Comparative Risk Assessment of Tasks Involved with Nanomaterials Using NanoTool & Guidance Methods
الموضوعات :
Fakhradin Ahmadi Kanrash
1
(Department of Occupational Health Engineering, Faculty of Public Health, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran)
Soqrat Omari Shekaftik
2
(Department of Occupational Health Engineering, Faculty of Public Health, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran)
Amirhossein Aliakbar
3
(Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Public Health, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran)
Fatemeh Soleimany
4
(Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Public Health, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran)
Azad Haghighi Asl
5
(Faculty of Medicine, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran)
Wahab Ebrahimi
6
(Department of Occupational Health Engineering, Faculty of Public Health, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran)
Saeedeh Amini Ravandi
7
(Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran)
الکلمات المفتاحية: Nanomaterials, Risk Assessment, Control Banding, NanoTool Method, Guidance Method,
ملخص المقالة :
Assessing the risks related to the advancement of science and technology has always been accompanied by many uncertainties. As a new field of science, nanotechnology faces numerous uncertainties concerning safety, health, and environmental aspects dealing with which requires a proper risk assessment. Accordingly, this study intended to assess the risk of tasks associated with nanomaterials comparatively, examining the risks in eighteen companies in Tehran. The two proposed risk-assessment methods for the activities involving nanomaterials (NanoTool and Guidance) assisted in assessing the risk of their tasks. The results were analyzed using SPSS.22 and the chi-square test and indicated the different outputs of the two methods despite being designed based on the control banding approach. These differences could be attributed to the different risk-assessment parameters that these methods considered. The statistical analysis results also showed no significant relationship between them. Given the large differences and insignificant association between risk assessment results, the guidance method was less effective than the nanotool method. However, straightforwardness and convivence of implementation in the workplace and various research environments make it a helpful method in initial evaluations.
1. Savolainen K. 2014. Chapter 1 - General Introduction. In: U. Vogel, K. Savolainen, Q. Wu, M. van Tongeren, D. Brouwer and M. Berges (eds.) Handbook of Nanosafety, pp. 1-16. San Diego: Academic Press.
2. Omari Shekaftik S., Ashtarinezhad A., Yarahmadi R., Rasouli M., Soleimani M., Hosseini Shirazi F., 2020. Relationship between chemical composition and physical State of used nanomaterials in nanotechnology companies with type and prevalence of symptoms of employees of these companies in Tehran, Iran. IOH, 17 (2), 1-12.
3. Ahmed W., Jackson M. J., Ul Hassan I. 2015. Chapter 1 - Nanotechnology to Nanomanufacturing. In: W. Ahmed and M. J. Jackson (eds.) Emerging Nanotechnologies for Manufacturing (Second Edition), pp. 1-13. Boston: William Andrew Publishing.
4. PCAST N., 2015.
5. Omari Shekaftik S., Hosseini Shirazi F., Yarahmadi R., Rasouli M., Soleimani Dodaran M., Ashtarinezhad A., 2019. Preliminary Investigation of the Symptoms of Nanotechnology Companies Employees in Tehran, Iran, 2018. Journal of Occupational Hygiene Engineering, 6 (2), 61-70.
6. Ghafari J., Moghadasi N., Omari Shekaftik S., 2020. Oxidative stress induced by occupational exposure to nanomaterials: a systematic review. Industrial Health, 58 (6), 492-502.
7. Colognato R., Park M. V. D. Z., Wick P., De Jong W. H. 2012. Chapter 1 - Interactions with the Human Body. In: B. Fadeel, A. Pietroiusti and A. A. Shvedova (eds.) Adverse Effects of Engineered Nanomaterials, pp. 3-24. Boston: Academic Press.
8. Horie M., Kato H., Iwahashi H., 2013. Cellular effects of manufactured nanoparticles: effect of adsorption ability of nanoparticles. Archives of toxicology, 87 (5), 771-781.
9. Filon F. L. 2017. Skin exposure to nanoparticles and possible sensitization risk Allergy and Immunotoxicology in Occupational Health, pp. 143-152: Springer.
