The on-going COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a dramatic increase in the use of N95 respirators, barrier face coverings, disposable gloves, gowns, and other measures to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2. For example, population-based estimates suggest that over seven billion facemasks, which translates to 21,000 tons of synthetic polymer, are used daily in the world in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (Hantoko et al. 2021). After use, these products end up in the synthetic polymer environmental waste stream and contribute to the growing problem of plastic pollution at an estimated rate of about 40% of plastic demand (Lau et al. 2020). Plastic litter in the environment breaks down to plastic fragments, which have been found in air, water, and food (Gigault et al. 2018; Mitrano 2019; Lim et al. 2021). Small particles of plastics are often referred to as microplastics (plastic particles with any dimension between 1 micrometer and 1,000 micrometers [ISO 2020]) and nanoplastics (plastic particles smaller than 1 micrometer [ISO 2020]). Polyethylene and polypropylene are the most commonly found types of plastic in aquatic environments and soil matrices (Yang et al. 2021). Nano- and microplastics (NMP) can be formed incidentally through environmental and mechanical degradation. Incidental NMP can be also generated through condensation of molecular species, for example, during heating or burning of plastics. Different pathways for generation of these particles produces incidental NMP of varying morphology and chemical composition, thus leading to varying biological activity ranging from activation of transient inflammatory response and interference with physiological functions to immunosuppression and carcinogenesis (Huaux 2018; Prata 2018). Manufactured NMP can be made intentionally for use in industrial processes, for example, as feedstock for powder-bed and multi-jet fusion 3D printers.

Additive manufacturing (AM), often called 3-D printing, is becoming a prominent part of modern industry due to its usefulness in accelerating product development and prototyping, as well as producing complex and precision parts.[1] AM is a collection of processes for creating products by selectively joining small amounts of material based on a computer-aided design file.[2,3] This approach yields several advantages to industry: shortened production cycles, reduced tooling costs, reduced waste material, easier product customization, novel design options, and new possibilities in distribution and fulfilment.[3–7] AM has already impacted automotive, aerospace, medical device, and electronics manufacturing;[1,4] is expected to grow in biomedical applications;[8,9] and has found its way into construction,[10] offices, schools, and libraries.[11,12]

Emerging and novel technologies, materials, and information integrated into increasingly automated and networked manufacturing processes or into traditional manufacturing settings are enhancing the efficiency and productivity of manufacturing. Globally, there is a move toward a new era in manufacturing that is characterized by: (1) the ability to create and deliver more complex designs of products; (2) the creation and use of materials with new properties that meet a design need; (3) the employment of new technologies, such as additive and digital techniques that improve on conventional manufacturing processes; and (4) a compression of the time from initial design concept to the creation of a final product. Globally, this movement has many names, but "advanced manufacturing" has become the shorthand for this complex integration of material and technology elements that enable new ways to manufacture existing products, as well as new products emerging from new technologies and new design methods. As the breadth of activities associated with advanced manufacturing suggests, there is no single advanced manufacturing industry. Instead, aspects of advanced manufacturing can be identified across a diverse set of business sectors that use manufacturing technologies, ranging from the semiconductors and electronics to the automotive and pharmaceutical industries. The breadth and diversity of advanced manufacturing may change the occupational and environmental risk profile, challenge the basic elements of comprehensive health and safety (material, process, worker, environment, product, and general public health and safety), and provide an opportunity for development and dissemination of occupational and environmental health and safety (OEHS) guidance and best practices. It is unknown how much the risk profile of different elements of OEHS will change, thus requiring an evolution of health and safety practices. These changes may be accomplished most effectively through multi-disciplinary, multi-sector, public-private dialogue that identifies issues and offers solutions.

Pulmonary toxicity studies on carbon nanotubes focus primarily on as-produced materials and rarely are guided by a life cycle perspective or integration with exposure assessment. Understanding toxicity beyond the as-produced, or pure native material, is critical, due to modifications needed to overcome barriers to commercialization of applications. In the first series of studies, the toxicity of as-produced carbon nanotubes and their polymer-coated counterparts was evaluated in reference to exposure assessment, material characterization, and stability of the polymer coating in biological fluids. The second series of studies examined the toxicity of aerosols generated from sanding polymer-coated carbon-nanotube-embedded or neat composites. Postproduction modification by polymer coating did not enhance pulmonary injury, inflammation, and pathology or in vitro genotoxicity of as-produced carbon nanotubes, and for a particular coating, toxicity was significantly attenuated. The aerosols generated from sanding composites embedded with polymer-coated carbon nanotubes contained no evidence of free nanotubes. The percent weight incorporation of polymer-coated carbon nanotubes, 0.15% or 3% by mass, and composite matrix utilized altered the particle size distribution and, in certain circumstances, influenced acute in vivo toxicity. Our study provides perspective that, while the number of workers and consumers increases along the life cycle, toxicity and/or potential for exposure to the as-produced material may greatly diminish.

