4.1 Article

Exposures during wet production and use processes of nanomaterials: a summary of 11 worksite evaluations

Journal

INDUSTRIAL HEALTH
Volume 58, Issue 5, Pages 467-478

Publisher

NATL INST OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH, JAPAN
DOI: 10.2486/indhealth.2019-0169

Keywords

Industrial hygiene; Nanotechnology; Work environments; Exposure assessment; Electron microscopy; Direct-reading instruments

Funding

  1. NIOSH Nano technology Research Center
  2. [18IPA1816710-M01]
  3. [18IPA1816710-M02]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

From 2011-2015, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Nanotechnology Field Studies Team conducted 11 evaluations at worksites that either produced engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) via a wet process or used ENMs in a wetted, suspended, or slurry form. Wet handling or processing of ENMs reduces potential exposure compared to dry handling or processing; however, air sampling data indicated exposures may still occur. Information was gathered about each company, production processes, ENMs of interest, and control measures. Exposure assessments included air sampling using filter media, surface wipe sampling, and real-time particle counting by direct-reading instruments. Electron microscopy analysis of air filters confirmed the presence of ENMs of interest (10 of 11 sites). When a method was available, chemical analysis of filters was also used to detect the presence of ENMs (nine of 11 sites). Wipe samples were collected at four of the 11 sites, and, in each case, confirmed the presence of ENMs on surfaces. Direct-reading data showed potential nanomaterial emissions (nine of 11 sites). Engineering controls included fume hoods, clean rooms, and enclosed processes. Personal protective equipment was required during all 11 evaluations. Recommendations to address potential exposures were provided to each company following the hierarchy of controls.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available