Tag Archives: IRSST

Gloves, Québec’s (Canada) Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail, and a workplace nanotoxicity methodology report

Leave a reply

A new report on a workplace health and safety issue in regard to nanoparticles (Development of a Method of Measuring Nanoparticle Penetration through Protective Glove Materials under Conditions Simulating Workplace Use)  was released in June 2013 by Québec’s Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST). Little research has been done on exposure through skin (cutaneous exposure), most research has focused on exposure by inhalation according to the report (en français version here),

In the workplace, the main pathway to NP exposure is inhalation (Ostiguy et al., 2008a). Exposure by the cutaneous route has not been studied much, partly because of the widely held belief that skin offers an impermeable barrier to NPs (Truchon et al., 2008). Yet a growing number of studies have pointed to the possible percutaneous absorption of NPs, such as in the case of skin damaged by abrasion (Zhang et al., 2008), repeated flexion (Rouse et al., 2007) or even through intact skin (Ryman-Rasmussen et al., 2006). Pores, hair follicles and sweat glands may also play a role in facilitating absorption of NPs through the skin (Hervé-Bazin, 2007). The nanoparticles are then carried throughout the body by the lymphatic circulatory system (Papp et al., 2008). Induced direct toxic effects have also been reported for epidermal keratinocyte cells exposed to carbon nanotubes and other types of NPs (Shvedova, 2003). [p. 17 PDF version; p. 1 print version; Note: See report bibliography for citations]

The researchers examined gloves made of four different types of material: nitrile, latex, neoprene, and butyl rubber under a number of different conditions. One type of nanoparticle was used for the study, titanium dioxide in powder and liquid forms. The report summary provides a bit more detail about the decision to develop a methodology and the testing methods,

With the exponential growth in industrial applications of nanotechnologies and the increased risk of occupational exposure to nanomaterials, the precautionary principle has been recommended. To apply this principle, and even though personal protective equipment against nanoparticles must be considered only as a last resort in the risk control strategy, this equipment must be available. To respond to the current lack of tools and knowledge in this area, a method was developed for measuring the penetration of nanoparticles through protective glove materials under conditions simulating workplace use.

This method consists of an experimental device for exposing glove samples to nanoparticles in powder form or in colloidal solution, while at the same time subjecting them to static or dynamic mechanical stresses and conditions simulating the microclimate in the gloves. This device is connected to a data control and acquisition system. To complete the method, a sampling protocol was developed and a series of nanoparticle detection techniques was selected.

Preliminary tests were performed using this method to measure the resistance of four models of protective gloves of different thicknesses made of nitrile, latex, neoprene and butyl to the passage of commercial TiO2 nanoparticles in powder form or colloidal solution. The results seem to indicate possible penetration of the nanoparticles in some types of gloves, particularly when subjected to repeated mechanical deformation and when the nanoparticles are in the form of colloidal solutions. Additional work is necessary to confirm these results, and consideration should be given to the selection of the configurations and values of the parameters that best simulate the different possible workplace situations. Nevertheless, a recommendation can already be issued regarding the need for regular replacement of gloves that have been worn, particularly with the thinnest gloves and when there has been exposure to nanoparticles in colloidal solution.

For interested parties, here’s a citation for and a link to the report (PDF),

Development of a Method of Measuring Nanoparticle Penetration through Protective Glove Materials under Conditions Simulating Workplace Use by Dolez, Patricia; Vinches, Ludwig; Perron, Gérald; Vu-Khanh, Toan; Plamondon, Philippe; L’Espérance, Gilles; Wilkinson, Kevin; Cloutier, Yves; Dion, Chantal; Truchon, Ginette
Studies and Research Projects / Report  R-785, Montréal, IRSST, 2013, 124 pages.