In January 2007, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) conducted a field study to evaluate process specific emissions during the production of ENMs. This study was performed using the nanoparticle emission assessment technique (NEAT). During this study, it was determined that ENMs were released during production and cleaning of the process reactor. Airborne concentrations of silver, nickel, and iron were found both in the employee's personal breathing zone and area samples during reactor cleaning. At the completion of this initial survey, it was suggested that a flanged attachment be added to the local exhaust ventilation system. NIOSH re-evaluated the facility in December 2011 to assess worker exposures following an increase in production rates. This study included a fully comprehensive emissions, exposure, and engineering control evaluation of the entire process. This study made use of the nanoparticle exposure assessment technique (NEAT 2.0). Data obtained from filter-based samples and direct reading instruments indicate that reactor cleanout increased the overall particle concentration in the immediate area. However, it does not appear that these concentrations affect areas outside of the production floor. As the distance between the reactor and the sample location increased, the observed particle number concentration decreased, creating a concentration gradient with respect to the reactor. The results of this study confirm that the flanged attachment on the local exhaust ventilation system served to decrease exposure potential. Given the available toxicological data of the metals evaluated, caution is warranted. One should always keep in mind that occupational exposure levels were not developed specifically for nanoscale particles. With data suggesting that certain nanoparticles may be more toxic than the larger counterparts of the same material; employers should attempt to control emissions of these particles at the source, to limit the potential for exposure.

Engineered nanomaterials significantly entered commerce at the beginning of the 21st century. Concerns about serious potential health effects of nanomaterials were widespread. Now, approximately 15 years later, it is worthwhile to take stock of research and efforts to protect nanomaterial workers from potential risks of adverse health effects. This article provides and examines timelines for major functional areas (toxicology, metrology, exposure assessment, engineering controls and personal protective equipment, risk assessment, risk management, medical surveillance, and epidemiology) to identify significant contributions to worker safety and health. The occupational safety and health field has responded effectively to identify gaps in knowledge and practice, but further research is warranted and is described. There is now a greater, if imperfect, understanding of the mechanisms underlying nanoparticle toxicology, hazards to workers, and appropriate controls for nanomaterials, but unified analytical standards and exposure characterization methods are still lacking. The development of control-banding and similar strategies has compensated for incomplete data on exposure and risk, but it is unknown how widely such approaches are being adopted. Although the importance of epidemiologic studies and medical surveillance is recognized, implementation has been slowed by logistical issues. Responsible development of nanotechnology requires protection of workers at all stages of the technological life cycle. In each of the functional areas assessed, progress has been made, but more is required.

The ubiquitous use of engineered nanomaterials - particulate materials measuring approximately 1-100 nanometers (nm) on their smallest axis, intentionally engineered to express novel properties - in semiconductor fabrication poses unique issues for protecting worker health and safety. Use of new substances or substances in a new form may present hazards that have yet to be characterized for their acute or chronic health effects. Uncharacterized or emerging occupational health hazards may exist when there is insufficient validated hazard data available to make a decision on potential hazard and risk to exposed workers under condition of use. To advance the knowledge of potential worker exposure to engineered nanomaterials, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Nanotechnology Field Studies Team conducted an on-site field evaluation in collaboration with on-site researchers at a semiconductor research and development facility on April 18-21, 2011. The Nanomaterial Exposure Assessment Technique (2.0) was used to perform a complete exposure assessment. A combination of filter-based sampling and direct-reading instruments was used to identify, characterize, and quantify the potential for worker inhalation exposure to airborne alumina and amorphous silica nanoparticles associated with the chemical mechanical planarization wafer polishing process. Engineering controls and work practices were evaluated to characterize tasks that might contribute to potential exposures and to assess existing engineering controls. Metal oxide structures were identified in all sampling areas, as individual nanoparticles and agglomerates ranging in size from 60nm to >1,000nm, with varying structure morphology, from long and narrow to compact. Filter-based samples indicated very little aerosolized material in task areas or worker breathing zone. Direct-reading instrument data indicated increased particle counts relative to background in the wastewater treatment area; however, particle counts were very low overall, indicating a well-controlled working environment. Recommendations for employees handling or potentially exposed to engineered nanomaterials include hazard communication, standard operating procedures, conservative ventilation systems, and prevention through design in locations where engineered nanomaterials are used or stored, and routine air sampling for occupational exposure assessment and analysis.

What should industrial hygienists do when the legislative and regulatory process can't keep pace with technology? Our profession is charged with protecting workers and public health. The industrial hygienists' Code of Ethics provides guidance that must be supplemented by new knowledge. If we act only when regulations are issued, we would be doing very little to promote safe and responsible development of the technology. This is especially true for an evolving and rapidly expanding field like nanotechnology. This article reviews current standards of behavior, guidance, regulations, and law related to nanomaterials.

Engineered nanomaterial emission and exposure characterization studies have been completed at more than 60 different facilities by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). These experiences have provided NIOSH the opportunity to refine an earlier published technique, the Nanoparticle Emission Assessment Technique (NEAT 1.0), into a more comprehensive technique for assessing worker and workplace exposures to engineered nanomaterials. This change is reflected in the new name Nanomaterial Exposure Assessment Technique (NEAT 2.0) which distinguishes it from NEAT 1.0. NEAT 2.0 places a stronger emphasis on time-integrated, filter-based sampling (i.e., elemental mass analysis and particle morphology) in the worker's breathing zone (full shift and task specific) and area samples to develop job exposure matrices. NEAT 2.0 includes a comprehensive assessment of emissions at processes and job tasks, using direct-reading instruments (i.e., particle counters) in data-logging mode to better understand peak emission periods. Evaluation of worker practices, ventilation efficacy, and other engineering exposure control systems and risk management strategies serve to allow for a comprehensive exposure assessment.

Exposure to engineered nanomaterials (substances with at least one dimension of 1-100 nm) has been of increased interest, with the recent growth in production and use of nanomaterials worldwide. Various organizations have recommended methods to minimize exposure to engineered nanomaterials. The purpose of this study was to evaluate available data to examine the extent to which studied U.S. companies (which represent a small fraction of all companies using certain forms of engineered nanomaterials) follow the guidelines for reducing occupational exposures to engineered nanomaterials that have been issued by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and other organizations. Survey data, field reports, and field notes for all NIOSH nanomaterial exposure assessments conducted between 2006 and 2011 were collected and reviewed to: (1) determine the level of adoption of precautionary guidance on engineering controls and personal protective equipment, and (2) evaluate the reliability of companies' self-reported use of engineering controls and personal protective equipment. Use of personal protective equipment was observed among 89% [95% confidence interval (CI): 76%-96%] of 46 visited companies, and use of containment-based engineering controls for at least some processes was observed among 83% (95% CI: 76%-96%). In on-site evaluations, more than 90% of the 16 engineered carbonaceous nanomaterial companies that responded to an industrywide survey were observed to be using engineering controls and personal protective equipment as reported or more stringently than reported. Since personal protective equipment use was slightly more prevalent than engineering controls, better communication may be necessary to reinforce the importance of the hierarchy of controls. These findings may also be useful in conducting exposure assessment and epidemiologic research among U.S. workers handling nanomaterials.

The use of cellulose as building blocks for the development of novel functional materials is rapidly growing. Cellulose nanocrystals (CNC), with advantageous chemical and mechanical properties, have gained prominence in a number of applications, such as in nanofillers in polymer composites, building materials, cosmetics, food, and the drug industry. Therefore, it becomes critical to evaluate the potential health effects associated with CNC exposures. The objective of this study was to compare pulmonary outcomes caused by exposure of C57BL/6 mice to two different processed forms of CNC derived from wood, i.e., CNCS (10 wt %; gel/suspension) and CNCP (powder), and compare to asbestos induced responses. Pharyngeal aspiration with CNCS and CNCP was found to facilitate innate inflammatory response assessed by an increase in leukocytes and eosinophils recovered by bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL). Biomarkers of tissue damage were elevated to a higher extent in mice exposed to CNCP. Compared to CNCP, CNCS caused a significant increase in the accumulation of oxidatively modified proteins. The up-regulation of inflammatory cytokines was higher in the lungs after CNCS treatments. Most importantly, CNCP materials were significantly longer than CNCS. Taken together, our data suggests that particle morphology and nanosize dimensions of CNCs, regardless of the same source, may be critical factors affecting the type of innate immune inflammatory responses. Because various processes have been developed for producing highly sophisticated nanocellulose materials, detailed assessment of specific health outcomes with respect to their physical-structural-chemical properties is highly warranted.

