Workers, particularly outdoor workers, are among the populations most disproportionately affected by climate-related hazards. However, scientific research and control actions to comprehensively address these hazards are notably absent. To assess this absence, a seven-category framework was developed in 2009 to characterize the scientific literature published from 1988 through 2008. Using this framework, a second assessment examined the literature published through 2014, and the current one examines literature from 2014 through 2021. The objectives were to present literature that updates the framework and related topics and increases awareness of the role of climate change in occupational safety and health. In general, there is substantial literature on worker hazards related to ambient temperatures, biological hazards, and extreme weather but less on air pollution, ultraviolet radiation, industrial transitions, and the built environment. There is growing literature on mental health and health equity issues related to climate change, but much more research is needed. The socioeconomic impacts of climate change also require more research. This study illustrates that workers are experiencing increased morbidity and mortality related to climate change. In all areas of climate-related worker risk, including geoengineering, research is needed on the causality and prevalence of hazards, along with surveillance to identify, and interventions for hazard prevention and control.

In collaboration with RTI International, the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) administered a survey to North American companies working with nanomaterials to assess health and safety practices. The results would contribute to understanding the impact of the efforts made by the NIOSH Nanotechnology Research Center (NTRC) in communicating occupational health and safety (OHS) considerations for workers when handling these materials. The survey, developed by RAND Corporation, was conducted online from September 2019-December 2019. Forty-five companies or organizations in the U.S. and Canada that fabricate, manufacture, handle, dispose, or otherwise use nanomaterials completed the survey. The survey was designed to answer research questions regarding the nanomaterials in use, which resources the companies have consulted for OHS guidance, and the overall OHS culture at the companies. Other questions specifically addressed whether the companies interacted with NIOSH or NIOSH resources to inform OHS policies and practices. Among participating companies, 57.8% had a maximum of 50 employees. Gold nanoparticles and polymers were most common (n = 20; 45.5% each), followed by graphene (36.4%), carbon nanotubes and nanofibers (34.1%), and zinc oxide nanoparticles (31.8%). Environmental monitoring was performed by 31.8% of the companies. While 88.9% of the companies had laminar flow cabinets, only 67.5% required it to be used with ENMs. Information and training programs were indicated by 90% of the sample, and only 29.6% performed specific health surveillance for ENM workers. Personal protective equipment primarily included gloves (100%) and eye/face protection (97.7%). More than a third (37.8%) of the respondents reported using at least one NIOSH resource to acquire information about safe handling of ENMs. The small number of companies that responded to and completed the survey is a considerable limitation to this study. However, the survey data are valuable for gauging the reach and influence of the NIOSH NTRC on nano OHS and for informing future outreach, particularly to small businesses.

Like nanotechnology, translational science is a relatively new and transdisciplinary field. Translational science in occupational safety and health (OSH) focuses on the process of taking scientific knowledge for the protection of workers from the lab to the field (i.e., the worksite/workplace) and back again. Translational science has been conceptualized as having multiple phases of research along a continuum, beyond scientific discovery (T(0)), to efficacy (T(1)), to effectiveness (T(2)), to dissemination and implementation (D&I) (T(3)), to outcomes and effectiveness research in populations (T(4)). The translational research process applied to occupational exposure to nanomaterials might involve similar phases. This builds on basic and efficacy research (T(0) and T(1)) in the areas of toxicology, epidemiology, industrial hygiene, medicine and engineering. In T(2), research and evidence syntheses and guidance and recommendations to protect workers may be developed and assessed for effectiveness. In T(3), emphasis is needed on D&I research to explore the multilevel barriers and facilitators to nanotechnology risk control information/research adoption, use, and sustainment in workplaces. D&I research for nanomaterial exposures should focus on assessing sources of information and evidence to be disseminated /implemented in complex and dynamic workplaces, how policy-makers and employers use this information in diverse contexts to protect workers, how stakeholders inform these critical processes, and what barriers impede and facilitate multilevel decision-making for the protection of nanotechnology workers. The T(4) phase focuses on how effective efforts to prevent occupational exposure to nanomaterials along the research continuum contribute to large-scale impact in terms of worker safety, health and wellbeing (T(4)). Stakeholder input and engagement is critical to all stages of the translational research process. This paper will provide: (1) an illustration of the translational research continuum for occupational exposure to nanomaterials; and (2) a discussion of opportunities for applying D&I science to increase the effectiveness, uptake, integration, sustainability, and impact of interventions to protect the health and wellbeing of workers in the nanotechnology field.