I last wrote about gloves and toxicity in a June 11, 2013 posting about gloves with sensors (they turned blue when exposed to toxic levels of chemicals). It would be interesting if they could find a way to create gloves with sensors that warn you when you are reaching dangerous levels of exposure through your gloves. Of course, first they’d have to determine what constitute a dangerous level of exposure. The US National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH) recently released its recommendations for exposure to carbon nanofibers and carbon nanotubes (my April 26, 2013 posting). In layperson’s terms, the recommended exposure is close to zero exposure. Presumably, the decision was based on the principle of being ‘safe rather than sorry’.

One final comment about exposure to engineered nanoparticles through skin, to date there has been no proof that there has been any significant exposure via skin. In fact, the first significant breach of the skin barrier was achieved for medical research, Chad Mirkin and his team at Northwestern University trumpeted their research breakthrough (pun intended) last year, from my July 4, 2012 posting,

Researchers at Northwestern University (Illinois, US) have found a way to deliver gene regulation technology using skin moisturizers. From the July 3, 2012 news item on Science Blog,

A team led by a physician-scientist and a chemist — from the fields of dermatology and nanotechnology — is the first to demonstrate the use of commercial moisturizers to deliver gene regulation technology that has great potential for life-saving therapies for skin cancers.

The topical delivery of gene regulation technology to cells deep in the skin is extremely difficult because of the formidable defenses skin provides for the body. The Northwestern approach takes advantage of drugs consisting of novel spherical arrangements of nucleic acids. These structures, each about 1,000 times smaller than the diameter of a human hair, have the unique ability to recruit and bind to natural proteins that allow them to traverse the skin and enter cells.

This goes a long way to explaining why primary occupational health and safety research has focused on exposure via inhalation rather than skin.  That said, I think ensuring safety means minimizing exposure by all routes until more is known about the hazards.

Change your gloves frequently if you’re handling nanoparticles

Leave a reply

Québec’s IRSST (Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail) has issued a May 16, 2012 news release about the results of a study on gloves and nanoparticles,

After developing a sampling protocol and selecting the best analysis and measurement techniques, the research team carried out preliminary tests using four models of nitrile, latex, neoprene and butyl rubber protective gloves and commercial titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles in powder and colloidal solution form. “The results appear to indicate that powder nanoparticles penetrated the disposable nitrile gloves after seven hours of repeated deformation, while the butyl gloves appeared to be impermeable,” explained investigator Patricia Dolez, the main author of the report. “As for nanoparticles in colloidal solutions, we measured a possibility of penetration through the gloves, in particular when the gloves were subjected to repeated deformation. These preliminary data, which need to be validated by additional studies, show that it is important to continue work in this field.”

…

Based on the results, the research team recommends that care be taken when choosing and using this type of personal protective equipment. “We recommend replacing, at regular intervals, protective gloves that are worn, especially thinner gloves, and gloves that have been exposed to nanoparticles in colloidal solutions,” Dr. Dolez concluded.

H/T to the June 14, 2012 news item on Nanowerk for alerting me to this work.

You can get a copy of the study, Développement d’une méthode de mesure de la pénétration des nanoparticules à travers les matériaux de gants de protection dans des conditions simulant l’utilisation en milieu de travail , but it is in French only, as of today June 14, 2012. The abstract has been translated into English. I last mentioned one of the investigators, Patricia Dolez, in passing in my Oct. 14, 2009 posting.

ETA June 14, 2012: I should also have mentioned that this was joint project with researchers from the École de technologie supérieure, École Polytechnique, and Université de Montréal were working on this project with the team from IRSST.

NE3LS November 2012 conference in Montréal

1 Reply

NE3LS is one of the worst abbreviations I’ve ever seen but, despite my opinion, it ([Nanotechnology] Ethical, Environmental, Economic, Legal and Social Issues—NE3LS) lives on. This March 12, 2012 posting on the Nanotechnology Development blog announces the 1st Nanotechnology NE3LS conference in November 2012,

Ne3LS Network (Network on ethical, environmental, economic and legal and social issues pertaining to nanotechnology) is organizing first International conference with the theme “The Responsible Development of Nanotechnology: Challenges and Perspectives”.  The conference will held at Montréal, Canada during November 1-2, 2012.