Organizations around the world have called for the responsible development of nanotechnology. The goals of this approach are to emphasize the importance of considering and controlling the potential adverse impacts of nanotechnology in order to develop its capabilities and benefits. A primary area of concern is the potential adverse impact on workers, since they are the first people in society who are exposed to the potential hazards of nanotechnology. Occupational safety and health criteria for defining what constitutes responsible development of nanotechnology are needed. This article presents five criterion actions that should be practiced by decision-makers at the business and societal levels-if nanotechnology is to be developed responsibly. These include (1) anticipate, identify, and track potentially hazardous nanomaterials in the workplace; (2) assess workers' exposures to nanomaterials; (3) assess and communicate hazards and risks to workers; (4) manage occupational safety and health risks; and (5) foster the safe development of nanotechnology and realization of its societal and commercial benefits. All these criteria are necessary for responsible development to occur. Since it is early in the commercialization of nanotechnology, there are still many unknowns and concerns about nanomaterials. Therefore, it is prudent to treat them as potentially hazardous until sufficient toxicology, and exposure data are gathered for nanomaterial-specific hazard and risk assessments. In this emergent period, it is necessary to be clear about the extent of uncertainty and the need for prudent actions.

Occupational exposure to engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) is considered a new and challenging occurrence. Preliminary information from laboratory studies indicates that workers exposed to some kinds of ENMs could be at risk of adverse health effects. To protect the nanomaterial workforce, a precautionary risk management approach is warranted and given the newness of ENMs and emergence of nanotechnology, a naturalistic view of risk management is useful. Employers have the primary responsibility for providing a safe and healthy workplace. This is achieved by identifying and managing risks which include recognition of hazards, assessing exposures, characterizing actual risk, and implementing measures to control those risks. Following traditional risk management models for nanomaterials is challenging because of uncertainties about the nature of hazards, issues in exposure assessment, questions about appropriate control methods, and lack of occupational exposure limits (OELs) or nano-specific regulations. In the absence of OELs specific for nanomaterials, a precautionary approach has been recommended in many countries. The precautionary approach entails minimizing exposures by using engineering controls and personal protective equipment (PPE). Generally, risk management utilizes the hierarchy of controls. Ideally, risk management for nanomaterials should be part of an enterprise-wide risk management program or system and this should include both risk control and a medical surveillance program that assesses the frequency of adverse effects among groups of workers exposed to nanomaterials. In some cases, the medical surveillance could include medical screening of individual workers to detect early signs of work-related illnesses. All medical surveillance should be used to assess the effectiveness of risk management; however, medical surveillance should be considered as a second line of defense to ensure that implemented risk management practices are effective.

With increasing numbers and quantities of chemicals in commerce and use, scientific attention continues to focus on the environmental and public health consequences of chemical production processes and exposures. Concerns about environmental stewardship have been gaining broader traction through emphases on sustainability and "green chemistry" principles. Occupational safety and health has not been fully promoted as a component of environmental sustainability. However, there is a natural convergence of green chemistry/sustainability and occupational safety and health efforts. Addressing both together can have a synergistic effect. Failure to promote this convergence could lead to increasing worker hazards and lack of support for sustainability efforts. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has made a concerted effort involving multiple stakeholders to anticipate and identify potential hazards associated with sustainable practices and green jobs for workers. Examples of potential hazards are presented in case studies with suggested solutions such as implementing the hierarchy of controls and prevention through design principles in green chemistry and green building practices. Practical considerations and strategies for green chemistry, and environmental stewardship could benefit from the incorporation of occupational safety and health concepts which in turn protect affected workers.