In 2012, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued the revised Hazard Communication Standard to bring the US in closer alignment with the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals, and make the exchange of health and safety information more effective. To evaluate the impact of this change on the reliability and accuracy of safety data sheets, a sample of safety data sheets specific to engineered nanomaterials was obtained by using an internet search engine and subsequently evaluated. These safety data sheets were evaluated using a modified Kimlisch et al. (1997) criteria for ranking the quality of data into categories of reliability and the Eastlake et al. (2012) ranking scheme for scoring four categories. While 86 safety data sheets for nanomaterials were obtained during 2016–2017, 19 of these had no date of completion or revision and could not be evaluated since it was impossible to determine if they were pre or post 2012, when the revised OSHA Hazard Communication Standard was issued. The remaining 67 safety data sheets were ranked by the Kimlisch et al. criteria, and 28.4% (19) were found to be reliable without restrictions (excellent), 35.8% (24) were reliable with restrictions (good), and 35.8% (24) were determined to be unreliable. Evaluating the SDSs using the Eastlake et al. ranking scheme resulted in 3% (2) as satisfactory, 17.9% (12) as being in need of improvement, and 79% (53) in need of significant improvement. It is noteworthy that out of the 79% in need of significant improvement, 25.4% (17) did not have enough data to be evaluated. This evaluation of nanomaterial safety data sheets revealed that the quality of information on many still cannot be relied upon to offer adequate information on the inherent health and safety hazards, including handling and storage of engineered nanomaterials.

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.

The materials and methods used in manufacturing are changing rapidly and dramatically. So are the business management and product delivery models that have been part of the global manufacturing economy for decades. An informed and proactive industrial hygiene community can act now to embrace and influence the new challenges and opportunities that advanced manufacturing is creating. The current, traditional model of manufacturing includes large-scale production facilities that ship finished goods to strategically placed warehouses and distribution centers, where they are held until orders for these goods are received; the evolving 21st-century manufacturing model focuses on producing smaller, more distributed ''batches" of products or individual product components that meet specific customer demands.

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.

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.

A concerted effort is being made to insert Prevention through Design principles into discussions of sustainability, occupational safety and health, and green chemistry related to nanotechnology. Prevention through Design is a set of principles, which includes solutions to design out potential hazards in nanomanufacturing including the design of nanomaterials, and strategies to eliminate exposures and minimize risks that may be related to the manufacturing processes and equipment at various stages of the lifecycle of an engineered nanomaterial.

In a world of finite resources and ecosystem capacity, the prevailing model of economic growth, founded on ever-increasing consumption of resources and emission pollutants, cannot be sustained any longer. In this context, the "green economy" concept has offered the opportunity to change the way that society manages the interaction of the environmental and economic domains. To enable society to build and sustain a green economy, the associated concept of "green nanotechnology" aims to exploit nano-innovations in materials science and engineering to generate products and processes that are energy efficient as well as economically and environmentally sustainable. These applications are expected to impact a large range of economic sectors, such as energy production and storage, clean up-technologies, as well as construction and related infrastructure industries. These solutions may offer the opportunities to reduce pressure on raw materials trading on renewable energy, to improve power delivery systems to be more reliable, efficient and safe as well as to use unconventional water sources or nano-enabled construction products therefore providing better ecosystem and livelihood conditions.However, the benefits of incorporating nanomaterials in green products and processes may bring challenges with them for environmental, health and safety risks, ethical and social issues, as well as uncertainty concerning market and consumer acceptance. Therefore, our aim is to examine the relationships among guiding principles for a green economy and opportunities for introducing nano-applications in this field as well as to critically analyze their practical challenges, especially related to the impact that they may have on the health and safety of workers involved in this innovative sector. These are principally due to the not fully known nanomaterial hazardous properties, as well as to the difficulties in characterizing exposure and defining emerging risks for the workforce. Interestingly, this review proposes action strategies for the assessment, management and communication of risks aimed to precautionary adopt preventive measures including formation and training of employees, collective and personal protective equipment, health surveillance programs to protect the health and safety of nano-workers. It finally underlines the importance that occupational health considerations will have on achieving an effectively sustainable development of nanotechnology.

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.

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.

Material safety data sheets (MSDSs) provide employers, employees, emergency responders, and the general public with basic information about the hazards associated with chemicals that are used in the workplace and are a part of every-day commerce. They are a primary information resource used by health, safety, and environmental professionals in communicating the hazards of chemicals and in making risk management decisions. Engineered nanomaterials represent a growing class of materials being manufactured and introduced into multiple business sectors. MSDSs were obtained from a total of 44 manufacturers using Internet search engines, and a simple ranking scheme was developed to evaluate the content of the data sheets. The MSDSs were reviewed using the ranking scheme, and categorized on the quality and completeness of information as it pertains to hazard identification, exposure controls, personal protective equipment (PPE), and toxicological information being communicated about the engineered nanomaterial. The ranking scheme used to evaluate the MSDSs for engineered nanomaterials was based on the determination that the data sheet should include information on specific physical properties, including particle size or particle size distribution, and physical form; specific toxicological and health effects; and protective measures that can be taken to control potential exposures. The first MSDSs for nanomaterials began to appear around 2006, so these were collected in the time period of 2007-2008. Comparison of MSDSs and changes over time were evaluated as MSDSs were obtained again in 2010-2011. The majority (67%) of the MSDSs obtained in 2010-2011 still provided insufficient data for communicating the potential hazards of engineered nanomaterials.

