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.

Exposure science is fundamental to the field of occupational safety and health. The measurement of worker exposures to hazardous agents informs effective workplace risk mitigation strategies. The modern era of occupational exposure measurement began with the invention of the personal sampling device, which is still widely used today in the practice of occupational hygiene. Newer direct-reading sensor devices are incorporating recent advances in transducers, nanomaterials, electronics miniaturization, portability, batteries with high-power density, wireless communication, energy-efficient microprocessing, and display technology to usher in a new era in exposure science. Commercial applications of new sensor technologies have led to a variety of health and lifestyle management devices for everyday life. These applications are also being investigated as tools to measure occupational and environmental exposures. As the next-generation placeable, wearable, and implantable sensor technologies move from the research laboratory to the workplace, their role in the future of work will be of increasing importance to employers, workers, and occupational safety and health researchers and practitioners. This commentary discusses some of the benefits and challenges of placeable, wearable, and implantable sensor technologies in the future of work.

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.

Exoskeleton devices are being introduced across several industry sectors to augment, amplify, or reinforce the performance of a worker's existing body components-primarily the lower back and the upper extremity. Industrial exoskeletons may play a role in reducing work-related musculoskeletal disorders arising from lifting and handling heavy materials or from supporting heavy tools in overhead work. However, wearing an exoskeleton may pose a number of risks that are currently not well-studied. There are only a few studies about the safety and health implications of wearable exoskeletons and most of those studies involve only a small number of participants. Before the widespread implementation of industrial exoskeletons occurs, there is need for prospective interventional studies to evaluate the safety and health effectiveness of exoskeletons across various industry sectors. Developing a research strategy to fill current safety and health knowledge gaps, understanding the benefits, risks, and barriers to adoption of industrial exoskeletons, determining whether exoskeleton can be considered a type of personal protective equipment, and advancing consensus standards that address exoskeleton safety, should be major interests of both the occupational safety and health research and practice communities.

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]

Nanotechnology is predicted to be a transformative technology and lead to improvements in many aspects of human life. Accumulating scientific evidence from experimental animal studies indicates that exposure to some engineered nanomaterials may cause adverse health effects. Despite efforts to move away from using animals for toxicity and biological testing, the use of animals in nanomaterial testing raises the potential for harmful occupational exposure to researchers, laboratory technicians, and custodial personnel. The risks to workers from such unintentional exposures can be reduced or eliminated through identification of the hazards arising from the use nanomaterials in animals, assessment of all potential worker exposures, and implementation of effective exposure control measures. Proactive guidelines for safe handling of nanomaterials in laboratories are available from both public and private sector bodies and should be consulted regularly to ensure awareness of the newest, actionable nanomaterial risk prevention information.

Applications of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for military, recreational, public, and commercial uses have expanded significantly in recent years. In the construction industry, UAVs are used primarily for monitoring of construction workflow and job site logistics, inspecting construction sites to assess structural integrity, and for maintenance assessments. As is the case with other emerging technologies, occupational safety assessments of UAVs lag behind technological advancements. UAVs may create new workplace hazards that need to be evaluated and managed to ensure their safe operation around human workers. At the same time, UAVs can perform dangerous tasks, thereby improving workplace safety. This paper describes the four major uses of UAVs, including their use in construction, the potential risks of their use to workers, approaches for risk mitigation, and the important role that safety and health professionals can play in ensuring safe approaches to the their use in the workplace.

BACKGROUND: The toxicological properties of manufactured nanomaterials (MNMs) can be different from their bulk-material and uncertainty remains about the adverse health effects they may have on humans. Proposals for OELs have been put forward which can be useful for risk management and workers' protection. We performed a systematic review of proposals for OELs for MNMs to better understand the extent of such proposals, as well as their derivation methods. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase with an extensive search string and also assessed the references in the included studies. Two authors extracted data independently. RESULTS: We identified 20 studies that proposed in total 56 OEL values. Of these, two proposed a generic level for all MNMs, 14 proposed a generic OEL for a category of MNMs and 40 proposed an OEL for a specific nanomaterial. For specific fibres, four studies proposed a similar value but for carbon nanotubes (CNTs) the values differed with a factor ranging from 30 to 50 and for metals with a factor from 100 to 300. The studies did not provide explanations for this variation. We found that exposure to MNMs measured at selected workplaces may exceed even the highest proposed OEL. This indicates that the application and use of OELs may be useful for exposure reduction. CONCLUSION: OELs can provide a valuable reference point for exposure reduction measures in workplaces. There is a need for more and better supported OELs based on a more systematic approach to OEL derivation.