Given the almost limitless variety of nanomaterials, it will be virtually impossible to assess the possible occupational health hazard of each nanomaterial individually. The development of science-based hazard and risk categories for nanomaterials is needed for decision-making about exposure control practices in the workplace. A possible strategy would be to select representative (benchmark) materials from various mode of action (MOA) classes, evaluate the hazard and develop risk estimates, and then apply a systematic comparison of new nanomaterials with the benchmark materials in the same MOA class. Poorly soluble particles are used here as an example to illustrate quantitative risk assessment methods for possible benchmark particles and occupational exposure control groups, given mode of action and relative toxicity. Linking such benchmark particles to specific exposure control bands would facilitate the translation of health hazard and quantitative risk information to the development of effective exposure control practices in the workplace. A key challenge is obtaining sufficient dose-response data, based on standard testing, to systematically evaluate the nanomaterials' physical-chemical factors influencing their biological activity. Categorization processes involve both science-based analyses and default assumptions in the absence of substance-specific information. Utilizing data and information from related materials may facilitate initial determinations of exposure control systems for nanomaterials. (2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. (outside the USA).)

In the last decade since the rise in occupational safety and health (OSH) research focusing on nanomaterials, some progress has been made in generating the health effects and exposure data needed to perform risk assessment and develop risk management guidance. Yet, substantial research gaps remain, as do challenges in the translation of these research findings to OSH guidance and workplace practice. Risk assessment is a process that integrates the hazard, exposure, and dose-response data to characterize risk in a population (e.g. workers), in order to provide health information needed for risk management decision-making. Thus, the research priorities for risk assessment are those studies that will reduce the uncertainty in the key factors that influence the estimates. Current knowledge of OSH in nanotechnology includes the following: (i) nanomaterials can be measured using standard measurement methods (respirable mass or number concentration), (ii) workplace exposures to nanomaterials can be reduced using engineering controls and personal protective equipment, and (iii) current toxicity testing and risk assessment methods are applicable to nanomaterials. Yet, to ensure protection of workers' health, research is still needed to develop (i) sensitive and quantitative measures of workers' exposure to nanomaterials, (ii) validation methods for exposure controls, and (iii) standardized criteria to categorize hazard data, including better prediction of chronic effects. This article provides a state-of-the-art overview on translating current hazard research data and risk assessment methods for nanomaterials to the development and implementation of effective risk management guidance.

There is still uncertainty about the potential health hazards of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) particularly involving carcinogenicity. However, the evidence is growing that some types of CNTs and nanofibers may have carcinogenic properties. The critical question is that while the carcinogenic potential of CNTs is being further investigated, what steps should be taken to protect workers who face exposure to CNTs, current and future, if CNTs are ultimately found to be carcinogenic? This paper addresses five areas to help focus action to protect workers: (i) review of the current evidence on the carcinogenic potential of CNTs; (ii) role of physical and chemical properties related to cancer development; (iii) CNT doses associated with genotoxicity in vitro and in vivo; (iv) workplace exposures to CNT; and (v) specific risk management actions needed to protect workers. (Am. J. Ind. Med. Published 2012. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

This article describes a highly tailorable exposure assessment strategy for nanomaterials that enables effective and efficient exposure management (i.e., a strategy that can identify jobs or tasks that have clearly unacceptable exposures), while simultaneously requiring only a modest level of resources to conduct. The strategy is based on strategy general framework from AIHA(R) that is adapted for nanomaterials and seeks to ensure that the risks to workers handling nanomaterials are being managed properly. The strategy relies on a general framework as the basic foundation while building and elaborating on elements essential to an effective and efficient strategy to arrive at decisions based on collecting and interpreting available information. This article provides useful guidance on conducting workplace characterization; understanding exposure potential to nanomaterials; accounting methods for background aerosols; constructing SEGs; and selecting appropriate instrumentation for monitoring, providing appropriate choice of exposure limits, and describing criteria by which exposure management decisions should be made. The article is intended to be a practical guide for industrial hygienists for managing engineered nanomaterial risks in their workplaces.

Nanotechnology exploits the fact that nanoparticles exhibit unique physicochemical properties, which are distinct from fine-sized particles of the same composition. It follows that nanoparticles may also express distinct bioactivity and unique interactions with biological systems. Therefore, it is essential to assess the potential health risks of exposure to nanoparticles to allow development and implementation of prevention measures. Risk assessment requires data concerning hazard and exposure. Several challenges face the field of nanotoxicology in obtaining the necessary data for assessment of the bioactivity of nanoparticles. They include: (1) the vast number of nanoparticle types to be evaluated, (2) the need to use nanoparticle doses and structure sizes in cellular and animal test systems which are relevant to anticipated workplace exposures, and (3) artifactual in vitro results due to absorption of nutrients or assay indicator compounds from the culture media. This 'opinion' reviews the progress made in the field of nanotoxicology in recent years to overcome these challenges. Copyright (c) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.