Nearly 36 hours after lifting the embargo on its paper, the European Respiratory Journal finally made the paper available at its website. You can link to the abstract via the ICON Virtual Journal or go directly to the ERJ site.
If you go through the VJ, you are welcome to take a moment and submit your thoughts on the quality of the work and its potential impact on the field using our new-ish rating system. Recently added features of the system include the options to identify which papers have been rated most recently and to sort papers in the VJ by their average rating. These tools will become more useful as the number of ratings increase.
Showing posts with label nanoparticles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nanoparticles. Show all posts
A research paper released today in the European Respiratory Journal documents for the first time a clinical case in which a team of medical doctors concluded that exposure to nanoparticles was determined to have resulted in harm to workers. [The link is not live but an abstract is available here.] The medical case study documents in clinical detail the cases of seven women who were hospitalized for pulmonary health problems after workplace exposure to ~30 nm nanoparticles contained in or produced by the spraying of a polyacrylic ester paste. An extensive clinical evaluation was undertaken to determine the cause of the workers’ respiratory symptoms, which included shortness of breath, buildup of fluid in the chest cavity (pleural effusion) and around the heart (pericardial effusion) and itching on the face and arms. The clinical findings included nonspecific pulmonary inflammation, pulmonary fibrosis and foreign-body granulomas in the pleura. Ultimately, two of the women died from respiratory failure and others exhibited persistent lung dysfunction 20 months after first being hospitalized. The women’s clinical symptoms are consistent with the outcomes of animal studies in which nanoparticles have been intentionally introduced into the lungs.
The evidence for implicating nanoparticles in the Chinese factory incident is persuasive. The paper contains electron microscopy images of the fluid and lung tissues extracted from the patients that clearly show round nanoparticles or nanoparticle clusters of ~30 nm. The nanoparticles were found in the chest fluid and in cytoplasm and nucleoplasm of the pulmonary epithelial cells. Yes, these were nanoparticles, and yes, some nanoparticles may be able to gain access to parts of the deep lung that are less accessible to larger particles which the body more effectively filters out. Less clear is what the nanoparticles were composed of and whether they were intentionally introduced into the paste or created as a result of the spraying or heating processes. If the latter, then they were what we call “incidental” nanoparticles rather than the intentionally designed “manufactured” nanoparticles.
The exposures, which could not be quantified, took place over the course of between 5-13 months in which the workers operated a machine that converted a polyacrylic ester paste into tiny droplets and sprayed these droplets onto large boards used in the printing and decorating industry. The boards were then heated and dried with the resulting vapor removed via a gas ventilation unit on the machine.
Except the vapor wasn’t ventilated. According to the article, the gas ventilator had broken 5 months before the onset of symptoms, which, when coupled with the lack of windows and closed door, meant that there was little air circulation and therefore no mechanism to remove the vapor from the workspace. Moreover, the only personal protective equipment available to the workers were cotton gauze masks, which would not be expected to filter out particles as small as ~30 nm. Even if the masks had been protective, they were worn only sporadically as the women appeared to have been uninformed about the possible toxicity of the materials to which they were exposed.
This almost certainly could have been avoided by the application of the “Golden Rule” of workplace safety: when you’re not sure of the hazards, do everything you can to minimize exposure. This is just the kind of industrial accident the GoodNanoGuide is intended to help prevent. For example, the page on liquid nanodispersion spraying controls describes the importance of ventilating the exhaust from the process and employing personal protective equipment as a secondary measure of protection. According to the latest research from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the 30-nm particles could have been blocked by an inexpensive, spray-paint respirator sold at your local home improvement store such as these or even these. It is possible to work safely with nanoparticles IF the hazards are recognized and the exposures limited.
What a tragedy.Here are three important take-aways from this incident.
Workplace safety is of paramount importance wherever hazards are possible. When hazards are unknown or poorly understood, steps must be taken to reduce exposure to the hazard. In this case, this means first employing engineering controls such as ventilation of fumes and then relying on personal protective equipment such as respiratory masks but only as a secondary measure of protection. Such tools exist and could have prevented this tragedy if used correctly.
