Tag Archives: The use of Nanomaterials in UK Universities: an overview of occupational health and safety (Health and Safety Executive)

Report on safe use of nanomaterials in UK university laboratories

Thanks to the July 1, 2013 notice on the International Council for Nanotechnology (ICON) website, I found this report, which concerns occupational health and safety practices of university researchers handling nanomaterials,

The use of Nanomaterials in UK Universities: an overview of occupational health and safety (Health and Safety Executive)

….

HSE wishes to increase its knowledge and understanding of the occupational use and manufacture of engineered nanoparticles in the UK. As part of this work, HSE has worked with The UK NanoSafety Group to gain an overview of the work with nanomaterials in a small number of UK universities.

The report is available for viewing here. I did take a look at it (all 48 pp.) and found that it was published in January 2013 and the authors are James Wheeler, Health and Safety Inspector, (Occupational
Hygiene) and Susan Polak, (COSHH and Chemical Carcinogens Unit) . From the report’s executive summary,

Overall, the feedback forms and the visits together have provided a good
insight into how nanomaterials are being used by some UK universities.

Research groups/university departments are on the whole more than adequately controlling exposure to nanomaterials in laboratories. They are generally following the COSHH [Control of substances hazardous to health] hierarchy of control and using management and engineering controls to control exposure, rather than relying on PPE and respiratory protective equipment (RPE).

The move in universities is towards dedicated nanotechnology centres. These centres act as a hub and set the health and safety standard for nanomaterial use within that university. When collaborating with other universities, the researchers from other universities have to follow the same standards otherwise they cannot have access to the centre. Poor standards of health and safety are considered unacceptable by the nanotechnology centres.

In all the universities visited there were usually one or two research groups that achieved a higher than average standard in health and safety and these groups were being used by the university safety officers as exemplars to other groups as to what could be achieved and encouraging them to achieve the same standards. As nanotechnology is a multi-disciplinary subject and collaborations are taking place between research groups/departments and between universities, this is seen as an aid to drive up the standards overall.

However, it was found that some research groups were not achieving adequate standards on some aspects of health and safety. In some cases no general risk or COSHH risk assessments had been carried out, information and training given was poor and the use of engineering controls was inadequate. (p. 4 PDF, p. iv print version)

Forms were sent to 115 UK universities. In the end, 76 forms from 19 universities were received back. In addition, visits were made to nine universities, two of which had not completed the forms. Researchers interviewed various parties at the nine universities, reviewed records, and checked the laboratories and the equipment in them.

Aside from the usual reasons for not filling forms, researchers found this,

Some universities found the feedback form difficult to complete. The concept of nanomaterials as a single entity created difficulties. At the time the feedback forms were distributed, there was no legal regulatory definition of a nanomaterial and there were roughly four classes of nanomaterials (colloid, quantum dots, wires or fibre) which did not behave the same in a biological context. The structure of the form did not take into account the possibility that a department might be working with more than one class of nanomaterial and did not allow for these to be dealt with separately.
Universities found it difficult to respond appropriately to Section 17 of the feedback form (i.e. number of days using nanomaterials). It is now apparent that the nature of research is such that work takes place as and when necessary, and researchers do not measure their activities in days per week, months or years.
The responses to Section 19, on the estimation of the hazards of nanomaterials, were widely inconsistent. The question set had focused exclusively on fibres and dusts, with the
implication that all nanomaterials were small particles, loosely described as dusts and fibres. However a major area of research reported was on nanomaterials in colloids or liquids. Colloids exist only in “solution” where particles are held apart by electrostatic forces. They are either purchased or made in-situ and the particles are rarely isolated. Perturbation of the supporting electrolyte (reducing the volume or the addition of salts etc.) leads to aggregation and the material is no longer ‘nano’. Hence questions 8 and 18, ‘Material form of the nanomaterial’, and ‘Disposal of nanomaterials’, respectively, became slightly contradictory.
As with some of the other Sections, the options for answering Section 20 on control measures were either ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘don’t know’. However, containment was not always appropriate or required fo r the materials in use. Facilities might exist but the action identified might not be relevant to the specific case, so a greater use of open questions allowing the respondent to elaborate may have been more helpful. The feedback forms were filled in by a variety of people from, e.g. heads of department, lecturers, and researchers, and not necessarily the health and safety officer, so there may have been a lack of understanding of some of the health and safety terminology used. The feedback form was designed to be generic and some of the terminology was perhaps more appropriate for industry than universities. (p. 8 PDF, p. 4 print version)

This last bit I’m going to excerpt from the report features researchers’ perception of the occupational health and safety risks they face when handling nanomaterials,

The general perception of those working with nanomaterials as to whether there is a health risk is split with 36% considering that nanomaterials did present a risk and 37% that they did not. There is a perception that nanomaterials have not been tested extensively and, therefore a health risk may be present, particularly as all chemical materials represent some degree of hazard.
In most cases research groups considered that nanomaterials should be treated with caution as there was a lot of uncertainty about whether they were hazardous. However, if the work was al so carried out in fume cupboards with generally small amounts, or if nanomaterial was in a liquid or bound to a
substrate then the risk of exposure was considered to be minimal. (p. 36 PDF, p. 32 print version)
This is the first time I’ve seen an occupational health and safety report take into account the researchers’ health and their perceptions of their own risk when handling nanomaterials.