Synthetic biology is an emerging interdisciplinary field of biotechnology that involves applying the principles of engineering and chemical design to biological systems. Biosafety professionals have done an excellent job in addressing research laboratory safety as synthetic biology and gene editing have emerged from the larger field of biotechnology. Despite these efforts, risks posed by synthetic biology are of increasing concern as research procedures scale up to industrial processes in the larger bioeconomy. A greater number and variety of workers will be exposed to commercial synthetic biology risks in the future, including risks to a variety of workers from the use of lentiviral vectors as gene transfer devices. There is a need to review and enhance current protection measures in the field of synthetic biology, whether in experimental laboratories where new advances are being researched, in health care settings where treatments using viral vectors as gene delivery systems are increasingly being used, or in the industrial bioeconomy. Enhanced worker protection measures should include increased injury and illness surveillance of the synthetic biology workforce; proactive risk assessment and management of synthetic biology products; research on the relative effectiveness of extrinsic and intrinsic biocontainment methods; specific safety guidance for synthetic biology industrial processes; determination of appropriate medical mitigation measures for lentiviral vector exposure incidents; and greater awareness and involvement in synthetic biology safety by the general occupational safety and health community as well as by government occupational safety and health research and regulatory agencies.

BACKGROUND: Engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) have a large economic impact in a range of fields, but the concerns about health and safety of occupational activities involving nanomaterials have not yet been addressed. Monitoring exposure is an important step in risk management. Hence, the interest for reviewing studies that reported a potential for occupational exposure. METHODS: We systematically searched for studies published between January 2000 and January 2015. We included studies that used a comprehensive method of exposure assessment. Studies were grouped by nanomaterial and categorized as carbonaceous, metallic, or nanoclays. We summarized data on task, monitoring strategy, exposure outcomes, and controls in a narrative way. For each study, the strength of the exposure assessment was evaluated using predetermined criteria. Then, we identified all exposure situations that reported potential occupational exposure based on qualitative or quantitative outcomes. Results were synthesized and general conclusion statements on exposure situations were formulated. The quality of evidence for the conclusion statements was rated as low, moderate, or high depending on the number of confirmed exposure situations, the strength of the exposure assessment, and the consistency of the results. RESULTS: From the 6403 references initially identified, 220 were selected for full-text screening. From these, 50 studies describing 306 exposure situations in 72 workplaces were eligible for inclusion (27 industrial-scale plants and 45 research or pilot-scale units). There was a potential for exposure to ENMs in 233 of the exposure situations. Exposure occurred in 83% (N = 107) of the situations with carbonaceous ENMs, in 73% (N = 120) of those with metallic ENMs and in 100% (N = 6) of those with nanoclay. Concentrations of elemental carbon in the workers' breathing zone ranged from not detected (ND) to 910 microg m-3 with local engineering controls (LEC), and from ND to 1000 microg m-3 without those controls. For carbon nanofibres (CNFs), particle counts ranged from ND to 1.61 CNF structures cm-3 with LEC, and from 0.09 to 193 CNF structures cm-3 without those controls. The mass concentrations of aluminium oxide, titanium dioxide, silver, and iron nanoparticles (NPs) were ND, 10-150, 0.24-0.43, and 32 microg m-3 with LEC, while they were <0.35, non-applicable, 0.09-33, and 335 microg m-3 without those controls, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Regarding the potential of exposure in the workplace, we found high-quality evidence for multiwalled carbon nanotubes (CNTs), single-walled CNTs, CNFs, aluminium oxide, titanium dioxide, and silver NPs; moderate-quality evidence for non-classified CNTs, nanoclays, and iron and silicon dioxide NPs; low-quality evidence for fullerene C60, double-walled CNTs, and zinc oxide NPs; and no evidence for cerium oxide NPs. We found high-quality evidence that potential exposure is most frequently due to handling tasks, that workers are mostly exposed to micro-sized agglomerated NPs, and that engineering controls considerably reduce workers' exposure. There was moderate-quality evidence that workers are exposed in secondary manufacturing industrial-scale plants. There was low-quality evidence that workers are exposed to airborne particles with a size <100nm. There were no studies conducted in low- and middle-income countries.

