Engineered Nanomaterials

Kreider, Timothy; Halperin, William

doi:10.1097/jom.0b013e31821b146a

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This would communicate state-of-the-art information on ENMs in order to engage stakeholders and concerned communities in the project. 30 Because of the diverse factors involved (environment, economy, health, industry), which are not necessarily compatible, it is difficult to build effective, coherent communication among all stakeholders. Conflicting interests in the ENM field reflect the many expectations and fears about the emerging nature of ENMs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2124 Corporate engagement will require discussions with companies represented in the programme consortium, as well as labour, governmental public health and research organisations. 30 Multisource project funding is also, at least for large companies, an element to consider. 2 However, the cooperation of research bodies, public authorities and companies is not easy to achieve logistically, and sometimes it is deemed unacceptable with respect to the Charter of Independence.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Methodological, political and legal issues in the assessment of the effects of nanotechnology on human health

Canu

Schulte

Riediker

et al. 2017

J Epidemiol Community Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) raise questions among the scientific community and public health authorities about their potential risks to human health. Studying a prospective cohort of workers exposed to ENMs would be considered the gold standard for identifying potential health effects of nanotechnology and confirming the 'no effect' levels derived from cellular and animal models. However, because only small, cross-sectional studies have been conducted in the past 5 years, questions remain about the health risks of ENMs. This essay addresses the scientific, methodological, political and regulatory issues that make epidemiological research in nanotechnology-exposed communities particularly complex. Scientific challenges include the array of physicochemical parameters and ENM production conditions, the lack of universally accepted definitions of ENMs and nanotechnology workers, and the lack of information about modes of action, target organs and likely dose-response functions of ENMs. Standardisation of data collection and harmonisation of research protocols are needed to eliminate misclassification of exposures and health effects. Forming ENM worker cohorts from a combination of smaller cohorts and overcoming selection bias are also challenges. National or international registries for monitoring the exposures and health of ENM workers would be helpful for epidemiological studies, but the creation of such a registry and ENM worker cohorts will require political support and dedicated funding at the national and international levels. Public authorities and health agencies should consider carrying out an ENM awareness campaign to educate and engage all stakeholders and concerned communities in discussion of such a project.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methodological, political and legal issues in the assessment of the effects of nanotechnology on human health

Canu

Schulte

Riediker

et al. 2017

J Epidemiol Community Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Underlying the criteria for responsible development of nanotechnology is the need to be proactive in taking steps to limit exposure of workers, consumers, and the environment to nanomaterials before actual risks are fully understood (Kreider and Halperin 2011). These criteria are not new, but build on basic OSH principles that should be applied to nanotechnology at the early stages in its development.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Occupational safety and health criteria for responsible development of nanotechnology

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organizations around the world have called for the responsible development of nanotechnology. The goals of this approach are to emphasize the importance of considering and controlling the potential adverse impacts of nanotechnology in order to develop its capabilities and benefits. A primary area of concern is the potential adverse impact on workers, since they are the first people in society who are exposed to the potential hazards of nanotechnology. Occupational safety and health criteria for defining what constitutes responsible development of nanotechnology are needed. This article presents five criterion actions that should be practiced by decision–makers at the business and societal levels—if nanotechnology is to be developed responsibly. These include (1) anticipate, identify, and track potentially hazardous nanomaterials in the workplace; (2) assess workers’ exposures to nanomaterials; (3) assess and communicate hazards and risks to workers; (4) manage occupational safety and health risks; and (5) foster the safe development of nanotechnology and realization of its societal and commercial benefits. All these criteria are necessary for responsible development to occur. Since it is early in the commercialization of nanotechnology, there are still many unknowns and concerns about nanomaterials. Therefore, it is prudent to treat them as potentially hazardous until sufficient toxicology, and exposure data are gathered for nanomaterial-specific hazard and risk assessments. In this emergent period, it is necessary to be clear about the extent of uncertainty and the need for prudent actions.

show abstract

“…However, no examples where biomarkers have been used in such process are currently available. Studies aimed to address the effectiveness of control technology in a nanomaterial workplace should be pursued not only as a primary way to test control effectiveness in workplaces but also as a useful mean to demonstrate the failure of prevention (Kreider and Halperin, 2011). It could be possible, in laboratory studies, to evaluate control designs and utilize a biomonitoring component of laboratory animals to supplement airborne exposure measures.…”

Section: Risk Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological monitoring of workers exposed to engineered nanomaterials

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the number of nanomaterial workers increase there is need to consider whether biomonitoring of exposure should be used as a routine risk management tool. Currently, no biomonitoring of nanomaterials is mandated by authoritative or regulatory agencies. However, there is a growing knowledge base to support such biomonitoring, but further research is needed as are investigations of priorities for biomonitoring. That research should be focused on validation of biomarkers of exposure and effect. Some biomarkers of effect are generally nonspecific. These biomarkers need further interpretation before they should be used. Overall biomonitoring of nanomaterial workers may be important to supplement risk assessment and risk management efforts.

show abstract

Engineered Nanomaterials

Abstract: The conference Nanomaterials and Worker Health laid necessary groundwork for collaboration to proactively and preemptively address the occupational health effects of engineered nanomaterials.

Cited by 8 publications

References 11 publications

Methodological, political and legal issues in the assessment of the effects of nanotechnology on human health

Methodological, political and legal issues in the assessment of the effects of nanotechnology on human health

Occupational safety and health criteria for responsible development of nanotechnology

Biological monitoring of workers exposed to engineered nanomaterials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About