Quantitative material releases from products and articles containing manufactured nanomaterials: Towards a release library

Exposure Models for REACH and Occupational Safety and Health Regulations

“…Emission/source strength databases are still at an early stage and extensive work is needed to establish standards to produce harmonized release rate data and subsequently to generate sufficiently robust datasets for the required REACH process codes (PROCS) for general exposure assessment. The state-of-the-art and requirement for such future endeavours was discussed in Koivisto et al [11,21].…”

Harmonizing across environmental nanomaterial testing media for increased comparability of nanomaterial datasets

“…Most published studies on release of NMs from a product matrix have used commercially available products with only limited description of the matrix and only in a few studies has a more defined matrix been used. 166 To study NM release from paints, standard paint formulations have been described in the NanoHouse project. 167,168 For polymer nanocomposites, standard materials have been used in inter-laboratory comparisons.…”

“…Solid matrix with NMs embedded: This type of matrix is one of the most frequently used product matrices 165,166 and also constitutes the major type of matrix reported in release studies. 161 Not all NM/matrix combinations make sense from the point of view of actual product use and therefore for each combination another test material might be needed.…”

Triboemission of FINE and Ultrafine Aerosol Particles: A New Approach for Measurement and Accurate Quantification

“…Since the beginning of the broad introduction of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) in various applications and consumer products, there has been a concern over the potential risks of release of these materials into the environment [1][2][3]. For quite a long time, mechanical solicitations such as machining [4], erosion, abrasion, sanding, rubbing (including brake, road and tyre wear) and weathering have been considered the most typical liberation processes responsible for non-exhaust particle emission [5][6][7], although the reported experimental results are surrounded by controversy [8,9]. Friction can be responsible for significant emissions of fine aerosol particles even from conventional materials, which do not have embedded nanoparticles, e.g., friction stir welding [10], friction between railway brake disks and pads [11].…”

“…However, the obtained data are device specific and cannot be used for comparison of the emission characteristics among various studies. In a noteworthy review [6], Koivisto et al highlighted that the particle emission rates reported in literature varied over six orders of magnitude, and they attributed such dispersion to the absence of harmonized experimental methodology, differences in sampling efficiency and insufficient air mixing in the experimental setup. This problem was addressed by various groups and it was partly solved when a tight (or nearly tight) aerosol chamber [15][16][17] was set to isolate the local environment around the tribological contact from the undesired particle dispersion in the ambient air and the influence of motors and drives on particle generation/deposition [18].…”