Occupational Exposure to Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 5–4 (Continued). Factors, assumptions, and options evaluated in the CNT risk assessment.Factor Assumption Options evaluatedHuman equivalent dose• Interspeciesnormalization• Duration of exposure• Clearance kinetics• Ventilation rate• Alveolar depositionfractionHumans would have an equal lungresponse (on average) to an estimatedequivalent alveolar doseWorking lifetime average cumulativeexposure would be associated with thehuman-equivalent lung responseTrue average working lifetime exposurelies between deposited and retained CNTdose estimates based on spherical particledosimetry modelWorkers on average breath the sameamount of air in a day; normal oronasalaugmenter breathing patternAirborne particle size distribution predictsdeposition fractionAlveolar surface areaAlveolar macrophage cell volume45-years (8-hr TWA, 40-hr workweek,50 wk/yr)Deposited dose (no clearance)Retained dose (normal clearance)Reference worker (9.6 m 3 /d)Spherical particle-based model(MPPD), incl. two versions• Density of 1• Density of
and analytical methods. NIOSH is recommendingthat NIOSH Method 5040 [NIOSH 1994; Birch2004a, b] be used to measure workplace airborneexposure to respirable CNT and CNF.An upper estimate of the LOQ of Method 5040(7 µg/m 3 ) was proposed as the draft REL (8-hr TWA)for CNT and CNF [NIOSH 2010]. This upper limitwas based on total carbon (TC) results found forfilter media from different vendors and lots, by differentlaboratories, and during a 6-month period.In practice, when elemental carbon (EC) results areused from media blanks submitted with the samplesto estimate the LOQ, a much lower value can beachieved (Section 6.1). It is important to note thatthe LOQ for NIOSH Method 5040 depends on themedia blank variability, filter area sampled, portionof filter analyzed, and the collected sample air volume.As discussed in Section 6.1, under optimumconditions an LOQ of 1 µg/m 3 can be obtained foran 8-hr respirable sample collected on a 25-mmfilter at a flow rate of 4 liters per minute (lpm).Considering the potential uncertainties in estimatingthe health risks and current limitations of analyticalmethodologies, NIOSH is recommending aREL of 1 µg/m 3 EC as an 8-hr TWA airborne respirablemass concentration for up to a 40-hr work week.For working lifetime exposures at 1 µg/m 3 , the MLErisk estimates for slight/mild level of lung effects(based on the rat subchronic inhalation studies ofMWCNT) range from 0.23% to 10%, and the 95%UCL estimates range from 0.53% to 16% dependingon the rat study and the assumptions used in estimatingthe CNT lung dose (Tables 5–2 and A–8).The more sensitive endpoint of minimal level oflung effects in the rat subchronic inhalation studieswere associated with MLE risk estimates of 2.4% to33% and 95% UCL estimates of 5.3% to 54% (Tables5–2 and A–7). Estimates of a 45-yr working lifetimeno-effect concentration (8-hr TWA) based onthe NOAEL or LOAEL estimates from the rat subchronicstudies are < 1 µg/m 3 (8-hr TWA) (SectionA.6.3). The estimates based on the short-termstudies of SWCNT and MWCNT in rats and miceare consistent with those from the subchronic studiesof MWCNT in rats (Section A.3).NIOSH recognizes that the REL may not be completelyhealth protective and that there is uncertaintyin these risk estimates, but maintaining exposuresbelow the REL should help to lower workers’ riskof developing occupational lung disease over aworking lifetime. The REL and other recommendationsin this CIB should also assist employers inestablishing an occupational health surveillanceprogram that includes elements of hazard andmedical surveillance. Until improved methods tomeasure airborne exposures to CNT and CNF areestablished, continued efforts should be made toreduce airborne concentrations to as low as possiblebelow the REL. Approaches to optimize thesampling and analysis of exposures are discussed inSection 6.1 and Appendix C. Examples of engineeringcontrols to reduce or eliminate workers’ exposuresto CNT and CNF are provided in Section 6.2.Additional guidance, including personal protectiveequipment, respirators, training, and medical surveillanceis provided in Sections 6.3 through 6.7.Based on available workplace exposure data, it isnot possible for NIOSH to determine whether theNIOSH REL can be achieved in all workplaceswhere exposure to CNT and CNF occur; however,exposure data that have been reported indicatethat implementing appropriate engineering controlmeasures (e.g., local exhaust ventilation, enclosures)can eliminate or greatly reduce worker exposures[Han et al. 2008a; Methner et al. 2008; Tsaiet al. 2009; Johnson et al. 2010; Lee et al. 2010; Cenaand Peters 2011; Dahm et al. 2011].5.2 Other DerivedOccupational ExposureLimits for CNTOne of the earliest OELs for CNT was proposedby the British Standards Institute [BSI 2007]—thebenchmark exposure limit (BEL) of 0.01 fiber/cm 3 ,or one-tenth of their asbestos exposure limit (Table5–5). Nanocyl [2009] derived an estimated OELof 2.5 µg/m 3 for an 8-hr TWA exposure based onapplying an overall assessment (a.k.a. uncertainty)factor of 40 to the LOAEL of 0.1 mg/m 3 in theNIOSH CIB 65 • Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers43
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 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: Table 5-4. Factors, assumptions, an
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?