I have noted the difference between my guess as to what the N in NE3LS stands for and the Nanotechnology Development blog’s rendition. I’d usually stick with mine since there is an NE3LS research project at the National Institute of Nanotechnology and it’s highly unlikely that N  stands for network but the conference organizers are the ones claiming the N stands for Network on the conference home page.

The NE3LS Network was launched in March 2011 in Montréal, from the launch webpage,

The launch of the Ne3LS Network (Knowledge Network on the Ethical, Environmental, Economic, Legal and Social issues regarding Nanotechnology) took place on March 9, 2011. Guests of honour at this event included Dr. Fabrice Brunet, Director of the CHU Sainte-Justine, Dr. Guy Rouleau, Director of the CHU Sainte-Justine Research Center, Dr. Joseph Hubert, Vice-Rector of Research and International Relations at the University of Montreal, Mr. Yves Joanette, President and CEO of the Fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec (FRSQ), Mrs. Marie Larue, President and CEO of the Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST)  and Mr. Luc Castonguay, Director of Academic Research at the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade (MDEIE). The Ne3LS Network is the result of a collaboration between Québec’s research funding organizations, the MDEIE, the Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST) and NanoQuébec.

Mr. Charles-Anica Endo, Executive Director, and Dr. Renaldo Battista, Scientific Director, took this opportunity to announce the winners of the network’s first call for projects, held in December 2010. In addition, the Axis Directors presented the multiple dimensions of nanotechnology, from their very definition to their governance and their associated risks. Attendees also had the privilege of hearing two world-renowned nanotechnology researchers, Mrs. Céline Lafontaine, sociologist, and Dr. Richard Martel, chemist.

One of the keynote speakers at the March 9, 2011 event, Céline Lafontaine, was mentioned here in my March 10, 2010 posting (scroll about 1/3 of the way down) in the context of the 2009 nanotechnology debates in France, which had been seriously disrupted to the point where some were cancelled.

Getting back to the NE3LS conference in Montréal, here’s a bit more information, from the conference home page,

The Network on ethical, environmental, economic, legal and social issues regarding nanotechnology development (Ne3LS) is hosting an international conference to initiate thought-provoking discussion on the responsible development of nanotechnology. The Ne3LS Network International Conference 2012 will explore the following themes within an international and multidisciplinary framework:

  • How to assess the risks of nanotechnology, scientific, economic, social, or environmental
  • Governance: What are the responsibilities of researchers, industry, government, and the general public in the development of nanotechnologies? What is the contribution of industry to the development of standards and regulations?
  • Can responsible development of nanotechnology foster innovation and contribute to economic development?
  • What are the impacts of nanomedicine and nanohealth on the health care system?
  • How can the public be best informed and consulted on nanotechnology issues?

Invited speakers will address each of these topics.

There is a Call for Papers Theme webpage with this,

… the international conference has issued a call for abstracts to address the following subthemes at concurrent sessions:

  1. Toxicity: new methods, new concepts?
  2. Occupational health and safety: how to adapt to nanotechnologies
  3. What are the environmental risks?
  4. Innovation and the economy and the challenges of globalization
  5. Public-private partnerships in risk-sharing?
  6. Nano-health: toward privatization of medical services?
  7. International regulations and political issues
  8. National regulatory standards: free exchange or “no data, no market”?
  9. Ethics: the precautionary principle and sustainable development of nanotechnologies
  10. Educate whom and how?
  11. What modalities could be used for public consultation and to what end?
  12. Nanofoods: can the genetically-modified food (GMO) scenario be avoided?