More investigation is needed to establish the facts surrounding the exposures so that similar incidents can be avoided. The evidence demonstrating that nanoparticles ended up in the workers’ lungs is compelling and persuasive. What is less well established is the type of nanoparticle found in the tissues and cells, the dose received by the workers and the mechanism of injury. It is not clear, for example, whether the nanoparticles themselves caused the injury or whether the combination of nanoparticles and other chemicals in the complex mixture resulted in an antagonistic effect. Regardless of these details, this work is a significant and well-documented clinical case study.
Research on and the development of tools for communication about occupational health issues associated with nanoparticles should be accelerated. Analysis of the ICON Nano-EHS database reveals a critical gap in nanomaterial research of relevance to occupational health
as compared with research on nanotechnology environmental, health and safety research in general. So while knowledge about toxicity and hazard grows, understanding how to apply this knowledge in a practical occupational setting still presents a major challenge. While this study highlights a need for fundamental worker protections, better tools are also needed to communicate about potential risk along the supply chain, including during business-to-business transactions, so that consumers of all types have the information they need to handle nanomaterial-containing or nanomaterial-producing products safely. International trade agreements may be a mechanism for better enforcement of worker protections.
as compared with research on nanotechnology environmental, health and safety research in general. So while knowledge about toxicity and hazard grows, understanding how to apply this knowledge in a practical occupational setting still presents a major challenge. While this study highlights a need for fundamental worker protections, better tools are also needed to communicate about potential risk along the supply chain, including during business-to-business transactions, so that consumers of all types have the information they need to handle nanomaterial-containing or nanomaterial-producing products safely. International trade agreements may be a mechanism for better enforcement of worker protections.For more perspectives from an international group of experts, please click on over to Andrew Maynard’s 2020science blog.
A new piece published today at Environmental Expert by attorney Lynn Bergeson, herself a nano environmental expert, describes in some detail the goals and objectives of the GoodNanoGuide, an online resource for sharing information about safe handling of nanoparticles in an occupational setting. Believe me when I say such information is more timely than ever. Many many thanks to Lynn for this unsolicited endorsement of our project. I'm looking forward to the nano-safety skits that Lynn, Shaun Clancy and I are organizing for NanoBusiness 2009. Should be fun. Stay tuned.
EHS Managers Engage with Nanotechnology
Labels:
drug development,
EHS,
GoodNanoGuide,
nanoparticles,
occupational,
research,
safety,
workplace
0
comments
Janelia Farm, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute located outside Washington, DC, was the picturesque setting of HHMI’s annual Environmental Health & Safety Directors Conference. The theme this year: Nanotechnology and the New Economy—Modern Challenges in ES&H Management. In the audience were about 50 high-level EHS managers at universities that are part of the HHMI network. The level of prior knowledge about nanotechnology was mixed. As we learned, some were very knowledgeable, others knew in which labs nanotech research was being pursued at their institutions, and a few had little more than passing knowledge.
The science keynote address was given by Drew Endy, PhD, assistant professor of bioengineering at Stanford University. A very interesting and provocative speaker (though in an unassuming way), Endy gave a series of slides he calls “postcards” outlining the ways in which synthetic biology is being developed. His presentation style consisted of speaking to the audience using slides with minimal content, except when needed to illustrate a technical point. (I liked this approach better than the “stuff lots of content onto your slides so people would not even have had to be there to get the gist. Which usually doesn’t work.) So quotable was he that my Twitterstream on this (#HHMIEHS) does a better job capturing the highlights than I can do here. Suffice it to say that Endy effectively presented a lot of the cutting edge developments in synbio, if he fell a tad short on offering advice to EHS managers about how to handle safety issues in their institutions. The closest he came was an illustration of a student’s home-brew synbio lab, constructed in her bedroom closet, in which her coat was clearly visible among the instruments. I had the same reaction to his talk that I had to the synbio thread at last summer’s GRC on Science and Technology in Society: Wow.
