Reproduced with permission from Occupational Safety & Health Reporter, Vol. 37, No. 47(Nov. 29, 2007), pp. 1072-1073.  Copyright 2007 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033)  http://www.bna.com

SANTA BARBARA, Calif. -- Companies need to understand the real risks nanomaterials pose to workers, consumers, and the environment, Jaideep Raje, an analyst at Lux Research Inc., a consulting firm that specializes in emerging technologies, said Nov. 17.

Businesses should test for toxicity and share the results with other companies and regulators, Raje said at the Nanotechnology Occupational Health and Safety Conference held at the University of California, Santa Barbara, Nov. 15-17.

A more proactive approach will help identify actual risks, avoid unfounded fears, and lead to appropriate regulations, he said.

"Corporations are waiting for regulations and regulators are waiting for corporations to give them data," Raje said.

Raje was among dozens of speakers at the conference who called for stepped up efforts to identify the potential risks of producing and using nanomaterials.

Nanotechnology involves manipulating atoms to create molecules measuring less than 100 nanometers, or billionth of a meter.

Billions of dollars are being spent annually to engineer nanoscale materials, structures, and devices, many that are already being used in electronics, medicine, sunscreen, paints and other coatings, textiles, tires, and cosmetics.

Yet nanotechnology makers are allocating little funding to understand the risks nanoscale materials pose to workers, consumers, and the environment. Currently there are no federal regulations specifically covering nanotechnology.

The only local nanotechnology regulation in the U.S. is a Berkeley, Calif., ordinance, which took effect June 1, that requires facilities to annually report the manufacture or handling of engineered nanomaterials.

Officials from the National Institute of Occupational Safety Health Nov. 16 briefed conference attendees on the institute's nanotechnology research and education efforts.

Paul Schulte, coordinator of NIOSH's Nanotechnology Research Center, said a field research team was formed in 2006 to assess workplace exposure and potential hazards at a variety of facilities that produce and handle engineered nanomaterials.

NIOSH investigators found additional data is needed to assess worker exposure.

Prudent Approach Needed.

Although much more research is needed to identify and characterize hazards, “there is enough evidence to justify a prudent approach” to protect workers, he said.

Because nanomaterials currently being manufactured seem to behave similarly to fine and ultrafine particles, "it may be useful to employ the range of control technologies, work practices, and personal projective equipment demonstrated to be effective for these particles," Schulte said.

NIOSH's Vince Castranova shared results of the latest research on the potential pulmonary, cardiovascular, central nervous system, and dermal effects of exposure to various nanoparticles.

One study found nanomaterial in the lungs of mice exposed to carbon nanotubes, Castranova said. The same study suggests nanomaterial may translocate to systemic sites, he said.

“Nanoparticles have a high surface area which may be biologically active,” Castranova said.

Other research suggests potential hazards through dermal exposure.

"Because of the small size and oxidant generation potential of nanoparticles, the materials may penetrate skin and cause oxidant injury," Castranova reported.

Toxicity Screening Possible.

Andre Nel, professor of medicine and head of nanomedicine division at the University of California, Los Angeles, believes the science used to understand the health impacts of air pollution can be employed to identify which engineered nanomaterials could be toxic.

Nel's research team has developed a series of tests to predict toxicity based on the ability of some nanoparticles to generate oxygen radicals--highly reactive forms of oxygen that can cause tissue injury.

"One of the key stumbling blocks in assessing chemical toxicity of nanoparticles has been the cost and the logistics to perform animal and in vivo studies," Nel said.

The predictive tests, based on Nel's air pollution and health effects research, would help identify which materials should undergo priority testing in animal and in vivo exposure models, he said.

Most Firms Do Not Test Materials.

An international survey of nanotechnology firms by UCSB found that most do not perform or fund toxicological testing of their nanomaterials. The 82 firms that participated in the poll were "about split on whether or not special risks exist, though more reported that there are not special risks" associated with using nanomaterials, Joseph Conti, a UCSB graduate student involved in the survey told conference attendees.

Precautions that companies did take to protect workers were measures derived from conventional chemical hygiene, Conti said.

In other sessions, speakers discussed the need for a regulatory framework that is designed to not repeat mistakes, specifically the asbestos and lead debacles. Researchers, regulators, industry, and all stakeholders need to work together, the speakers said.

Pick a Number.

Workers already are using nanomaterials in bulk, facing unknown dangers, Frank Mirer, a professor of Environmental and Occupational Health at Hunter College, City University of New York, said.

Regulators need to "pick a number, any number," that industry can follow, Mirer said.

John Froines, director of UCLA's Center for Occupational and Environmental Health, said an integrated, multi-faceted structure is likely to be most effective.

"We can't work the way we have in the past," Froines said. "We need a collective approach. We can't have different federal agencies working separately and states with no role. There is need for a major government, private, and public effort if nanotechnology is to achieve its objectives," he said.

Froines also stressed the importance of taking a "precautionary" approach to nanotechnology. Maybe there are some materials that should not be used, he said.

"Let's look at this before we have dead bodies," Jackie Nowell, director of the United Food and Commercial Workers' Occupational Health and Safety Office, said.

Labor advocates speaking on a Nov. 17 panel stressed the importance getting workers involved in the debate over nanotechnology issues.

International Policies Needed.

"Nanotechnology may be developing in the United States, but the actual manufacturing will likely take place outside of the U.S.," Garrett Brown, an inspector with the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, said.

Brown, as a volunteer with the Maquiladora Health & Safety Support Network, has been involved in worker safety programs in Mexico and China.

Training workers has improved conditions at foreign factories, but without effective enforcement of policies, those improvements are typically short-lived, Brown said.

Kevin Rowan, regional secretary for the North British Trades Union Congress, said that even with the uncertainties about the risk of nanomaterials, regulations are needed now.

"Don't hide behind what we do not know," Rowan said.

Echoing Brown's comments, Rowan said workers need to be involved in establishing safety practices.

By Carolyn Whetzel

Copyright 2007, The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C.