Anna Shvedova, Dale Porter, BeanChen, and Pramod Kulkarni.Special acknowledgement also goes to the NTRC scientists whose research cited in this CIBhas significantly contributed to the scientific data used to support recommendations forminimizing worker exposure to carbon nanotubes and nanofibers.The NIOSH NTRC acknowledges the contributions of Vanessa Williams and Rachel Thiemanfor graphic design and document production and John Lechliter for editing the CIB.Acknowledgment is also due to Julie Muller, Ph.D., Dominique Lison, Ph.D., Lan Ma-Hock,Ph.D., Robert Landseidel, Ph.D., and Jürgen Pauluhn, Ph.D. for providing additional dataand information from their published studies that were used in the risk assessment.Peer ReviewersThe NIOSH NTRC greatly appreciates the time and effort of the expert peer reviewers whoprovided comments and suggestions on the December 2010 public and stakeholder draftof the CIB.Robert Aitken, Ph.DDirector of Strategic Consulting, Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM)Nanotechnology Programme Director, IOMDirector of SAFENANOInstitute of Occupational MedicineRiccarton, EdinburghAndrew D. Maynard, Ph.DCharles and Rita Gelman Professor of Risk ScienceDirector, University of Michigan Risk Science CenterNIOSH CIB 65 • Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibersxxiii
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: ESPFeFMPSFPSSgGMGSDHCLHECHEPAhrISOI
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 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 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 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?