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 increasing use of robots in performing tasks alongside or together with human co-workers raises novel occupational safety and health issues. The new 21st century workplace will be one in which occupational robotics plays an increasing role. This paper describes the increasing complexity of robots and proposes a number of recommendations for the practice of safe occupational robotics.

With the recent advancements in nanosciences and nanotechnologies, a large number of novel nanomaterials have been introduced in our everyday life. However, as the potential hazards of these novel nanomaterials have not yet been fully understood, concerns on their occupational and environmental health effects are mounting. In fact, recent scientific studies suggested that at least some nanoparticles actively interact with biological tissues and cause toxicological effects on the experimental animals exposed to these materials. Current research also indicates that the toxicity of manufactured nanomaterials will depend on their physical and chemical properties including their chemical composition, core size, morphology, agglomeration state, surface area, and surface charge. However, so far, quantitative understanding on the relationships between their physicochemical properties, biological toxicities, and human and environmental health effects is lacking. It is therefore imperative to have a clearer understanding of such a relationship and hence the aim of this special issue is to discuss occupational and environmental health effects of nanomaterials in relation to their various physicochemical properties. | Several authors participated in this special issue to present their understanding on occupational and environmental health effects of nanomaterials. “Three-Day Continuous Exposure Monitoring of CNT Manufacturing Workplaces” by J. H. Lee et al. and “Workplace Exposure to Titanium Dioxide Nanopowder Released from a Bag Filter System” by J. H. Ji et al. are related to occupational safety and health of nanomaterial and deal with exposure assessment in the workplaces producing or handling manufactured nanomaterials. The authors of these two papers actively monitored exposure situations in the workplaces where nanomaterial manufacturing and handling were conducted and presented workers' exposure situation and exposure mitigation strategies. “Aquatic Toxicity Comparison of Silver Nanoparticles and Silver Nanowires” by E. K. Sohn et al. and “Multiwall Carbon Nanotube-Induced Apoptosis and Antioxidant Gene Expression in the Gills, Liver, and Intestine of Oryzias latipes” by J. W. Lee et al. are dealing with aquatic toxicity of one-dimensional form of nanomaterial such as wire or fiber form. E. K. Sohn et al. compared aquatic toxicity of particular forms with wire forms of nanomaterials and J. W. Lee et al. found that the gills were more sensitive to MWCNT toxicity than the other organs with gender difference and caused apoptosis with relevant gene expressions increasing caspases, while reducing expression of catalase and GST genes. Y.-H. Luo et al. studied immunotoxicity of metal-based nanoparticles showing different toxicokinetics from conventional bulk nonnanoscale materials depending on their physicochemical properties. In the paper entitled “Metal-Based Nanoparticles and the Immune System: Activation, Inflammation, and Potential Applications,” a discussion is presented on nanoparticle and innate immunity and effect of nanoparticle exposure on toll-like receptor signaling and on their role in innate immune system and effect of nanoparticle exposure on adaptive immunity.

Nanotechnology is rapidly expanding into the health care industry. However, occupational safety and health risks of nano-enabled medical products have not been thoroughly assessed. This manuscript highlights occupational risk mitigation practices for nano-enabled medical products throughout their life cycle for all major workplace settings including (1) medical research laboratories, (2) pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities, (3) clinical dispensing pharmacies, (4) health care delivery facilities, (5) home health care, (6) health care support, and (7) medical waste management. It further identifies critical research needs for ensuring worker protection in the health care industry.

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.

On October 31, 2012, the Canadian Standards Association adopted an International Standards Organization (ISO) Technical Report on the occupational safety and health of nanotechnology as a national voluntary standard.( Citation1 ) What role can this and other international standards play in ensuring safety and health of workers in the United States? In this commentary, we argue that international standards can play an important role in protecting the health and safety of U.S. workers exposed to nanomaterials until national regulatory standards are considered and adopted.

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.

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.)

Nanotechnology has been touted as a transformative technology that would encompass a broad range of products and application areas and improve many aspects of human life. As nanotechnology matures, the complexity of its main product, nanomaterials, increases. Four generations of nanomaterials have been defined by a World Technology Evaluation Center (WTEC) Report,( Citation1 ) namely, passive nanomaterials, active nanomaterials, integrated nanosystems, and molecular nanosystems. According to the Woodrow Wilson Nanotechnology Consumer Product Inventory,( Citation2 ) there are over 1000 self-identified nano-enabled consumer products on the market. Most of these products are based on first-generation “passive nanomaterials.” Limited understanding of passive nanomaterial hazards has challenged traditional occupational health risk assessment and management approaches. New approaches including suggestions for the development and adoption of proactive approaches to nanotechnology risk assessment and control have been proposed.( Citation3 ) Unlike reactive approaches, where risk control measures are applied to well characterized hazards, proactive or anticipatory approaches aim at minimizing risks of hazards before they are fully characterized.

