Monitoring Nanomaterials in the Workplace

  • Adrienne C. Eastlake
  • Luca Fontana
  • Ivo IavicoliEmail author
Part of the Current Topics in Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine book series (CTEHPM)


Increased engineered nanomaterial production, combined with widespread use and worldwide distribution, have increased the likelihood of occupational exposure. Considering that engineered nanomaterials have additional toxicological concerns relative to their larger material forms, there exists a clear need to develop, implement, and apply an adequate strategy for occupational risk assessment and management. Unfortunately, a thorough evaluation of pertinent engineered nanomaterial properties cannot be obtained using a single instrument or analytical technique. Therefore, it is recommended that the collection and characterization of engineered nanomaterials should be performed via a multifaceted approach involving the use of multiple complementary sampling tools and analytical methods.


Exposure assessment Engineered nanomaterials Occupational exposure OECD three-tiered approach NIOSH Nanomaterial Exposure Assessment Technique (NEAT 2.0) Personal exposure 


  1. 1.
    Leso V, Fontana L, Mauriello MA, et al. Occupational risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials: limits, challenges and opportunities. Curr Nanosci. 2017;13:55–78.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Iavicoli I, Fontana L, Pingue P, et al. Assessment of occupational exposure to engineered nanomaterials in research laboratories using personal monitors. Sci Total Environ. 2018;627:689–702.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (2009) Approaches to safe nanotechnology: managing the health and safety concerns associated with engineered nanomaterials; US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eastlake AC, Beaucham C, Martinez KF, et al. Refinement of the nanoparticle emission assessment technique into the nanomaterial exposure assessment technique (NEAT 2.0). J Occup Environ Hyg. 2016;13:708–17.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Current intelligence bulletin 63: occupational exposure to titanium dioxide. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2011-160; 2011.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Current Intelligence Bulletin 65: Occupational Exposure to Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers. 2013. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2013-145; 2013.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Revised Draft NIOSH Current Intelligence Bulletin: Health Effects of Occupational Exposure to Silver Nanomaterials. 2018. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH); 2018.. Accessed 12 Apr 2019Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Poland CA, Duffin R, Kinloch I, et al. Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study. Nat Nanotechnol. 2008;3:423–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grassian VH, O’shaughnessy PT, Adamcakova-Dodd A, et al. Inhalation exposure study of titanium dioxide nanoparticles with a primary particle size of 2 to 5 nm. Environ Health Perspect. 2007;115:397–402.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lam CW, James JT, McCluskey R, et al. Pulmonary toxicity of single-wall carbon nanotubes in mice 7 and 90 days after intratracheal instillation. Toxicol Sci. 2004;77:126–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Oberdorster G. Significance of particle parameters in the evaluation of exposure-dose-response relationships of inhaled particles. Inhal Toxicol. 1996;8(Suppl):73–89.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shvedova AA, Kisin ER, Mercer R, et al. Unusual inflammatory and fibrogenic pulmonary responses to single-walled carbon nanotubes in mice. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2005;289:L698–708.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shvedova AA, Fabisiak JP, Kisin ER, et al. Sequential exposure to carbon nanotubes and bacteria enhances pulmonary inflammation and infectivity. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2008;38:579–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Oomen AG, Steinhäuser KG, Bleeker EAJ, et al. Risk assessment frameworks for nanomaterials: scope, link to regulations, applicability, and outline for future directions in view of needed increase in efficiency. NanoImpact. 2018;9:1–13.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    National Research Council (NRC). Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. Washington DC: Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment of Risks to Public Health, Commission on Life Sciences. National Academy Press; 1983.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Iavicoli I, Leso V, Fontana L, et al. Characterization of inhalable, thoracic, and respirable fractions and ultrafine particle exposure during grinding, brazing, and welding activities in a mechanical engineering factory. J Occup Environ Med. 2013;55:430–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stefaniak AB, Hackley VA, Roebben G, Ehara K, Hankin S, Postek MT, Lynch I, Fu W-E, Linsinger TPJ, Thünemann A. Nanoscale reference materials for environmental, health, and safety measurements: needs, gaps, and opportunities. Nanotoxicology. 2013;7:1325–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Asbach C, Alexander C, Clavaguera S, et al. Review of measurement techniques and methods for assessing personal exposure to airborne nanomaterials in workplaces. Sci Total Environ. 2017;603-604:793–806.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Romero-Franco M, Godwin HA, Bilal M, et al. Needs and challenges for assessing the environmental impacts of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs). Beilstein J Nanotechnol. 2017;8:989–1014.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shvedova AA, Kisin E, Murray AR, et al. Inhalation vs. aspiration of single-walled carbon nanotubes in C57BL/6 mice: inflammation, fibrosis, oxidative stress, and mutagenesis. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2008;295:L552–65.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hull M, Kennedy A, Detzel C, Vikesland P, Chappell M. Moving beyond mass: the unmet need to consider dose metrics in environmental nanotoxicology studies. Environ Sci Technol. 2012;46(20):10881–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Groso A, Petri-Fink A, Rothen-Rutishauser B, et al. Engineered nanomaterials: toward effective safety management in research laboratories. J Nanobiotechnol. 2016;14:21.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Spinazzè A, Cattaneo A, Del Buono L, et al. Engineered nanomaterials: current status of occupational exposure assessment. Italy J Occup Environ Hyg. 2016;7:81–98.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Murashov VV, Engel S, Savolainen K, Fullam B, Lee M, Kearns P. Occupational safety and health in nanotechnology and organisation for economic co-operation and development. J Nanopart Res. 2009;11(7):1587–91. Scholar
  25. 25.
    Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Harmonized tiered approach to measure and assess the potential exposure to airborne emissions of engineered nano-objects and their agglomerates and aggregates at workplaces. Series on the Safety of Manufactured Nanomaterials, No. 55. ENV/JM/MONO(2015)19; 2015.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Paik SY, Zalk DM, Swuste P. Application of a pilot control banding tool for risk level assessment and control of nanoparticle exposures. Ann Occup Hyg. 2008;52:419–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zalk DM, Paik SY, Swuste P. Evaluating the control banding nanotool: a qualitative risk assessment method for controlling nanoparticle exposures. J Nanopart Res. 2009;11:1685.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    NanoSafer. (2016) NanoSafer 1.1. Accessed 2 Apr 2019.
  29. 29.
    Van Duuren-Stuurman B, Vink SR, Verbist KJ, et al. Stoffenmanager Nano version 1.0: a web-based tool for risk prioritization of airborne manufactured nano objects. Ann Occup Hyg. 2012;56:525–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Asbach C, Kuhlbusch TAJ, Kaminski H, et al (2012) Standard operation procedures for assessing exposure to nanomaterials, following a tiered approach. Nano GEM.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Methner M, Hodson L, Geraci C. Nanoparticle emission assessment technique (NEAT) for the identification and measurement of potential inhalation exposure to engineered nanomaterials—part A. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2010;7:127–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Methner M, Hodson L, Dames A, et al. Nanoparticle Emission Assessment Technique (NEAT) for the identification and measurement of potential inhalation exposure to engineered nanomaterials—Part B: Results from 12 field studies. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2010;7:163–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Methner M, Beaucham C, Crawford C, et al. Field application of the Nanoparticle Emission Assessment Technique (NEAT): task-based air monitoring during the processing of engineered nanomaterials (ENM) at four facilities. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2012;9:543–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Warheit DB, Laurence BR, Reed KL, et al. Comparative pulmonary toxicity assessment of single-wall carbon nanotubes in rats. Toxicol Sci. 2004;77:117–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Eastlake A, Hodson L, Geraci C, et al. A critical evaluation of material safety data sheets (MSDSs) for engineered nanomaterials. Chem Health Saf. 2012;19:1–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hodson L, Eastlake A, Herbers R. An evaluation of engineered nanomaterial safety data sheets for safety and health information post implementation of the revised hazard communication standard. J Chem Health Saf. 2019;26:12–8.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    EN (2012) Workplace Exposure – Terminology, EN 1540:2012–03. Beuth Verlag Berlin.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    NanoIndEx Project. Assessment of personal exposure to airborne nanomaterials – a guidance document; 2016. Accessed 12 Apr 2019.
  39. 39.
    Fierz M, Houle C, Steigmeier P, et al. Design, calibration, and field performance of a miniature diffusion size classifier. Aerosol Sci Technol. 2011;45:1–10.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Marra J, Voetz M, Kiesling H. Monitor for detecting and assessing exposure to airborne nanoparticles. J Nanopart Res. 2010;12:21–37.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fierz M, Meier D, Steigmeier P, et al. Aerosol measurement by induced currents. Aerosol Sci Technol. 2014;48:350–7.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ryan P, Son S, Wolfe C, et al. A field application of a personal sensor for ultrafine particle exposure in children. Sci Total Environ. 2015;508:366–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hansen A, Rosen H, Novakov T. The Aethalometer—an instrument for the real time measurement of optical absorption by aerosol particles. Sci Total Environ. 1984;36:191–6.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Asbach C, Neumann V, Monz C, et al. On the effect of wearing personal nanoparticle monitors on the comparability of personal exposure measurements. Environ Sci Nano. 2017;4:233–43.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Todea A, Beckmann S, Kaminski H, et al. Accuracy of electrical aerosol sensors measuring lung deposited surface area concentrations. J Aerosol Sci. 2015;89:96–109.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Todea AM, Beckmann S, Kaminski H, et al. Inter-comparison of personal monitors for nanoparticles exposure at workplaces and in the environment. Sci Total Environ. 2017;605-606:929–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Viana M, Rivas I, Reche C, et al. Field comparison of portable and stationary instruments for outdoor urban air exposure assessments. Atmos Environ. 2015;123:220–8.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bau S, Zimmermann B, Payet R, et al. A laboratory study of the performance of the handheld diffusion size classifier (DiSCmini) for various aerosols in the 15–400 nm range. Environ Sci: Processes Impacts. 2015;17:261–9.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Asbach C, Clavaguera S, Todea A. Measurement methods for nanoparticles in indoor and outdoor air. Indoor and outdoor nanoparticles—Determinants of release and exposure scenarios, vol. 48. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2016. p. 19–49.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Cena L, Anthony T, Peters T. A personal nanoparticle respiratory deposition (NRD) sampler. Environ Sci Technol. 2011;45:6483–90.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Miller A, Frey G, King G, et al. A handheld electrostatic precipitator for sampling airborne particles and nanoparticles. Aerosol Sci Technol. 2010;44:417–27.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Fierz M, Meier D, Steigmeier P, et al. Miniature nanoparticle sensors for exposure measurement and TEM sampling. J Phys Conf Ser. 2015;617:012034.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Bieri R, Cattaneo S. (2018) Device for measuring the exposure to small particles, in particular nano tubes. United States patent US20180073985A1.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Houseman A, Virji MA, A Bayesan approach for summarizing and modeling time-series exposure data with left censoring. Ann Work Expo Health. 2017;61(7):773–83Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Entink RHK, Fransman W, Brouwer DH. How to statistically analyze nano exposure measurement results: using an ARIMA time series approach. J Nanopart Res. 2011;13:6991–7004.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adrienne C. Eastlake
    • 1
  • Luca Fontana
    • 2
  • Ivo Iavicoli
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and HealthCincinnatiUSA
  2. 2.University of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations