Tag Archives: occupational health and safety

DISCmini: world’s smallest handheld nanoparticle counter

Leave a reply

DISCmini: a handheld diffusion size classifier for nanoparticle measurement Courtesy: Testo

They’/re claiming this is the world’s smallest in a July 12, 2017 news item on Nanowerk,

Testo, Inc., the world’s leading manufacturer of test and measurement instruments, announces the DiSCmini, the smallest handheld instrument for the measurement of nanoparticle. DiSCmini measures: particle number, average particle diameter and lung-deposited surface area (LDSA) with time resolution and logging at 1 second (1 Hz).

…

Testo’s DISCmini product page offers a video and more details,

Negative health effects due to nanoparticles appear to correlate particularly well with number concentration or surface. Epidemiological and toxicological studies are still mainly based on total mass, or they use fuzzy proxies like “distance from a busy road” to describe personal exposure, although the health-related effects of particle number concentration are well known. We believe that this contradictory situation is due to the lack of adequate sensors on the market.

This gap is now closed with Testo Particle´s handheld version of the “Diffusion Size Classifier”, testo DiSCmini.  The testo DiSCmini is a portable sensor for the measurement of particle number and average diameter with a time resolution of up to 1 second (1 Hz). The simultaneous capture of number concentration and particle size allows the specification of other characteristic parameters, such as the particles surface (Lung Deposited Surface Area, LDSA). The instrument is battery powered with a lifetime of up to 8 hours; data can be recorded on a memory card, and transferred to a external computer via USB cable.

The testo DiSCmini is particularly efficient for personal exposure monitoring in particle-loaded work space with toxic air contaminants such as diesel soot, welding fumes, or industrial nanomaterials.

The testo DiSCmini is based on the electrical charging of the aerosols. Positive air ions generated in a corona discharge are mixed with the aerosol. The charged particles are then detected in two stages by electrometers. The first detector stage is a pile of steel grids; small particles will preferably deposit on it by diffusion. The second stage is a high-efficiency particle filter which captures all the other particles. The mean particle size can be obtained by analysis of the two currents measured on the stages. The particle count is determined with the total current. The testo DiSCmini detects particles ranging in size from 10 to about 700 nm, while the modal value should lie below 300 nm. The concentration range is from about 1’000 to over 1’000’000 particles per cubic centimetre. The accuracy of the measurement depends on the shape of the particle size distribution and number concentration, and is usually around 15-20% compared to a reference CPC. The unit should be serviced and calibrated once a year.

Unlike other instruments the testo DiSCmini needs neither working liquid of any kind nor radioactive sources. Therefore, it can be operated in any position and over extended periods without requiring a liquid refill. Typical applications include the determination of personal exposure in particle-loaded jobs (diesel soot, welding fumes, industrial nanomaterials) or in vulnerable groups (asthmatics, COPD patients). The development of large area survey grids of ambient air is becoming possible. The small size of  the testo DiSCmini makes the instrument particularly suitable for personal carry-on measurement campaigns. The high measurement frequency of 1 Hz allows the instrument to monitor rapid changes in the aerosol. This feature is particularly interesting to local or defined sources of particle generation. The equipment is designed for situations and applications where quick and easy access to particle number concentration and average diameter is desired.

For anyone interested in the technical specifications, there’s the DISCmini product brochure.

Québec’s second edition of its Best Practices Guidance for Nanomaterial Risk Management in the Workplace

Leave a reply

Lynn Bergeson’s Dec. 16, 2015 posting on Nanotechnology Now highlights Québec’s second edition of its guide to best practices for handling nanomaterials in the workplace,

On December 11, 2015, the Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST), a leading occupational health and safety research center in Canada, published the second edition of its Best Practices Guidance for Nanomaterial Risk Management in the Workplace.

…

… IRSST intends the Guidance to support the safe development of nanotechnologies in Québec by bringing together current scientific knowledge on hazard identification, strategies for determining nanomaterial levels in different work environments, risk assessment, and the application of various risk management approaches. IRSST states that the Guidance provides practical information and prevention tools for the safe handling of nanomaterials in laboratories and pilot plants, as well as industrial facilities that produce or incorporate them. The Guidance recommends a preventive approach designed to minimize occupational exposure to nanomaterials. According to IRSST, given the different exposure pathways, the many factors that can affect nanomaterial toxicity and the health risks, its approach “is essentially based on hazard identification, different risk assessment strategies and a hierarchy of control measures, incorporating knowledge specific to nanomaterials when available.” The second edition of the Guidance incorporates new information in the scientific literature. In addition, IRSST has included appendices describing initiatives in Québec workplaces; examples of at-risk situations described in the literature; preventive measures and data on their relative efficacy; and the implementation of measures to control exposure. ,,,

The Best Practices Guidance for Nanomaterial Risk Management in the Workplace can be found here on the IRSST website where you’ll also find this description,

Today’s nanotechnologies can substantially improve the properties of a wide range of products in all sectors of activity, from the manufacture of materials with ground-breaking performance to medical diagnostics and treatment—yet they raise major technological, economic, ethical, social and environmental questions. Some of the spinoffs we can expect include the emergence of new markets, job creation, improvements in quality of life and contributions to protection of the environment. The impact of nanotechnologies is already being felt in sectors as diverse as agroprocessing, cosmetics, construction, healthcare and the aerospace industry. Most universities in Québec and many research centres are working to design new applications. Many companies have projects in the start-up phase, while others are already producing nanomaterials or have incorporated them in their processes to improve product performance, a trend expected to accelerate over the coming years. These new developments, which could mean exposure of a growing number of workers to these infinitesimally small particles, are of particular concern to workers in industry and staff in research laboratories. It is estimated that in 2015 about 10% of manufacturing jobs worldwide will be associated with nanotechnologies, [emphasis mine] and more than 2,000 commercial products will contain nanomaterials.

Given our fragmentary knowledge of the health and safety risks for workers and the environment, the handling of these new materials with their unique properties raises many questions and concerns. In fact, many studies have already demonstrated that the toxicity of certain nanomaterials differs from that of their bulk counterparts of the same chemical composition. Nanomaterials enter the body mainly through inhalation but also through the skin and the GI tract. Animal studies have demonstrated that certain nanomaterials can enter the blood stream through translocation and accumulate in different organs. Animal studies also show that certain nanomaterials cause more inflammation and more lung tumours on a mass-for-mass basis than the same substances in bulk form, among many other specific effects documented. In addition, research has shown that the physicochemical characteristics of nanomaterials (size, shape, specific surface area, charge, solubility and surface properties) play a major role in their impact on biological systems, including their ability to generate oxidative stress. It is thus crucial that risks be assessed and controlled to ensure the safe handling of nanomaterials. As with many other chemicals, a risk assessment and management approach must be developed on a case-by-case basis.

There is still no consensus, however, on a measurement method for characterizing occupational exposure to nanomaterials, making quantitative risk assessment difficult if not impossible in many situations. As a result, a precautionary approach is recommended to minimize worker exposure. In Québec, the employer is responsible for providing a safe work environment, and preventive measures must be applied by employees. Accordingly, preventive programs that take into account the specific characteristics of nanomaterials must be developed in all work environments where nanomaterials are handled, so that good work practices can be established and preventive procedures tailored to the risks of the particular work situation can be introduced.

Fortunately, current scientific knowledge, though partial, makes it possible to identify, assess and effectively manage these risks. This best practices guide is meant to support the safe development of nanotechnologies in Québec by bringing together current scientific knowledge on hazard identification, strategies for determining nanomaterial levels in different work environments, risk assessment and the application of various risk management approaches. Some knowledge of occupational hygiene is required to use this guide effectively. Designed for all work environments that manufacture or use nanomaterials, this guide provides practical information and prevention tools for the safe handling of nanomaterials in laboratories and pilot plants as well as industrial facilities that produce or incorporate them. To be effective, risk management must be an integral part of an organization’s culture, and health and safety issues must be considered when designing the workplace or as far upstream as possible. This is crucial for good organizational governance. In practice, risk management is an iterative process implemented as part of a structured approach that fosters continuous improvement in decision-making and can even promote better performance. The purpose of this guide is to contribute to the implementation of such an approach to the prevention of nanomaterial-related risks only. Depending on the process, other risks (associated with exposure to solvents, gas, heat stress, ergonomic stress, etc.) may be present, but they are not addressed in this guide.

…

I wonder where they got these numbers, “It is estimated that in 2015 about 10% of manufacturing jobs worldwide will be associated with nanotechnologies, and more than 2,000 commercial products will contain nanomaterials.” Given that many companies don’t like to disclose whether or not they’re using nanomaterials and most countries don’t insist on an inventory (there are voluntary inventories, which generally speaking have not been successful), bringing me back to the question: where did these numbers come from?

As for the guide itself, Canadians have been very involved with the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) and its ‘nanomaterial safety’ working group and, I understand, have provided leadership on occasion. The guide, which is available in both French and English, is definitely worth checking out.

‘Nano to go’, a practical guide to safe handling of nanomaterials and other innovative materials in the workplace

Leave a reply

If you’ve been looking for a practical guide to handling nanomaterials you may find that nanoToGo fills the bill. From an Oct. 23, 2015 posting by Lynn Bergeson for Nanotechnology Now,

In September 2015, “Nano to go!” was published. See http://nanovalid.eu/index.php/nanovalid-publications/306-nanotogo “Nano to go!” is “a practically oriented guidance on safe handling of nanomaterials and other innovative materials at the workplace.” The German Federal Institute for Occupational Health (BAuA) developed it within the NanoValid project.

From the nanoToGo webpage on the NanoValid project website (Note: Links have been removed),

Nano to go! contains a brochure, field studies, presentations and general documents to comprehensively support risk assessment and risk management. …

Brochure →

The brochure Safe handling of nanomaterials and other advanced materials at workplacessupports risk assessment and risk management when working with nanomaterials. It provides safety strategies and protection measures for handling nanomaterials bound in solid matrices, dissolved in liquids, insoluble or insoluble powder form, and for handling nanofibres. Additional recommendations are given for storage and disposal of nanomaterials, for protection from fire and explosion, for training and instruction courses, and for occupational health.

Field Studies→

The field studies comprise practical examples of expert assessment of safety and health at different workplaces. They contain detailed descriptions of several exposure measurements at pilot plants and laboratories. The reports describe methods, sampling strategies and devices, summarise and discuss results, and combine measurements and non-measurement methods.

General →

Useful information, templates and examples, such as operating instructions, a sampling protocol, a dialogue guide and a short introduction to safety management and nanomaterials.

Presentations →

Ready to use presentations for university lecturers, supervisors and instruction courses, complemented with explanatory notes.

The ‘brochure’ is 56 pages; I would have called it a manual.

As for the NanoValid project, there’s this from the project’s homepage,

The EU FP7 [Framework Programme 7] large-scale integrating project NanoValid (contract: 263147) has been launched on the 1st of November 2011, as one of the “flagship” nanosafety projects. The project consists of 24 European partners from 14 different countries and 6 partners from Brazil, Canada, India and the US and will run from 2011 to 2015, with a total budget of more than 13 mio EUR (EC contribution 9.6 mio EUR). Main objective of NanoValid is to develop a set of reliable reference methods and materials for the fabrication, physicochemical (pc) characterization, hazard identification and exposure assessment of engineered nanomaterials (EN), including methods for dispersion control and labelling of ENs. Based on newly established reference methods, current approaches and strategies for risk and life cycle assessment will be improved, modified and further developed, and their feasibility assessed by means of practical case studies.

I was not expecting to see Canada in there.

Safe Work Australia’s two new reports, Europe’s Nanodevice project, and the UK’s HSE nanomaterials handling

Leave a reply

Over the last few weeks in March (2013), there was a sudden burst of health and safety reports and initiatives released by Safe Work Australia, the European Commission’s Nanodevice project, and the UK’s Health and Safety Executive, respectively.

According to a Mar. 19, 2013 news item on Nanowerk, Safe Work Australia released two reports (Note: Links have been removed),

Safe Work Australia Chair Ann Sherry AO today released two research reports examining nanotechnology work health and safety issues.

The reports: Investigating the emissions of nanomaterials from composites and other solid articles during machining process and Evaluation of potential safety (physicochemical) hazards associated with the use of engineered nanomaterials are part of a comprehensive program of work on nanotechnology safety managed by Safe Work Australia which started in 2007.

The March 18, 2013 Safe Work Australia media release, which originated the news item,  provides some information about the approaches and models being used to analyse and develop policies,

In releasing the reports Ms Sherry noted the perceived safety risks of nanomaterials and that a precautionary approach is being taken by the Commonwealth towards nanomaterials under the National Enabling Technologies Strategy.“

While the risk to human health and safety from a number of these materials and applications is low some nanomaterials are potentially more hazardous, for example carbon nanotubes,” Ms Sherry said.

“The National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS) has recommended carbon nanotubes be classified as suspected carcinogens unless product-specific evidence suggests otherwise.”

Under the model Work Health and Safety (WHS) laws all duties which apply to the handling of materials and to technologies in general also apply to nanomaterials and nanotechnologies. Minimisation of exposure to nanomaterials at work is essential until there is sufficient data to rule out hazardous properties. Research has shown if conventional engineering controls are designed and maintained effectively, exposure to nanomaterials can be significantly reduced.

As a result of the findings of these reports Safe Work Australia will prepare guidance material on combustible dust hazards including nanomaterials.

Here’s more about the reports (from their respective webpages),

Investigating the emissions of nanomaterials from composites and other solid articles during machining processes

This report by CSIRO considers the potential health risk of emissions from machining processes.

The report finds that significant quantities of material, which can present health risk, are emitted from composites by high energy machining processes like cutting with an electric disc saw or band saw. If the composite contains a hazardous nanomaterial, the health risk from the dust may be higher. Lower energy processes like manual cutting will result in lower exposures and lower potential health risk.

Evaluation of potential safety hazards associated with the use of engineered nanomaterials

This report by Toxikos Pty Ltd examines safety hazards associated with engineered nanomaterials and the implications in regard to workers safety.

The report finds that dust clouds of some engineered nanomaterials could give rise to strong explosions if the dust cloud contains a high enough concentration of nanomaterials and if an ignition source is also present. The report gives examples of these. However in a well-managed workplace, emissions from nanotechnology processes will be very significantly below the minimum dust concentration needed for an explosion.

A Mar. 20, 2013 news item on Nanowerk focused on the European Commission’s Nanodevice project,

European researchers in the Nanodevice project are investigating the safety aspects of nanomaterial production. Their plan laid down in 2009 was to develop new concepts, reliable methods and portable devices for detecting, analysing and monitoring airborne ENMs in the workplace. The latest feedback from the team suggests the project has delivered on its promise.

The project has concluded work on seven new ‘nanodevices’, which have been calibrated and tested for use in work environments exposed to nanoparticles. This work, alongside findings from materials studies and research into the association between ENM properties and their biological impacts, will appear in a new nanosafety handbook, called “Safe handling of manufactured nanomaterials: particle measurement exposure assessment and risk management”.

Complex research like this calls for an integrated, multidisciplinary approach,” confirms Nanodevice’s project leader, Dr Kai Savolainen of the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health.

What makes this particular health and safety project special is the focus on affordable monitoring for small and medium-size companies,

With affordable, portable equipment, even small companies can regularly measure their workers’ exposure to potentially harmful particles. When compared with a growing body of data from other workplaces, a more accurate assessment of risk and occupational health and safety emerges.

Prior to Nanodevice’s portable solutions, regular nanosafety checks could cost up to €200 000. The instrumentation hauled in from outside weighed hundreds of kilos and needed several experts to gather and analyse data from multiple sites. Big companies could afford this, but Europe’s important SME sector struggled with the cost.

“We’ve developed devices like a personal nanoparticle monitor for less than €200 that almost any company can afford and quickly learn to use,” says Dr Savolainen. Worn by a worker, the system collects exposure information, but needs to be plugged into a computer to download the data. This is not ideal, so Nanodevice is keen to develop this into a real-time sensing and monitoring device linked to the internet and databases.

“Today, lack of ‘big’ accurate data makes it hard to know if exposure values are too low,” explains Dr Savolainen, “so our work helps the scientific community build a large database on exposure levels in the working environment.” This means companies, regulators and stakeholders will have access to reliable information from which to base risk-assessment decisions and develop standards for occupational exposure levels for different types of ENMs.

“Thanks to our work, the ‘big picture’ is that people won’t have to be concerned about lack of information on exposure levels. This reduces uncertainty about ENM safety and fosters more innovation in nanosciences in general,” he concludes.

You can find out more about the Nanodevice project here.

Finally, the UK’s Health and Safety Executive released a guidance (I think we’d call them guidelines here in Canada) according to a Mar. 28, 2013 news item on Nanowerk (Note: A link has been removed),

The UK’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has released a new guidance (“Using nanomaterials at work”; pdf)that describes how to control occupational exposure to manufactured nanomaterials in the workplace. It will help you understand what you need to do to comply with the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH) (as amended) when you work with these substances.

There’s more information about the guidance on the Using nanomaterials at work webpage where you can also find the document,

If you work with nanomaterials this guidance will help you protect your employees. If you run a medium-sized or large business, where decisions about controlling hazardous substances are more complex, you may also need professional advice. This guidance will also be useful for trade union and employee health and safety representatives.

This guidance is specifically about the manufacture and manipulation of all manufactured nanomaterials, carbon nanotubes (CNTs) and other bio-persistent high aspect ratio nanomaterials (HARNs). It has been prepared in response to emerging evidence about the toxicity of these materials.

The control principles described can be applied to all nanomaterials used in the workplace. Any differences in the approach between control of CNTs and other bio-persistent HARNs to any other type of nanomaterials are highlighted in the text.

For anyone who wants a direct link to the guidance, go here.

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.

The geography of US nanotechnology institutions and enterprises; nanoparticle hazards

1 Reply

Every state (and the District of Columbia) in the US has been “nanoteched.” The Project on Emerging Nanotechnology (PEN) has just released information that they have listed over 1200 (an increase of 50% since the last data gathering project 2 years ago) universities, government laboratories, and businesses that are involved in nanotechnology research, development, and commercialization. They have also produced an interactive map to display the information. (media release on Azonano and also on Nanowerk News where they include an editorial note that their directory has over 1600 nanotechnology agencies listed)

Sadly, later this week the European Respiratory Journal will be publishing a paper that examines the deaths of two female workers in China who worked with and were exposed to nanoparticles over a period of 13 months. Azonano has posted what I suspect is a media advisory that Dr. Kristen Kulinowski of Rice University and director of the International Council on Nanotechnology (ICON) is available to answer for questions about the paper. Kulinowski and ICON have been instrumental in the development of the GoodNanoGuide (still in beta), a wiki featuring safe handling procedures for nanomaterials. From Azonano,

The paper to be published by the European Respiratory Journal this week examines the case of seven female workers, ages 18-47, who were exposed for up to 13 months to nanoparticles in a polyacrylate material air-sprayed onto polystyrene. All suffered shortness of breath and pleural effusions, an excess of fluid in the pleural cavity that surrounds the lungs, and were admitted to hospitals where examinations revealed nanoparticles in chest fluid and lodged in cells. The women who died were 19 and 29.

According to Kulinowski, a “conventional chemical hygiene plan” could have afforded protection to the workers.

Nanotech BC scoop: part 2 interview with Victor Jones

4 Replies

The next part of the interview focuses on just how many companies in Canada could be defined as selling nanotechnology-based products and Jones’ role with Nanotech BC. He also provides more information about the organization’s projects.

(3) How big is the nanotechnology industry in BC? and in Canada? i.e. how many companies?

BC HAS ABOUT 15 CO; ALBERTA CLAIMS ABOUT 40 CO AND THEN ONTARIO AND QUEBEC HAVE A SIMILAR NUMBER EACH.   BUT BC ALSO HAS A LARGE  ~~ 120 OR SO – RESEARCHERS – RESEARCH EFFORT  COVERING A DIVERSE AREAS OF ADVANCED MATERIALS, COATINGS; LAB ON A CHIP, QUANTUM PHYSICS, DRUG DELIVERY AND NANO BIO WORK  ON-GOING.   MOST OF THIS IS STILL IN LABS AT UBC  – AMPEL;   ALSO SFU – 4D LABS AND  UVIC HAS SOME EXCELLENT WORK TOO.  E.G. ONE BC  COMPANY IS   A LEADER IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A QUANTUM COMPUTER. ONE SPECIALIZES IN COATINGS….ETC.

NANO IS NOT AN INDUSTRY  – IT IS A BROAD ENABLING TECHNOLOGY – A GENERAL PURPOSE TECHNOLOGY ( GPT) AND THEREFORE GETS  EMBEDDED INTO A RANGE OF PRODUCTS AND PROCESSES WHERE MANIPULATION OF MATTER AT THE ATOMIC SCALE ENABLES MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS AND PROCESSES NOT  OTHERWISE ACHIEVABLE.    SO FAR  MOST OF THE MATERIALS  ARE FINDING APPLICATION  IN COATINGS, TEXTILES;  COMPOSITE MATERIALS AND PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS  E.G. SUNCREEN/ HAIR CARE.; ADVANCED ELECTRONICS….   SEE  THE WOODROW WILSON PROJECT ON EMERGING NANOTECHNOLOGIES. (here)  ADOPTION TIMES FOR NEW MATERIALS ARE OFTEN YEARS IN THE MAKING,  BUT SOME 800 PRODUCTS USING NMATERIALS ARE IN THE MARKET NOW.

(3) Can you tell me about your role with Nanotech BC given its current situation? I’ve seen your website and am wondering if you might be able to tell me a little more about what you do professionally.

I AM NO LONGER A BOARD MEMBER  SO I HAVE NO OFFICIAL CAPACITY WITH NANOTECH BC NOR DO I SPEAK FOR THE ORGANIZATION.  OF COURSE I AM SUPPORTIVE OF THE ORGANIZATION BUT NOW REFER ENQUIRIES TO MICHAEL ALLDRITT – DIRECTOR – AT NRC-IRAP WHO HAS BEEN A GREAT SUPPORTER OF THE PROJECT GOING BACK TO 2001.

I CONTINUE TO DO CONSULTING IN THE ARENA OF CANADIAN STANDARDS  WORK ON NANOMATERIALS AND ALSO THE DEVELOPMENT OF WWW.GOODNANOGUIDE.ORG.   THIS  WEBSITE WAS A CONCEPT OF ICON ( RICE U) WHICH WAS ASSISTED THROUGH NANOTECH BC AND OTHER CANADIAN ORGANIZATIONS AS I ARRANGED THE FUNDING FOR THE BETA  STAGE.  IT IS NOW OPEN TO WORLD INVOLVEMENT IN SHARING PROTOCOLS FOR THE SAFE HANDLING OF NANOMATERIALS.   MY ROLE WITH THE ICON COMMITTEE WAS TO ROUND UP THE CANADIAN FUNDING TO REACH THIS STAGE AND AS A MEMBER OF THE IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE WORK THROUGH THE DETAILS OF THE FUNCTIONALITIES. THIS PROJECT CONTINUES AND IS INTERNATIONAL IN SCOPE WITH AN EXCELLENT COMMITTEE. – REPS FROM NIOSH  EPA  ETC…   AS OHS PROCESSES WILL BE KEY TO BOTH RESEARCHER/ INDUSTRIAL SAFETY AND PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE OF NANOMATERIAL ENABLED PRODUCTS   I EXPECT INTEREST IN THE SITE AS A SOURCE FOR OHS INFORMATION FOR PUBLIC AND SPECIALISTS TO GROW. (OHS = Occupational Health and Safety)

If I read Jones’ response correctly, we have almost 100 companies in Canada that are producing nano-enabled products. I’m not sure I worded that sentence  so well but point well taken about the nonexistence of a nanotechnology industry (as I referred to it in my question) per se. One of the difficulties writing about nanotechnology is its rather amorphous quality. I made some comments along with other people on Andrew Maynard’s blog (2020 Science) about these difficulties.

I did not realize that BC hosts a company which is a leader in quantum computers.  That’s pretty exciting stuff as is the work on occupational health and safety. Part 3 of the interview will be posted on Monday, May 18, 2009.