In early 2006, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health created a field research team whose mission is to visit a variety of facilities engaged in the production, handling, or use of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) and to conduct initial emission and exposure assessments to identify candidate sites for further study. To conduct the assessments, the team developed the Nanoparticle Emission Assessment Technique (NEAT), which has been used at numerous facilities to sample multiple engineered nanomaterials. Data collected at four facilities, which volunteered to serve as test sites, indicate that specific tasks can release ENMs to the workplace atmosphere and that traditional controls such as ventilation can be used to limit exposure. Metrics such as particle number concentration (adjusted for background), airborne mass concentration, and qualitative transmission electron microscopy were used to determine the presence, nature, and magnitude of emissions and whether engineered nanomaterials migrated to the workers' breathing zone. [Supplementary materials are available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene for the following free supplemental resource: a PDF file containing information on facilities, a description of processes/tasks, existing controls, and sampling strategy, and a PDF file containing TEM images according to facility and task.].

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.)

The present paper summarizes the outcome of the discussions at the First International Scientific Workshop on Harmonization of Strategies to Measure and Analyze Exposure to (Manufactured) Nano-objects in Workplace Air that was organized and hosted by the Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO) and the Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the German Social Accident Insurance (IFA) (Zeist, The Netherlands, December 2010). It reflects the discussions by 25 international participants in the area of occupational (nano) exposure assessment from Europe, USA, Japan, and Korea on nano-specific issues related to the three identified topics: (i) measurement strategies; (ii) analyzing, evaluating, and reporting of exposure data; and (iii) core information for (exposure) data storage. Preliminary recommendations were achieved with respect to (i) a multimetric approach to exposure assessment, a minimal set of data to be collected, and basic data analysis and reporting as well as (ii) a minimum set of contextual information to be collected and reported. Other issues that have been identified and are of great interest include (i) the need for guidance on statistical approaches to analyze time-series data and on electron microscopy analysis and its reporting and (ii) the need for and possible structure of a (joint) database to store and merge data. To make progress in the process of harmonization, it was concluded that achieving agreement among researchers on the preliminary recommendations of the workshop is urgent.

This issue presents selected articles from the Nanomaterial Workers' Health Conference held in Keystone, Colorado, July 21 to 23, 2010. The conference addressed three critical and related topics: medical surveillance; formation of exposure registries; and the conduct of epidemiologic research. Each topic was introduced with a plenary session followed by group breakout sessions to obtain input from the approximately 120 attendees. This supplement issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine includes selected peer reviewed articles from the conference and summaries of the breakout sessions. The conference was initiated with a general session, and there are articles that provide an overview of the topics (Schulte and Trout) and describe lessons from air pollution particulate epidemiology (Peters et al) and the state-of-the-art of nanotoxicology (Castranova), both of which contributed to the initial concern about potential hazards of nanomaterials. The opening session also included an overview of medical surveillance in the context in which occupational physicians must regularly work and at a time when uncertainties about hazards and risks make decisions about medical surveillance of workers difficult (Nasterlack).

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) conducted field studies at 12 sites using the Nanoparticle Emission Assessment Technique (NEAT) to characterize emissions during processes where engineered nanomaterials were produced or used. A description of the NEAT appears in Part A of this issue. Field studies were conducted in research and development laboratories, pilot plants, and manufacturing facilities handling carbon nanotubes (single-walled and multi-walled), carbon nanofibers, fullerenes, carbon nanopearls, metal oxides, electrospun nylon, and quantum dots. The results demonstrated that the NEAT was useful in evaluating emissions and that readily available engineering controls can be applied to minimize nanomaterial emissions.

There are currently no exposure limits specific to engineered nanomaterial nor any national or international consensus standards on measurement techniques for nanomaterials in the workplace. However, facilities engaged in the production and use of engineered nanomaterials have expressed an interest in learning whether the potential for worker exposure exists. To assist with answering this question, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health established a nanotechnology field research team whose primary goal was to visit facilities and evaluate the potential for release of nanomaterials and worker exposure. The team identified numerous techniques to measure airborne nanomaterials with respect to particle size, mass, surface area, number concentration, and composition. However, some of these techniques lack specificity and field portability and are difficult to use and expensive when applied to routine exposure assessment. This article describes the nanoparticle emission assessment technique (NEAT) that uses a combination of measurement techniques and instruments to assess potential inhalation exposures in facilities that handle or produce engineered nanomaterials. The NEAT utilizes portable direct-reading instrumentation supplemented by a pair of filter-based air samples (source-specific and personal breathing zone). The use of the filter-based samples are crucial for identification purposes because particle counters are generally insensitive to particle source or composition and make it difficult to differentiate between incidental and process-related nanomaterials using number concentration alone. Results from using the NEAT at 12 facilities are presented in the companion article (Part B) in this issue.