A Quantitative Validation of the Control Banding Nanotool

Abstract

Eleven years (by publication) years after the development and application of the control banding (CB) Nanotool for the qualitative assessment and control of engineered nanoparticles (ENP), there remains no quantitative gold standard to serve as an alternative to the qualitative assessment. Many CB models have been developed during the years subsequent to the initial development of the CB Nanotool and the literature continues to blossom with comparisons and applications of these various tools; however, these developments have hitherto been made in the absence of validating and verifying their effectiveness using existing, albeit limited, quantitative methods. This paper reviews the existing literature on the CB Nanotool to evaluate its effectiveness in a variety of settings and presents a summary of qualitative and quantitative information from its application in a broad range of ENP handling activities performed in two different research institutions. A total of 28 ENP activities were assessed using the CB Nanotool (Version 2.0). Due to the lack of guidance on a single exposure assessment methodology, a combination of real-time monitoring, filter analysis, and microscopic analysis was used to assess various quantitative metrics, including mass concentration, particle number concentration, and particle speciation. All the results indicated that the control outcomes from the CB Nanotool qualitative assessment were sufficient to prevent workers from being exposed to ENP at levels beyond established exposure limits or background levels. These data represent an independent quantitative validation of CB Nanotool risk level outcomes and give further credence to the use of the CB Nanotool to effectively control worker exposures in the absence of quantitative air monitoring results.

Occupational Exposure to Ultrafine Particles in Metal Additive Manufacturing: A Qualitative and Quantitative Risk Assessment

“…The pilot CB Nanotool was created in 2008 by Paik et al [ 22 ] and adapted one year later by Zalk et al [ 23 ]. In 2019, the authors validated this CB model [ 24 ]. This method was designed to assess the risk of exposure to engineered nanomaterials.…”

Integrative approach in a safe by design context combining risk, life cycle and socio-economic assessment for safer and sustainable nanomaterials

“…Each requiring different input parameters and levels of information and resulting in different outputs (e.g. Stoffenmanager Nano (Van Duuren-Stuurman et al, 2012) and CB Nanotool (Zalk et al, 2019;Zalk et al, 2009)). Among non-nano-specific tools ConsExpo (at www.consexpoweb.nl) and Stoffenmanager (Marquart et al, 2008) as higher Tier Models for consumers and worker risk assessment, are available.…”

NanoSafe III: A User Friendly Safety Management System for Nanomaterials in Laboratories and Small Facilities

“…Addresses four central themes for the risk assessment and management of NMs: materials, exposure, hazard, and risk. CB nanotool [21][22][23] RM Severity probability matrix. Material properties and probability of exposure based on process.…”

“…Four of the tools propose additional mitigation measures after the initial risk assessment and are, therefore, considered risk management tools (Table 1, entries 5-8). The control banding nanotool (CB nanotool) uses a severity-probability matrix, whereby a series of criteria are evaluated to give a score [21][22][23]. The French Agency for Food, Environmental, and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES) developed a control banding tool for managing nanomaterial risk in individual work places [24].…”