Search

Workers, particularly outdoor workers, are among the populations most disproportionately affected by climate-related hazards. However, scientific research and control actions to comprehensively address these hazards are notably absent. To assess this absence, a seven-category framework was developed in 2009 to characterize the scientific literature published from 1988-2008. Using this framework, a second assessment examined the literature published through 2014, and the current one examines literature from 2014-2021. The objectives were to present literature that updates the framework and related topics and increases awareness of the role of climate change in occupational safety and health. In general, there is substantial literature on worker hazards related to ambient temperatures, biological hazards, and extreme weather but less on air pollution, ultraviolet radiation, industrial transitions, and the built environment. There is growing literature on mental health and health equity issues related to climate change, but much more research is needed. The socioeconomic impacts of climate change also require more research. This study illustrates that workers are experiencing increased morbidity and mortality related to climate change. In all areas of climate-related worker risk, including geoengineering, research is needed on the causality and prevalence of hazards, along with surveillance to identify, and interventions for hazard prevention and control.

In collaboration with RTI International, the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) administered a survey to North American companies working with nanomaterials to assess health and safety practices. The results would contribute to understanding the impact of the efforts made by the NIOSH Nanotechnology Research Center (NTRC) in communicating occupational health and safety (OHS) considerations for workers when handling these materials. The survey, developed by RAND Corporation, was conducted online from September 2019-December 2019. Forty-five companies or organizations in the U.S. and Canada that fabricate, manufacture, handle, dispose, or otherwise use nanomaterials completed the survey. The survey was designed to answer research questions regarding the nanomaterials in use, which resources the companies have consulted for OHS guidance, and the overall OHS culture at the companies. Other questions specifically addressed whether the companies interacted with NIOSH or NIOSH resources to inform OHS policies and practices. Among participating companies, 57.8% had a maximum of 50 employees. Gold nanoparticles and polymers were most common (n = 20; 45.5% each), followed by graphene (36.4%), carbon nanotubes and nanofibers (34.1%), and zinc oxide nanoparticles (31.8%). Environmental monitoring was performed by 31.8% of the companies. While 88.9% of the companies had laminar flow cabinets, only 67.5% required it to be used with ENMs. Information and training programs were indicated by 90% of the sample, and only 29.6% performed specific health surveillance for ENM workers. Personal protective equipment primarily included gloves (100%) and eye/face protection (97.7%). More than a third (37.8%) of the respondents reported using at least one NIOSH resource to acquire information about safe handling of ENMs. The small number of companies that responded to and completed the survey is a considerable limitation to this study. However, the survey data are valuable for gauging the reach and influence of the NIOSH NTRC on nano OHS and for informing future outreach, particularly to small businesses.

Like nanotechnology, translational science is a relatively new and transdisciplinary field. Translational science in occupational safety and health (OSH) focuses on the process of taking scientific knowledge for the protection of workers from the lab to the field (i.e., the worksite/workplace) and back again. Translational science has been conceptualized as having multiple phases of research along a continuum, beyond scientific discovery (T 0 ), to efficacy (T 1 ), to effectiveness (T 2 ), to dissemination and implementation (D&I) (T 3 ), to outcomes and effectiveness research in populations (T 4 ). The translational research process applied to occupational exposure to nanomaterials might involve similar phases. This builds on basic and efficacy research (T 0 and T 1 ) in the areas of toxicology, epidemiology, industrial hygiene, medicine and engineering. In T 2 , research and evidence syntheses and guidance and recommendations to protect workers may be developed and assessed for effectiveness. In T 3 , emphasis is needed on D&I research to explore the multilevel barriers and facilitators to nanotechnology risk control information/research adoption, use, and sustainment in workplaces. D&I research for nanomaterial exposures should focus on assessing sources of information and evidence to be disseminated /implemented in complex and dynamic workplaces, how policy-makers and employers use this information in diverse contexts to protect workers, how stakeholders inform these critical processes, and what barriers impede and facilitate multilevel decision-making for the protection of nanotechnology workers. The T 4 phase focuses on how effective efforts to prevent occupational exposure to nanomaterials along the research continuum contribute to large-scale impact in terms of worker safety, health and wellbeing (T 4 ). Stakeholder input and engagement is critical to all stages of the translational research process. This paper will provide: (1) an illustration of the translational research continuum for occupational exposure to nanomaterials; and (2) a discussion of opportunities for applying D&I science to increase the effectiveness, uptake, integration, sustainability, and impact of interventions to protect the health and wellbeing of workers in the nanotechnology field., Competing Interests: PS was employed by the company Advanced Technologies and Laboratories (ATL) International, Inc., under contract with NIOSH. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Schulte, Guerin, Cunningham, Hodson, Murashov and Rabin.)

