The Applicability of Chemical Alternatives Assessment for Engineered Nanomaterials

The use of alternatives assessment to substitute hazardous chemicals with inherently safer options is gaining momentum worldwide as a legislative and corporate strategy to minimize consumer, occupational, and environmental risks. Engineered nanomaterials represent an interesting case for alternatives assessment approaches as they can be considered both emerging “chemicals” of concern, as well as potentially safer alternatives to hazardous chemicals. However, comparing the hazards of nanomaterials to traditional chemicals or to other nanomaterials is challenging and critical elements in chemical hazard and exposure assessment may have to be fundamentally altered to sufficiently address nanomaterials. The aim of this paper is to assess the overall applicability of alternatives assessment methods for nanomaterials and outline recommendations to enhance their use in this context. This paper focuses on the adaptability of existing hazard and exposure assessment approaches to engineered nanomaterials as well as strategies to design inherently safer nanomaterials. We argue that alternatives assessment for nanomaterials is complicated by the sheer number of nanomaterials possible. As a result, the inclusion of new data tools that can efficiently and effectively evaluate nanomaterials as substitutes are needed to strengthen the alternatives assessment process. However, we conclude that with additional tools to enhance traditional hazard and exposure assessment modules of alternatives assessment, such as the use of mechanistic toxicity screens and control banding tools, alternatives assessment can be adapted to evaluate engineered nanomaterials both as potential substitutes for chemicals of concern and to ensure safer nanomaterials are incorporated in the design of new products. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserve

Source reduction for prevention of methylene chloride hazards: cases from four industrial sectors

BACKGROUND: Source reduction, defined as chemical, equipment and process changes that intervene in an industrial process to eliminate or reduce hazards, has not figured as a front-line strategy for the protection of workers' health. Such initiatives are popular for environmental protection, but their feasibility and effectiveness as an industrial hygiene approach have not been well described. METHODS: We investigated four cases of source reduction as a hazard prevention strategy in Massachusetts companies that had used methylene chloride, an occupational carcinogen, for cleaning and adhesive thinning. Three cases were retrospective and one was prospective, where the researchers assisted with the source reduction process change. Data were collected using qualitative research methods, including in-depth interviews and site visits. RESULTS: Motivated by environmental restrictions, a new worker health standard, and opportunity for productivity improvements, three companies eliminated their use of methylene chloride by utilizing available technologies and drop-in substitutes. Aided by technical assistance from the investigators, a fourth case dramatically reduced its use of methylene chloride via process and chemistry changes. While the companies' evaluations of potential work environment impacts of substitutes were not extensive, and in two cases new potential hazards were introduced, the overall impact of the source reduction strategy was deemed beneficial, both from a worker health and a production standpoint. CONCLUSION: The findings from these four cases suggest that source reduction should be considered potentially feasible and effective for reducing or eliminating the potential hazards of methylene chloride exposure. Especially when faced with a hazard that is both an environmental and worker health concern, companies may chose to change their processes rather than rely on local exhaust ventilation equipment or personal protective equipment that might not be as effective, might transfer risk and/or not be integrated with financial goals. However, technical assistance sensitive to environmental and health and safety impacts as well as production issues should be provided to guide companies' source reduction efforts

Interim Best Practices for Working with Nanoparticles

This document was written to provide interim best safety and health practices to students, staff and faculty of the Center for High-rate Nanomanufacturing (CHN) who work with nanoparticles. This contain "interim" best practices because the field of nanoparticle health and safety is rapidly evolving at this time; there is much that is not known about the toxicity of nanoparticle and the hazards of respiratory and dermal exposures, and there is no known safe threshold for such exposures to nanoparticles. It is expected that this document will be update periodically

Hazard Rating of Substances Systems Developed by Niosh’s Rtecs-Nohs and Usepa

This research study attempts to evaluate the hazard rating of substances systems developed by NIOSH’s (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) RTECS-NOHS (Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances – National Occupational Hazards Survey) and USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). Evaluation on rating methodologies and parameters used by both NIOSH and USEPA’s systems reviewed that both systems aim at ranking common industrial organic compounds used or released into the atmosphere with special focus on chemical toxicological health effects. The NIOSH’s RTECS-NOHS system solely emphasizes on health risks depending on chemical toxicological effects pertaining to eight health effect endpoints, whilst USEPA’s system considers toxicological effects, occupational standards, chemical production rate, fraction of production loss and chemical’s volatility characteristics. It is also found that NIOSH’s system allows users great flexibility in defining toxicological priorities by assigning a multiplier or/and adding in the constants. The scoring system developed by USEPA for the individual parameters considered in the priority ranking range from zero to five without providing flexibility for users in defining toxicological priorities or assigning multipliers. It is also found that certain modifications must be made to account for fundamental differences between worker and population exposures for application purposes