10. Landsiedel R., Sauer U. G., de Jong W. H. 2017. Chapter 8 - Risk Assessment and Risk Management. In: B. Fadeel, A. Pietroiusti and A. A. Shvedova (eds.) Adverse Effects of Engineered Nanomaterials (Second Edition), pp. 189-222: Academic Press.
11. Zalk D. 2010. Control Banding: A simplified, qualitative strategy for the assessment of occupational risks and selection of solutions
12. Van Duuren-Stuurman B., Vink S. R., Verbist K. J., Heussen H. G., Brouwer D. H., Kroese D. E., Van Niftrik M. F., Tielemans E., Fransman W., 2012. Stoffenmanager nano version 1.0: a web-based tool for risk prioritization of airborne manufactured nano-objects. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 56 (5), 525-541.
13. Ostiguy C., Riediker M., Triolet J., Troisfontaines P., Vernez D., Development of a specific control banding tool for nanomaterials, French Agency for Food, environmental and occupational health and safety (ANSES), France, 2010.
14. Warheit D. B., 2018. Hazard and risk assessment strategies for nanoparticle exposures: How far have we come in the past 10 years? F1000Research, 7
15. Albuquerque P. C., Gomes J., Pereira C., Miranda R. M., 2015. Assessment and control of nanoparticle exposure in welding operations by use of a Control Banding Tool. Journal of Cleaner Production, 89, 296-300.
16. Yarahmadi R., Dizaji R. A., Farshad A. A., Teimuri F., Soleimani M., 2013. Occupational Risk Assessment of Engineered Nanomaterials by Control Banding Method in Chemistry Laboratories. Journal of American Science, 9 (6s), 42-47.
17. Paik S. Y., Zalk D. M., Swuste P., 2008. Application of a pilot control banding tool for risk level assessment and control of nanoparticle exposures. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 52 (6), 419-428.
18. Zalk D. M., Paik S. Y., Swuste P., 2009. Evaluating the control banding nanotool: a qualitative risk assessment method for controlling nanoparticle exposures. Journal of nanoparticle research, 11 (7), 1685.
19. Zalk D. M., Paik S. Y. 2016. Chapter 6 - Risk Assessment Using Control Banding. In: G. Ramachandran (ed.) Assessing Nanoparticle Risks to Human Health (Second Edition), pp. 121-152. Oxford: William Andrew Publishing.
20. Cornelissen R., Jongeneelen F., van Broekhuizen P., van Broekhuizen F., 2011. Guidance Working Safely With Nanomaterials and Nanoproducts the Guide for Employers and Employees-Version 1.0. FNV, VNO-NCW, CNV. Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (Document 1113-O)
21. Brouwer D. H., 2012. Control banding approaches for nanomaterials. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 56 (5), 506-514.
22. Shepard M. N. 2014. Exposure assessment and risk management of engineered nanoparticles: Investigation in semiconductor wafer processing
23. EASHW, E-fact 72: Tools for the management of nanomaterials in the workplace and prevention measures, European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, Brussels, 2013.
24. Dimou K., Emond C., Nanomaterials, and Occupational Health and Safety—A Literature Review About Control Banding and a Semi-Quantitative Method Proposed for Hazard Assessment, 2017.
25. Read S. A. K., Jiménez A. S., Ross B. L., Aitken R. J., van Tongeren M. 2014. Chapter 2 - Nanotechnology and Exposure Scenarios. In: U. Vogel, K. Savolainen, Q. Wu, M. van Tongeren, D. Brouwer and M. Berges (eds.) Handbook of Nanosafety, pp. 17-58. San Diego: Academic Press.
26. Omari Shekaftik S., Yarahmadi R., Moghadasi N., Sedghi Noushabadi Z., Hosseini A. F., Ashtarinezhad A., 2020. Investigation of recommended good practices to reduce exposure to nanomaterials in nanotechnology laboratories in Tehran, Iran. Journal of nanoparticle research, 22 (3), 59.
27. Eastlake A., Zumwalde R., Geraci C., 2016. Can control banding be useful for the safe handling of nanomaterials? A systematic review. Journal of nanoparticle research, 18 (6), 169.
