Tag Archives: Treye Thomas

UK and US issue documents nanomaterial safety to support safe work with nanomaterials

Leave a reply

I am featuring two bits of information about nanosafety first from the UK and then from the US.

UK and nanosafety

A May 30, 2016 news item on Nanowerk announces a not particularly exciting but necessary report on handling nanomaterials safely (Note: A link has been removed),

The UK Nanosafety Group (UKNSG) has updated and published a 2nd edition of guidance (pdf) to support safe and responsible working practices with nanomaterials in research and development laboratories.

A May 25, 2016 UK Nanosafety Group press release, which originated the news item, provides more detail,

The document aims to provide guidance on factors relating to establishing a safe workplace and good safety practice when working with particulate nanomaterials. It is applicable to a wide range of nanomaterials, including particles, fibres, powders, tubes and wires as well as aggregates and agglomerates, and recognises previous and current uncertainty in developing effective risk management when dealing with nanomaterials and advocates a precautionary strategy to minimise potential exposure.

The 2nd edition of the guidance provides updates to account for changes in legislation, recent studies in the literature, and best practice since 2012. In particular, specific sections have been revised to account for the full implementation of Global Harmonised System (GHS) which came into force on 1 June 2015 through the CLP [Classification, Labelling and Packaging] regulations. The document explains the approaches that are presently being used to select effective control measures for the management of nanomaterials, more specifically control banding tools presently in use. Significant changes can be found in the following sections: ‘Hazard Banding’, ‘Exposure Control’, ‘Toxicology’, and ‘Monitoring’.

Of relevance to employers, managers, health and safety advisors, and users of particulate nanomaterials in research and development, the guidance should be read in conjunction with the Approved Code of Practice on COSHH [Control of Substances Hazardous to Health], together with the other literature referred to in the document. The document has been produced taking account of the safety information currently available and is presented in the format of guidance and recommendations to support implementation of suitable protocols and control measures by employers and employees. It is intended that the document will be reviewed and updated on a periodic basis to keep abreast of the evolving nature of the content.

The guidance titled “Working Safely with Nanomaterials in Research & Development” is about 48 pp. and can be found here.

Tidbit about US nano environmental, health, and safety

Sylvia Palmer has written a May 27, 2016 update for ChemicalWatch on reports about or including information about environmental, health, and safety measures being taken in the US,

Three reports released recently by the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) highlight the US government’ investments and initiatives in nanotechnology. They also detail current progress and the need for further understanding of exposure to nanomaterials in consumer products –and how companies can protect their nanotechnology workforce.

NNI’s Quantifying exposure to engineered nanomaterials (QEEN) from manufactured products: addressing environmental, health, and safety implications notes significant progress has been made in the ability to quantify nanomaterial exposures. However, it says greater understanding of exposure risks in “real-world” scenarios is needed. Alternative testing models and high-throughput methods for rapidly estimating exposures will be further explored, it adds.

…

You can find the report, Quantifying exposure to engineered nanomaterials (QEEN) from manufactured products: addressing environmental, health, and safety implications, here. Palmer’s article briefly describes the other two reports which contain information about US nano environmental, health, and safety efforts.

There is more about the three reports in an April 11, 2016 posting by Lloyd Whitman (Assistant Director for Nanotechnology and Advanced Materials, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy) and Treye Thomas (leader of the Chemical Hazards Program team in the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, and Coordinator for Environmental, Health, and Safety Research under the National Nanotechnology Initiative) on the White House blog,

The recently released NNI Supplement to the President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2017, which serves as the annual report for the NNI, highlights the programs and coordinated activities taking place across the many departments, independent agencies, and commissions participating today in the NNI—an initiative that continues to serve as a model for effective coordination of Federal science and technology R&D. As detailed in this report, nanoEHS activities continue to account for about 10 percent of the annual NNI budget, with cumulative Federal R&D investments in this area exceeding $1 billion over the past decade. This report includes descriptions of a wide variety of individual agency and coordinated activities supporting the responsible development of nanotechnology.

To understand and control the risks of using any new materials in consumer products, it is important to understand the potential for exposure and any associated hazards across product life cycles. Last month, the NNI released a report, Quantifying Exposure to Engineered Nanomaterials (QEEN) from Manufactured Products: Addressing Environmental, Health, and Safety Implications, summarizing a workshop on this topic sponsored by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The main goals of the workshop were to assess progress in developing tools and methods for quantifying exposure to engineered nanomaterials across the product life cycle, and to identify new research needed to advance exposure assessment for nanotechnology-enabled products. …

The technical experts who participated in CPSC’s workshop recommended that future work focus on the complex issue of determining biomarkers of exposure linked to disease, which will require substantive public–private collaboration, partnership, and knowledge sharing. Recognizing these needs, the President’s 2017 Budget request for CPSC includes funds for a new nanotechnology center led by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) to develop test methods and to quantify and characterize the presence, release, and mechanisms of consumer exposure to nanomaterials in consumer products. This cost-effective, interagency collaboration will enable CPSC—through NIEHS—to collect the needed data to inform the safety of nanotechnology in consumer products and allow CPSC to benefit from NIEHS’s scientific network and experience.

Managing EHS risks across a product’s lifecycle includes protecting the workers who manufacture those products. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has issued a series of documents providing guidance to this emerging industry, including the recently released publication Building a Safety Program to Protect the Nanotechnology Workforce: A Guide for Small to Medium-Sized Enterprises. This guide provides business owners with the tools necessary to develop and implement a written health and safety program to protect their employees.

Whitman also mentions a June 2016 international conference in the context of this news,

The responsible development of nanotechnology is a goal that the United States shares with many countries. The United States and the European Union are engaged in notable cooperation on this front. European and American scientists engaged in nanoEHS research convene annually for a joint workshop to identify areas of shared interest and mechanisms for collaboration to advance nanoEHS science. The 2016 joint workshop will be held on June 6–7, 2016 in Arlington, VA, and is free and open to the public. …

US National Nanotechnology Initiative holding EHS webinar

1 Reply

There’s an Oct. 15, 2011 news item on Nanowerk announcing the US National Nanotechnology Initiative’s Environmental, Health, and Safety webinar on research strategies.

Federal Agencies participating in the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) are hosting a webinar to announce the release of the 2011 NNI Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Research Strategy and to the discuss the development of this document and its key focus areas. The webinar will be held October 20, 2011 from 12 noon until 12:45p.m [EDT].

…

The event will consist of an overview of the strategy’s development followed by comments from industrial, regulatory, and public health perspectives. Dr. John Howard, Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Working Group Co-Chair, will serve as the moderator. Panelists include:

  • Dr. Treye Thomas, NEHI Working Group Co-Chair
  • Dr. Shaun Clancy, Evonik DeGussa Corporation
  • Dr. Janet Carter, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
  • Ms. Lynn Bergeson, Bergeson & Campbell

The webinar will also feature a 20-minute question-and-answer segment following the presentations. Questions may be submitted prior to the webinar to webinar@nnco.nano.gov beginning at noon (EDT) Wednesday, October 19, 2011 and will be accepted until the close of the webinar at 12:45 p.m. Thursday, October 20, 2011. [???]

I’m pretty sure that last bit is an error. I can’t imagine a webinar that lasts for 25 hours, at least not on this topic.

As registration is necessary to watch the webinar, I tried to do so and failed each time. I think the problem is that I don’t have a zip code. Usually I can fill in a Canadian postal code instead but this system rejected every attempt. If you do have a US zip code, you can register here.

In preparation for this webinar about EHS research strategies to be undertaken by US federal agencies, Dr. Andrew Maynard has summarized some of the public comments about the  key recommendations in the draft version, which was published in December 2010. Excerpted from Andrew’s Oct. 15, 2011 posting,

Bill Kojola

An integrated and linked research effort to assess, via epidemiological studies, the impact of exposure to engineered nanomaterials on human health and any necessary resultant risk assessment/management responses seems to be missing from the strategy.

Andrew Maynard

…what would it take to craft a federal strategy that enabled agencies to work together more effectively in ensuring the safe use of nanomaterials?  I’m not sure that this is entirely possible – an internal strategy will always be constrained by the system in ways that an externally-crafted strategy isn’t.  But I do think that there are three areas in particular that could be built on here:

  1. Principles. The idea of establishing principles to which agencies sign up to is a powerful one, and could be extended further.  For instance, they could include a commitment to working closely and cooperatively with other agencies, to working toward a common set of aims, and to critically reviewing progress towards these aims on a regular basis.
  2. Accountability. The implementation and coordination framework set out in chapter 8 of the draft strategy contains a number of items that, with a bit of work, some group within the federal government could be held accountable to.  Formally, the NNCO would seem to be the most appropriate organization to be held responsible for progress here.  With accountability for actions that support the implementation and coordination of the strategy, a basis could be built for an actionable strategy, rather than wishful thinking.
  3. Innovation. So often in documents like this, there is a sense of defeatism – “this is the system, and there’s nothing we can do to change it”.  Yet there are always innovative ways to circumvent institutional barriers in order to achieve specific ends.  I would strongly encourage the NEHI to start from the question “where to we want to go, and how are we going to get there”, rather than “what are we allowed to do”, and from this starting point explore innovative ways of making substantive and measurable progress towards the stated mission of the strategy.  Just one possibility here is to use the model of the Signature Initiatives being developed elsewhere within the NNI – which overcome institutional barriers to encourage agencies to focus on a common challenge.  Something similar to a Signature Initiative focused on predictive modeling, or personal exposure measurement, or nanomaterial characterization, could enable highly coordinated and integrated cross-agency programs that accelerate progress toward specific goals.  But this is just one possibility – there are surely many more ways of getting round the system!

John DiLoreto, The Nanotechnology Coalition

A core mission of the NNI is to foster “technological advancements that benefit society” (Draft NNI 2011 Environmental, Health, and Safety Strategy, page 1). The NNI strategy provides valuable help in identifying key research areas and, in some cases, providing the necessary funding to conduct the research itself. The Coalition believes that to fulfill its mission in this regard, the NNI could and should direct its considerable influence and resources to educating regulatory and other officials in positions of influence about nanotechnology so they can better fulfill their responsibilities to protect the safety of consumers. The EHS research strategy should also examine ways that science-based safety information can be shared with regulatory officials and others in leadership positions and provide scientific resources to assist these officials in understanding what a ‘nanomaterial’ is and help create a better understanding of properties that may impact safety.

David Berube

Section 6, p. 56, line 23/25/26/30 – 23 conflates translation with risk communication (they are different). 25 “approaches” is unclear and should reference levels of acceptable caution. 26 high uncertainty may demand whole new algorithms – your assumption whether risk communication and risk management can be integrated is incorrect. 30 is a good point to discuss the conflation of translation which occurs between parties within similar ranges of understanding and public perception (NGOs) as well as perception of public perception (legislators). Each of these subset publics have different needs and interests and standardization of terminology is hardly sufficient to the task at hand.

p. 57 line 4 – see above and consider we might need to develop algorithms appropriate to different levels of certainty. The assumption the answer to uncertainty is more certainty is not necessarily valid for all publics. The simplified version in the document seems more attuned to strategic communication involving response strategies for different risks and certainty values involving variables like plausibility, phenomenon specificity, exigence, salience, etc.

p. 63 lines 34/37 34 (see above). 37 one model does not fit all. 38 link to trust is very complex and complicated by new/digital media sources as well as new credibility (social media) and reliability.

p. 58 lines 1/5/11/27 (see above) and this demands information sharing and transparency as well as answering how data is defined, who decides what is relevant data, how it is generated, how data is compiled and concatenated. how data is vetted and debunked, and how data is revised. 5 two ways is overly simplistic, try interactional. 11 this is a model issue and we do not have a model for high uncertainty. 27 assumes risk communication is a function of data, esp. scientific data and for many publics that is not true.

p. 76 – Explanation SP objective 4.2 re: needs of the stakeholders – it might be prudent to ask them what their needs are.

Samantha Dozier, PETA

A complete, step-wise method for rigorous characterization is imperative so that measurement is not questioned and studies are not repeated. A clear requirement for nanomaterial characterization will help eliminate redundancy and imprecise data-gathering and will aid in reducing animal use for the field.

For human health effects assessment, the NNI should promote the development of a tiered, weight-of-evidence approach that is based on the most relevant methods available and encourages the NNI to support the incorporation of appropriate in vitro human-relevant cell and tissue assays for all endpoints, instead of relying on inadequately modified, non-validated animal assays. This tiered approach should start with an initial characterization of the nanomaterial, followed by in vitro basal cell and portal-of-entry toxicity assessments according to human exposure potential and a full characterization of the toxicokinetic potential.

There’s a lot more in Andrew’s posting. It saddens me even more now that I see Andrew’s posting that Health Canada did not make the submissions to its public consultation on “Policy Statement on Health Canada’s Working Definition for Nanomaterials” available for viewing (my Oct. 11, 2011 posting).