Exposure to engineered nanomaterials (substances with at least one dimension of 1-100 nm) has been of increased interest, with the recent growth in production and use of nanomaterials worldwide. Various organizations have recommended methods to minimize exposure to engineered nanomaterials. The purpose of this study was to evaluate available data to examine the extent to which studied U.S. companies (which represent a small fraction of all companies using certain forms of engineered nanomaterials) follow the guidelines for reducing occupational exposures to engineered nanomaterials that have been issued by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and other organizations. Survey data, field reports, and field notes for all NIOSH nanomaterial exposure assessments conducted between 2006 and 2011 were collected and reviewed to: (1) determine the level of adoption of precautionary guidance on engineering controls and personal protective equipment (PPE), and (2) evaluate the reliability of companies' self-reported use of engineering controls and PPE. Use of PPE was observed among 89% [95% confidence interval (CI): 76%-96%] of 46 visited companies, and use of containment-based engineering controls for at least some processes was observed among 83% (95% CI: 76%-96%). In on-site evaluations, more than 90% of the 16 engineered carbonaceous nanomaterial companies that responded to an industrywide survey were observed to be using engineering controls and PPE as reported or more stringently than reported. Since PPE use was slightly more prevalent than engineering controls, better communication may be necessary to reinforce the importance of the hierarchy of controls. These findings may also be useful in conducting exposure assessment and epidemiologic research among U.S. workers handling nanomaterials.

There is still uncertainty about the potential health hazards of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) particularly involving carcinogenicity. However, the evidence is growing that some types of CNTs and nanofibers may have carcinogenic properties. The critical question is that while the carcinogenic potential of CNTs is being further investigated, what steps should be taken to protect workers who face exposure to CNTs, current and future, if CNTs are ultimately found to be carcinogenic? This paper addresses five areas to help focus action to protect workers: (i) review of the current evidence on the carcinogenic potential of CNTs; (ii) role of physical and chemical properties related to cancer development; (iii) CNT doses associated with genotoxicity in vitro and in vivo; (iv) workplace exposures to CNT; and (v) specific risk management actions needed to protect workers., (Copyright © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

The present paper summarizes the outcome of the discussions at the First International Scientific Workshop on Harmonization of Strategies to Measure and Analyze Exposure to (Manufactured) Nano-objects in Workplace Air that was organized and hosted by the Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO) and the Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the German Social Accident Insurance (IFA) (Zeist, The Netherlands, December 2010). It reflects the discussions by 25 international participants in the area of occupational (nano) exposure assessment from Europe, USA, Japan, and Korea on nano-specific issues related to the three identified topics: (i) measurement strategies; (ii) analyzing, evaluating, and reporting of exposure data; and (iii) core information for (exposure) data storage. Preliminary recommendations were achieved with respect to (i) a multimetric approach to exposure assessment, a minimal set of data to be collected, and basic data analysis and reporting as well as (ii) a minimum set of contextual information to be collected and reported. Other issues that have been identified and are of great interest include (i) the need for guidance on statistical approaches to analyze time-series data and on electron microscopy analysis and its reporting and (ii) the need for and possible structure of a (joint) database to store and merge data. To make progress in the process of harmonization, it was concluded that achieving agreement among researchers on the preliminary recommendations of the workshop is urgent.

In early 2006, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health created a field research team whose mission is to visit a variety of facilities engaged in the production, handling, or use of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) and to conduct initial emission and exposure assessments to identify candidate sites for further study. To conduct the assessments, the team developed the Nanoparticle Emission Assessment Technique (NEAT), which has been used at numerous facilities to sample multiple engineered nanomaterials. Data collected at four facilities, which volunteered to serve as test sites, indicate that specific tasks can release ENMs to the workplace atmosphere and that traditional controls such as ventilation can be used to limit exposure. Metrics such as particle number concentration (adjusted for background), airborne mass concentration, and qualitative transmission electron microscopy were used to determine the presence, nature, and magnitude of emissions and whether engineered nanomaterials migrated to the workers' breathing zone. [Supplementary materials are available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene for the following free supplemental resource: a PDF file containing information on facilities, a description of processes/tasks, existing controls, and sampling strategy, and a PDF file containing TEM images according to facility and task.].

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) conducted field studies at 12 sites using the Nanoparticle Emission Assessment Technique (NEAT) to characterize emissions during processes where engineered nanomaterials were produced or used. A description of the NEAT appears in Part A of this issue. Field studies were conducted in research and development laboratories, pilot plants, and manufacturing facilities handling carbon nanotubes (single-walled and multi-walled), carbon nanofibers, fullerenes, carbon nanopearls, metal oxides, electrospun nylon, and quantum dots. The results demonstrated that the NEAT was useful in evaluating emissions and that readily available engineering controls can be applied to minimize nanomaterial emissions.

There are currently no exposure limits specific to engineered nanomaterial nor any national or international consensus standards on measurement techniques for nanomaterials in the workplace. However, facilities engaged in the production and use of engineered nanomaterials have expressed an interest in learning whether the potential for worker exposure exists. To assist with answering this question, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health established a nanotechnology field research team whose primary goal was to visit facilities and evaluate the potential for release of nanomaterials and worker exposure. The team identified numerous techniques to measure airborne nanomaterials with respect to particle size, mass, surface area, number concentration, and composition. However, some of these techniques lack specificity and field portability and are difficult to use and expensive when applied to routine exposure assessment. This article describes the nanoparticle emission assessment technique (NEAT) that uses a combination of measurement techniques and instruments to assess potential inhalation exposures in facilities that handle or produce engineered nanomaterials. The NEAT utilizes portable direct-reading instrumentation supplemented by a pair of filter-based air samples (source-specific and personal breathing zone). The use of the filter-based samples are crucial for identification purposes because particle counters are generally insensitive to particle source or composition and make it difficult to differentiate between incidental and process-related nanomaterials using number concentration alone. Results from using the NEAT at 12 facilities are presented in the companion article (Part B) in this issue.