Here are the guidelines,

CALL FOR ABSTRACTS

  • All presentations will be in English
  • The topic must be relevant to one of the 12 subthemes described in the Ne3LS Network International Conference 2012, Themes
  • Each oral presentation will be 20 minutes, followed by a 10-minute question period
  • Poster presentations will also be available
  • Abstracts will be selected as oral or poster presentation, at the discretion of the selection committee.

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

Those submitted by any other means will not be considered.

  • Closing date: all submissions must be received by Monday May 14, 2012
  • Cover letter: Please attach a cover letter specifying
    • Corresponding author: full name, address, telephone number, fax (if applicable), and email address
    • A short one-paragraph bio for each author, indicating relevant expertise and interest in the topic
    • Format: Word file
    • Language: English
    • Abstract
      • Word count: maximum 250 words
      • Structured as follows:
        • Author(s) (Last name, first name)
        • Title of presentation
        • Author affiliations (institution, country)
        • Text
        • 3-5 keywords
    • Font: standard font to prevent special characters from getting lost, e.g. Arial or Times New Roman, 12-point
    • In submitting an abstract, the author(s) agree that the abstract may be published among other documents associated with the Ne3LS Network International Conference 2012, Montreal, Canada.

SELECTION CRITERIA

  • Submissions will be evaluated by an international, multidisciplinary scientific committee
  • Principal criteria for selection will be:
    • Quality of the abstract
    • Relevance to the general themes and, more specifically, to the subthemes described in the Ne3LS Network International Conference 2012, Themes
    • Corresponding authors will be notified of acceptance by email by June 29, 2012
    • Notification of acceptance will indicate whether the presentation was selected as an oral or poster presentation
    • Authors whose abstracts are selected are expected to pay their registration fees at the latest by July 15, 2012.

You have almost two months to write up your abstract (nice to stumble across something a little earlier than usual so I’m not announcing a deadline that comes due in three days). Good luck!

For those who prefer French language information, here’s a link to the NE3LS (Réseau de connaisannces) French version website.

Nano Risk Management from France

Leave a reply

France’s Agency for Food, Environment, Health and Occupational Safety (Anses, agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail) has proposed a new technique for assessing the risks of nano-based materials. From the news article by Rory Harrington on foodqualitynews.com,

The body has proposed using a method known as “control banding”. The tool, originally developed in the pharmaceutical industry, is designed to guide risk management in fields where there is uncertainty about the required data needed. In this case, the uncertainty centres on both the hazards of nanomaterials and exposure levels. It uses both existing information but also makes a number of assumptions, said Anses.

Under the system, new products are allocated ‘bands’ – which have been developed according to the hazard level of known or similar products. It also takes into account exposure in a work environment.

The method derives minimum prevention measures – either for individuals or collectively – by combining qualitative risk assessment with a risk control band.

“The tool thus allows risk managers to apply a graduated response by taking into account both the potential hazards represented by the nanomaterials concerned and the estimated levels of exposure”, said French scientists.

Anses has produced a report about this proposed technique, Development of a specific Control Banding Tool for Nanomaterials. It turns out there’s a Canadian connection, Claude Ostiguy, Director of the Research and Expertise Support Department at the Institut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et en Sécurité du Travail (IRSST), Montréal, Canada was a member of the expert panel for this project. His specialties are chemistry, industrial hygiene, and nanomaterials. I have written about Dr. Ostiguy previously in my Sept. 27, 2010 posting on Québec’s then new report on the risks of engineered nanoparticles and in my June 23, 2010 posting about the hearing that Canada’s House of Commons Standing Committee on Health held about nanomaterials.

The report (this version of it) is in English but the translation from the French is a little awkward. As for control banding, that looks a lot like a set of guidelines but with more thought than most guidelines I’ve seen.

