Exposure Limit Values for Nanomaterials—Capacity and Willingness of Users to Apply a Precautionary Approach

In the European Union, the legal obligation for employers to provide a safe workplace for processing manufactured nanomaterials is a challenge when there is a lack of hazard information. The attitude of key stakeholders in industry, trade unions, branch and employers’ organizations, and government policy advisors toward nano reference values (NRVs) has been investigated in a pilot study that was initiated by a coalition of Dutch employers’ organizations and Dutch trade unions. NRVs are developed as provisional substitutes for health-based occupational exposure limits or derived no-effect levels and are based on a precautionary approach. NRVs have been introduced as a voluntary risk management instrument for airborne nanomaterials at the workplace. A measurement strategy to deal with simultaneously emitting process-generated nanoparticles was developed, allowing employers to use the NRVs for risk assessment. The motivational posture of most companies involved in the pilot study appears to be pro-active regarding worker protection and acquiescent to NRVs. An important driver to use NRVs seems to be a temporary certainty employers experience with regard to their legal obligation to take preventive action. Many interviewees welcome the voluntary character of NRVs, though trade unions and a few companies advocate a more binding status.

[1]  Andrew D Maynard,et al.  Exposure Assessment Approaches for Engineered Nanomaterials , 2010, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[2]  Pieter van Broekhuizen,et al.  Exposure limits for nanoparticles: report of an international workshop on nano reference values. , 2012, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[3]  W. D. de Jong,et al.  The effect of particle size on the cytotoxicity, inflammation, developmental toxicity and genotoxicity of silver nanoparticles. , 2011, Biomaterials.

[4]  The Nanotechnology Panel of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) is pleased to offer comments on the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s (NIOSH) draft Current Intelligence Bulletin (CIB) Occupational Exposure to Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers , 2011 .

[5]  Christian Micheletti,et al.  Engineered nanoparticles: Review of health and environmental safety (ENRHES). Project Final Report , 2010 .

[6]  Valerie Braithwaite,et al.  Games of Engagement: Postures Within the Regulatory Community* , 1995 .

[7]  Neil Gunningham,et al.  Social License and Environmental Protection: Why Businesses Go Beyond Compliance , 2002, Law & Social Inquiry.

[8]  Barbara Herr Harthorn,et al.  Governance implications of nanomaterials companies’ inconsistent risk perceptions and safety practices , 2012, Journal of Nanoparticle Research.

[9]  Charles L Geraci,et al.  A Strategy for Assessing Workplace Exposures to Nanomaterials , 2011, Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene.

[10]  J. Everitt,et al.  Pulmonary responses of mice, rats, and hamsters to subchronic inhalation of ultrafine titanium dioxide particles. , 2004, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[11]  Tetty Havinga,et al.  Private Regulation of Food Safety by Supermarkets , 2006 .

[12]  F M Christensen,et al.  Approaches for establishing human health no effect levels for engineered nanomaterials , 2011 .

[13]  J. Pauluhn Multi-walled carbon nanotubes (Baytubes): approach for derivation of occupational exposure limit. , 2010, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[14]  John Griffiths Legal knowledge and the social working of law : The case of euthanasia , 1999 .

[15]  Julia Black,et al.  Really Responsive Regulation , 2008 .

[16]  Lucas Reijnders,et al.  Workplace exposure to nanoparticles and the application of provisional nanoreference values in times of uncertain risks , 2012, Journal of Nanoparticle Research.

[17]  Bengt Fadeel,et al.  Close encounters of the small kind: adverse effects of man-made materials interfacing with the nano-cosmos of biological systems. , 2010, Annual review of pharmacology and toxicology.

[18]  Yang Li,et al.  Size-dependent cytotoxicity of amorphous silica nanoparticles in human hepatoma HepG2 cells. , 2011, Toxicology in vitro : an international journal published in association with BIBRA.

[19]  Wouter Fransman,et al.  Stoffenmanager Nano version 1.0: a web-based tool for risk prioritization of airborne manufactured nano objects. , 2012, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[20]  Robert A. Kagan,et al.  The “Criminology of the Corporation” and Regulatory Enforcement Strategies , 1980 .

[21]  L. Senden Soft Law in European Community Law, Handelseditie , 2004 .

[22]  Linda Senden,et al.  Soft Law in European Community Law , 2004 .

[23]  K. Wellens,et al.  Soft Law in European Community Law , 1980 .

[24]  G. Oberdörster,et al.  Nanotoxicology: An Emerging Discipline Evolving from Studies of Ultrafine Particles , 2005, Environmental health perspectives.

[25]  Barbel R. Dorbeck-Jung,et al.  Soft regulation and responsible nanotechnological development in the European Union: Regulating occupational health and safety in the Netherlands , 2011, Eur. J. Law Technol..

[26]  Sylvia I. Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen,et al.  Comparing the legitimacy and effectiveness of global hard and soft law: An analytical framework , 2009 .

[27]  M Laird Forrest,et al.  Effects of nanomaterial physicochemical properties on in vivo toxicity. , 2009, Advanced drug delivery reviews.

[28]  Julia Black,et al.  Really Responsive Regulation , 2007 .

[29]  E. Kuempel,et al.  Occupational exposure to titanium dioxide , 2011 .

[30]  P. Swuste,et al.  Evaluating the Control Banding Nanotool: a qualitative risk assessment method for controlling nanoparticle exposures , 2009 .