My session was entitled, “Nanotechnology & Safety Management—A New Relationship”. Joining me were Jo Anne Shatkin, PhD, Managing Director of CLF Ventures and Charles Geraci, PhD, CIH, Coordinator of the Nanotechnology Program at the US National Institute of Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH). Given the content of our prepared remarks the three of us decided we had been placed in the agenda in the wrong order and staged a soft coup the morning of the meeting, rearranging ourselves in a more sensible order. Questions were held until the end of our talks.
Thus it was that Jo Anne started off the session with a nice overview of nanotechnology and the attendant issues that complicate an assessment of its health and safety impacts. She outlined her approach to risk assessment of nanomaterials, presented in more detail in her new book, “Nanotechnology: health and environmental risks.”
Chuck Geraci was up next, giving a thorough account of NIOSH’s many activities in nanotechnology. He spent some time describing a simple framework for identifying occupational safety issues, summarizing some of NIOSH’s recent toxicological research, including recent work presented at the SOT meeting showing long-straight multi-walled carbon nanotubes penetrating the pleural lining (AKA “The Image”). NIOSH commentary on this work can be found at the NIOSH blog. He ended by plugging the updated guidance document along with a recent document on medical surveillance programs, both available at the NIOSH nanotechnology page.
Faced with a room full of EHS Directors gathered to hear the latest about nanotechnology, what else could I do but talk at some length about the GoodNanoGuide? I gave my pitch, walked through a brief live demo of the site and invited them to participate.
For once, the schedule was constructed to allow for a generous Q&A session, even considering that collectively we went over our allotted speaking time. (In too many of these meetings, “panel” equates to “speakers talking too long leaving audience little to no time for questions.” The ABA CLE was like this.) And this audience availed itself of every minute. Among the discussion threads we pursued were
- The state of knowledge of occupational practices as they relate to medical applications of nanotechnology [a natural for this audience]
- Whether control banding should be applied to nanomaterials and which form might be best
- How to get wayward academics to understand and enforce good occupational practices in their labs [lots of grumbling about the tyranny of the academic overlords (PhD faculty) who fail to appreciate the humble servants that are only trying to help them (EHS managers).]
- Whether biosafety protocols should be in place for labs working with nanomaterials. [Setting up a Level 1-4 type of containment system similar to that used by labs working with known or potential pathogens.]
This last question caught the three of us somewhat flat-footed. It is not a concept I have heard discussed in many other forums on nano-safety. I suppose EHS managers who deal with medical research think more about biosafety than many others in the nanotechnology community who have more of a chemical safety mindset. The question is whether the biosafety approach can be justified, and for which types of nano research. One obvious difference between current nanomaterials and, say, the Ebola virus, is that today’s nanomaterials are still largely the Phase 1 “passive” materials presented in Mike Roco’s much disseminated scheme. Until we progress to the later stages of nanotechnology we should not be overly concerned with nanoparticles multiplying.
Response to our session was very positive and I expect to hear from many of these people again as we all grapple with the occupational issues surrounding academic nanotechnology research. Plus, Janelia Farm is a very cool place to visit.
Today, the International Council on Nanotechnology released the findings of two workshops designed to identify the research needed to predict nanomaterial impacts on living systems and the environment. This represents the first effort to tackle the grand challenge of predicting nanomaterial impacts on human health and the environment.
World-renowned experts in nanomaterial synthesis and characterization worked side-by-side with their counterparts in toxicology and environmental impacts to develop a prioritized agenda for predicting nanomaterials' biological and environmental impacts.
The breadth of expertise at these workshops was astonishing. But bringing together diverse experts to work on shared challenges is standard operating procedure for ICON.
A sampling of the findings of the 79-page report includes:
Professor Vicki Colvin, Executive Director, ICON:
"The systematic approach taken in these workshops will provide a solid foundation for further research, enable risk management and guide commercial development."