Quebec’s new report on the risks of engineered nanoparticles

2 Replies

Engineered Nanoparticles; Current Knowledge about OHS [Occupational Health and Safety] Risks and Prevention Measures is the title for a report (2nd edition) written by Claude Ostiguy, Brigitte Roberge, Catherine Woods, and Brigitte Soucy for the Quebec-based Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST). From the news item on Nanowerk,

An initial assessment of the state of scientific knowledge about the occupational health and safety aspects (OHS) related to synthetic nanoparticles (NP) was published by the IRSST in 2006 and covered the scientific literature until the end of 2004. What was found was that OHS knowledge was very fragmentary but that research in this field was rapidly growing. This current document aims to assess the state of current knowledge in this field and summarizes the data available until early 2010.

Overall, what emerges is that NP remain an important source of concern in OHS. In fact, not only does the diversity of commercially available chemical products of nanometric dimensions continue to increase, but also, the information available about the hazards specific to these substances is still very fragmentary. The literature gives us very little information specific to NP relating to their physical hazards like fires or explosions.

…

In a context of incomplete data for the majority of nanometric substances, it remains impossible to quantify the risks for workers in the majority of situations because the toxicity of the products, the level of dust contamination of workplaces, or their potential to cause fires or explosions remain not extensively documented or totally undocumented. Nevertheless, the majority of the means of exposure control for ultrafine particles should be effective against NP and much research is currently being carried out to confirm this.

In a context of uncertainty about the risks, and with an increasing number of potentially exposed workers, the current report paints a big picture of the OHS knowledge currently available in the NP field. In the absence of specific standards, a preventive and even a precautionary approach are recommended, and a review of the available means for minimizing worker exposure is presented.

The report (over 150 pp.) can be found here. There’s certainly much to appreciate in the report. Here are two bits that I particularly want to highlight, the acknowledgment that nanoparticles aren’t new,

Although the development of NT [nanotechnology] is a modern multidisciplinary science, naturally produced and manmade materials of nanometric dimensions and exposure to particles of other dimensions of mineral or environmental origin, including the fine fraction of nanometric particles, have always existed. Some of the natural nanometric particles are of biological origin – including DNA with a diameter of around 2.5 nm and many viruses (10 to 60 nm) and bacteria (30 nm to 10 μm) — while others are found in desert sand, oil fumes, smog, and fumes originating from volcanic activity or forest fires and certain atmospheric dusts. Among those generated by human activity, we should mention diesel fumes, industrial blast furnace emissions and welding fumes, which contain particles of nanometric dimensions (Teague, 2004). (p. 11 PDF, p. 1, print)

There’s also a very good (in my opinion) description of bottom-up and top-down approaches to engineered nanoparticles,

Nanoparticles can be synthesized by different approaches. Nanoparticle production can be generally categorized into the bottom-up and top-down methods. In the bottom-up approach, nanoparticles are constructed atom-by-atom or molecule-by-molecule. In the top-down approach (top-down), a large structure is gradually underdimensioned, until nanometric dimensions are attained after application of severe mechanical stresses, violent shocks and strong deformations. The two approaches bottom-up and top-down tend to converge in terms of dimensions of the synthesized particles. The bottom-up approach seems richer, in that it allows production of a greater diversity of architectures and often better control of the nanometric state (relatively monodispersed granulometric sizes and distribution, positioning of the molecules, homogeneity of the products). The top-down approach, although capable of higher-volume production, generally makes control of the nanometric state a more delicate operation. (p. 25 PDF, p. 15 print)

Ostiguy (last mentioned in my June 23, 2010 posting [Nanomaterials, toxicity, and Canada’s House of Commons Standing Committee on Health] as an expert witness) and his colleagues offer a good overview of  international, national, and provincial (Québec) research and development efforts including definitions for terms and descriptions of various types of nanoparticles and a discussion about markets. I was expecting something more narrowly focused on occupational health and safety (OHS) but very much appreciate the efforts to contextualize OHS issues within the larger nanotechnology ‘enterprise’ in addition to the OHS material.

Oddly, I found this on the cover page,

Disclaimer

The IRSST makes no guarantee regarding the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information contained in this document. In no case shall the IRSST be held responsible for any physical or psychological injury [??? and emphasis mine] or material damage resulting from the use of this information.