A number of reports have been published regarding the applicability of existing regulatory frameworks to protect consumers and the environment from potentially adverse effects related to introduction of nanomaterials into commerce in the United States and the European Union. However, a detailed comparison of the regulatory approaches to worker safety and health in the USA and in the EU is lacking. This report aims to fill this gap by reviewing regulatory frameworks designed to protect workers and their possible application to nanotechnology.

Determining whether a material or substance poses risk to human health depends on knowing not only the potential toxic characteristics of the material, but also the characteristics of exposure. To what concentrations are workers and general population exposed, for how long, and in what ways? Exposure assessment is particularly vital to answer the question of whether nanomaterials pose work-related health risks. Because of the relative newness of nanotechnology, as well as technical issues regarding metrics, availability of instrumentations, and questions about proprietary information, very little data on exposure to nanomaterials have been reported in teh scientific literature. At this stage, measuring or determining risk becomes a little like trying to solve mystery when major clues are missing. Scientists and engineers face this challenge even as the market for nanotechnology grows, and at the same time, there is increasing demand from diverse parties for guidance to underpin its responsible development.

Assessing the need for and effectiveness of controlling airborne exposures to engineered nanomaterials in the workplace is difficult in the absence of occupational exposure limits (OELs). At present, there are practically no OELs specific to nanomaterials that have been adopted or promulgated by authoritative standards and guidance organizations. The vast heterogeneity of nanomaterials limits the number of specific OELs that are likely to be developed in the near future, but OELs could be developed more expeditiously for nanomaterials by applying dose–response data generated from animal studies for specific nanoparticles across categories of nanomaterials with similar properties and modes of action. This article reviews the history, context, and approaches for developing OELs for particles in general and nanoparticles in particular. Examples of approaches for developing OELs for titanium dioxide and carbon nanotubes are presented and interim OELs from various organizations for some nanomaterials are discussed. When adequate dose–response data are available in animals or humans, quantitative risk assessment methods can provide estimates of adverse health risk of nanomaterials in workers and, in conjunction with workplace exposure and control data, provide a basis for determining appropriate exposure limits. In the absence of adequate quantitative data, qualitative approaches to hazard assessment, exposure control, and safe work practices are prudent measures to reduce hazards in workers.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an intergovernmental organization, is playing a critical global role in ensuring that emerging technologies, such as nanotechnology, are developed responsibly. This article describes OECD activities around occupational safety and health of nanotechnology and provides state-of-the-science overview resulting from an OECD workshop on exposure assessment and mitigation for nanotechnology workplace.

Nanotechnology is predicted to improve many aspects of human life. By 2015, it is estimated to represent $3.1 trillion in manufactured goods. Data is emerging that exposure to nanomaterials may pose a health risk to workers. If the economic promise of nanotechnology is to be achieved, ways need to be found to protect nanotechnology workers now. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHAct) gave the responsibility to protect workers to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) through research, standards adoption, and standards enforcement. Since 1980, adopting new occupational health standards has grown more complex. The increased complexity has greatly slowed efforts to adopt protective standards for toxic agents that are well-known to pose significant risks. The likelihood of rapidly adopting standards to protect workers from nanomaterials, whose risks are just emerging, seems even more unlikely. Use of the OSHAct's general duty clause to protect workers also seems uncertain at this time. In the interim, a national partnership led by NIOSH involving nanotech manufacturers and downstream users, workers, academic researchers, safety, and health practitioners is proposed. A National Nanotechnology Partnership would generate knowledge about the nature and the extent of worker risk, utilize that knowledge to develop risk control strategies to protect nanotechnology workers now, and provide an evidence base for NIOSH recommendations to OSHA for a nanotechnology program standard at a future date.

We propose a proactive approach to the management of occupational health risks in emerging technologies based on six features: qualitative risk assessment; the ability to adapt strategies and refine requirements; an appropriate level of precaution; global applicability; the ability to elicit voluntary cooperation by companies; and stakeholder involvement.