In the last few years, the number of research studies on the toxicity of different types of nanomaterials has increased dramatically. These studies have suggested effects at the cellular level and in short-term animal tests. The effects seen depend on the base material of the nanoparticle, its size and structure, and its substituents and coatings. Additional toxicology testing is being funded or planned by the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network and other research organizations in the US and in Europe. Nanomaterials of uncertain toxicity can be handled using the same precautions currently used at universities to handle other materials of unknown toxicity: use of exhaust ventilation (such as fume hoods and vented enclosures) to prevent inhalation exposure during procedures that may release aerosols or fibers and use of gloves to prevent dermal exposure. This article presents an overview of some of the major questions in nanotoxicology and also discusses the best practices that universities such as MIT and others are currently using to prevent exposure.

No abstract

Airborne contaminants generated inside laboratory fume hoods during use leak into the breathing zone of the user. Concentration of the leakage is unknown and variable depending on laboratory design, work practices, arrangement of internal apparatus, face velocity, and sash height. Surrogate tracer gas tests have been developed using sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and a manikin to estimate leakage. This study presents results of hood leakage tests using SF6 with a manikin and then a live operator performing a phenol:chloroform (P:C) extraction. Four hoods were tested in each of three institutions during normal work hours with the lab occupied. The purpose of the study was to determine leakage concentrations for the SF6-manikin with effects of sash height, hood contents as found and after being cleaned out, face velocity, and the actual P:C and SF6 exposure concentrations of the user during work. Results indicate P:C was not detectable in the breathing zone of the 12 operators (< 0.1 ppm) at their selected operating sash heights (7 to 15 inches). Simultaneous SF6 concentrations were also minimal (average 0.06 ppm). Average leakage was 0.02 percent for SF6 and less than 2 percent based on chloroform concentrations measured in the breathing zone of the operator and inside the hood. SF6 percent leakage was greater when sash height was above the breathing zone of the manikin (average 2.09 percent) and lower leakage (average 0.02 percent) when below the breathing zone (26 inches or less). Average face velocity did not appear to be a predictor of average hood leakage. Cleaning out the hoods did not reduce leakage in most tests. The data from this study shows that when providing training on proper work practices for lab hood use, lowering the sash should be stressed as being the major factor in reducing hood leakage.

This study attempted to identify the important factors that affect the performance of a laboratory fume hood and the relationship between the factors and hood performance under various conditions by analyzing and generalizing the results from other studies that quantitatively investigated fume hood performance. A literature search identified 43 studies that were published from 1966 to 2006. For each of those studies, information on the type of test methods used, the factors investigated, and the findings were recorded and summarized. Among the 43 quantitative experimental studies, 21 comparable studies were selected, and then a meta-analysis of the comparable studies was conducted. The exposure concentration variable from the resulting 617 independent test conditions was dichotomized into acceptable or unacceptable using the control level of 0.1 ppm tracer gas. Regression analysis using Cox proportional hazards models provided hood failure ratios for potential exposure determinants. The variables that were found to be statistically significant were the presence of a mannequin/human subject, the distance between a source and breathing zone, and the height of sash opening. In summary, performance of laboratory fume hoods was affected mainly by the presence of a mannequin/human subject, distance between a source and breathing zone, and height of sash opening. Presence of a mannequin/human subject in front of the hood adversely affects hood performance. Worker exposures to air contaminants can be greatly reduced by increasing the distance between the contaminant source and breathing zone and by reducing the height of sash opening. Many other factors can also affect hood performance. Checking face velocity by itself is unlikely to be sufficient in evaluating hood performance properly. An evaluation of the performance of a laboratory fume hood should be performed with a human subject or a mannequin in front of the hood and should address the effects of the activities performed by a hood user.

No abstract