Note that the content of the documents is protected by Canadian intellectual property legislation.

As for any psychological injury I may received from reading the report, what about injury from reading the disclaimer?

I do have a few nits to pick. Surprisingly since this report was published in July 2010, they did not include any information about an April 2010 nanomaterial definition proposed in the US (my April 27, 2010 posting). More picayune, reference is made to Nanotech BC which has been effectively defunct since Spring 2009 while no mention is made of Nano Ontario which I first noticed in early 2010 (Professor Gilbert Walker responded on behalf of Nano Ontario to Peter Julian’s proposed nanotechnology legislation in my March 29, 2010 posting).

I was also surprised at the certainty expressed about scientific unanimity over the dimensions,

As already mentioned, there is now unanimity in the scientific community on the dimensions of manufactured NP: at least one of their dimensions ranges between one and 100 nm [emphasis mine] and they have different properties than larger-diameter particles made of the same material (ASTM, 2006; BSI, 2008; ISO, 2007, 2008). (p. 49 PDF, p. 39 print)

As I understand it, there’s still some discussion about the one to one hundred nanometre range as I note here in my July 14, 2010 posting,

The comment about the definition sprang out as this issue seems to be at the forefront of many recent discussions on nanotechnology. Fern Wickson and her colleagues highlight the importance of the issue in their recently published paper,

Both the beginning and the end of this range remain subject to debate. Some claim that it should extend as low as 0.1nm (because atoms and some molecules are smaller than 1nm) and as high as 300nm (because the unique properties of the nanoscale can also be observed above 100nm). The boundaries of ‘the nanoscale’ are highly significant in both scientific and political terms because they have the possibility to affect everything from funding, to risk assessment and product labelling. [my commentary, Wickson’s response, and a citation for the paper, etc. can be found in my July 7, 2010 posting]

I do recommend reading the IRSST report if this sort of thing interests you as it offers answers to questions that you may (and, in my case, certainly) have been asking yourself about quantum dots, carbon black, and the state of OHS research and regulations in Canada and elsewhere.

New US nanotechnology legislation for health and safety proposed; SAFENANO reviews 2009

Leave a reply

After finding this announcement on Azonano (or you can find it on Senator Pryor’s site here),

U.S. Senators Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) today introduced legislation to address potential health and safety risks about products that contain nanotechnology materials.

…

The Nanotechnology Safety Act of 2010 would establish a program within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to assess the health and safety implications of nanotechnology in everyday products and develop best practices for companies who employ nanotechnology. The legislation authorizes $25 million each year from 2011 through 2015.

I went looking for a comment or news release about it on the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies website and was surprised to find nothing. In fact, I couldn’t find any commentary anwyhere in my very brief search this morning.

Meanwhile, SAFENANO (an initiative of the UK’s Institute of Occupational Medicine) has produced a review of  nanotechnology environment, health, and safety developments for 2009. They cover both developments in Europe and elsewhere. From the review,

In January, the International Standards Organisation ISO published a technical report ISO/TR 12885:2008 ” Health and safety practices in occupational settings relevant to nanotechnologies “. The report provides a general background the nanoparticle risk issues and describes in some detail current practices for risk assessment, exposure measurement and control which are appropriate for use with engineered nanoparticles. This report takes an encyclopaedic view but stops short of recommending which practices are appropriate for which materials under which circumstances, leading to disappointment for some users. This report is commercially available from ISO.
This was closely followed by a report from Canada published by Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST), in collaboration with CSST and  NanoQuébec The document ” Best Practices Guide to Synthetic Nanoparticle Risk Management, Report R599 “, covered much of the same ground as the ISO document but in less detail. This document also introduced the idea of using a “control banding” approach based on that described by Paik and recommends that this approach is used where there is insufficient information for a quantitative risk assessment.

It is a very interesting and useful review which you can read here.