Dr. Andrew Maynard, Chief Science Advisor to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies and member of ICON's Executive Committee:
"The broad participation in these workshops represents the kind of decision-making process that is essential to determining how nanotechnology can be used safely."
Dr. Sally Tinkle, Senior Science Advisor to the Acting Director at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health:
"Independent efforts such as this one add tremendous value to the work we’re doing at the governmental level. The ICON report provides a detailed roadmap for addressing a specific grand challenge and can inform the federal strategy."
Dr. Gérard Rivière, President of the European Committee for Standardization and Research:
"These workshops demonstrated an impressive commitment to international cooperation and harmonization, especially considering the collective necessity to develop and use standardized materials and reference methods operational at the nanoscale. Such broad engagement will be vital to addressing nanotechnology’s impacts in the future."
Intel: Paolo Gargini, Intel Fellow and Director of Technology Strategy: (pdf)
"Intel supports the broad communication of this report to enable prioritization of international research nanotechnology. While companies and countries will compete in the commercialization of nanotech in the area of EHS, cooperative and collaborative research should be the cornerstone."
There are many outstanding challenges and a healthy skepticism about the value of predictive modeling, so let's hear it:
What do you think are the most pressing challenges for nanotechnology?
World-renowned experts in nanomaterial synthesis and characterization worked side-by-side with their counterparts in toxicology and environmental impacts to develop a prioritized agenda for predicting nanomaterials' biological and environmental impacts.
The breadth of expertise at these workshops was astonishing. But bringing together diverse experts to work on shared challenges is standard operating procedure for ICON.
A sampling of the findings of the 79-page report includes:
- Tools and models must be developed that can describe the dynamic nature of nanomaterials throughout their lifestyle.
- A set of screening tools is needed to correlate the functional properties of nanomaterials with their potential for biological interaction.
- Exposure assessment studies are needed to lead to predictions about physicochemical properties and their implications for net dose.
- Quantitative models are needed to describe how the physicochemical properties of nanoparticles control the nature and extent of biomolecular interactions at their surface.
- Dose and dose rate may need to be validated independently for nanomaterials.
- Specific research designed to develop better biomarkers, or sets of biomarkers, is essential to address the vast diversity of nanoparticle types and to develop strong correlative models for predicting in vivo data based on in vitro results.
Here's what some people are saying about the report:
Professor Vicki Colvin, Executive Director, ICON:
"The systematic approach taken in these workshops will provide a solid foundation for further research, enable risk management and guide commercial development."
Dr. Andrew Maynard, Chief Science Advisor to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies and member of ICON's Executive Committee:
"The broad participation in these workshops represents the kind of decision-making process that is essential to determining how nanotechnology can be used safely."
Dr. Sally Tinkle, Senior Science Advisor to the Acting Director at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health:
"Independent efforts such as this one add tremendous value to the work we’re doing at the governmental level. The ICON report provides a detailed roadmap for addressing a specific grand challenge and can inform the federal strategy."
Dr. Gérard Rivière, President of the European Committee for Standardization and Research:
"These workshops demonstrated an impressive commitment to international cooperation and harmonization, especially considering the collective necessity to develop and use standardized materials and reference methods operational at the nanoscale. Such broad engagement will be vital to addressing nanotechnology’s impacts in the future."
Intel: Paolo Gargini, Intel Fellow and Director of Technology Strategy: (pdf)
"Intel supports the broad communication of this report to enable prioritization of international research nanotechnology. While companies and countries will compete in the commercialization of nanotech in the area of EHS, cooperative and collaborative research should be the cornerstone."
There are many outstanding challenges and a healthy skepticism about the value of predictive modeling, so let's hear it:
What do you think are the most pressing challenges for nanotechnology?
We've posted the first in a series of feature articles to the ICON virtual journal and welcome a dialogue on this paper and ICON's commentary here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
