products safe to environment come into the market and on the other side may have
several uncertain concerns about its potential risks (Morris et al. 2011).
The US Environmental Defense Fund has suggested that research must be
undertaken to examine possible risks all over the nanoproduct life cycle and considering consumer use, employee safety, and environmental effects from product
disposal. Nevertheless, this would entail further improvement and modification of
the current conventional risk assessment methods. For instance, the mass- or
volume-based toxicity standards currently used to evaluate environmental and
worker exposure are to be modified. Environmental fate and exposure measurement
should be done throughout the experiment, tests, and modeling. Information
obtained through such testing must be considered in aggregation with exposure
and transformation potential of nanoparticles during life cycle. Combined application of life cycle and risk assessment for nanomaterials has better possibility to
provide inclusive answers to questions associated with the risk in their production
and use (Christensen and Olsen 2004). Some approaches for managing or preventing
nanomaterial risks are redefinition and adaptation of safety policy and necessities,
exercising proper level of precaution, qualitative risk assessment, and connecting
stakeholders and industry for voluntary cooperation (Murashov and Howard 2009).
Conducting such testing in addition to robust characterization of the material being
tested requires valid test methods and appropriate dose metrics (Morris et al. 2011).
9.3.2 Recommendation for Safe Nanotechnology
for Workplace
The nations have been engaged in framing guidelines for using safe nanotechnology.
They are trying to balance between potential hazards to environment and human and
the prospect of this technology in daily life. As a result, countries have come out with
draft guidelines and precautionary measures to address the issue. Europe, the USA,
and other developed and developing countries are on a continuous process to provide
logical guidance to its users through monitoring at research as well as consumption
level and import and export levels too (Table 9.5). The National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), USA, has prepared a number of recommendations for safe use of nanotechnology for workplace, and it is an area of
emphasis for the Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN) (http://
go.nature.com/rGNFu8). The Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
Germany, and German Chemical Industry Association have made guidelines for the
handling and use of nanomaterials in the workplace (http://go.nature.com/8CgPeg).
For some of the nanomaterial, it will take substantial time to address the numerous
safety questions. Therefore, researchers and risk managers should work in collaboration to develop approaches to limit exposure and identify that specific
nanomaterial which may be the source of potential hazards in the future. Industry
should come together in this effort.
338
P. Pramanik et al.
several uncertain concerns about its potential risks (Morris et al. 2011).
The US Environmental Defense Fund has suggested that research must be
undertaken to examine possible risks all over the nanoproduct life cycle and considering consumer use, employee safety, and environmental effects from product
disposal. Nevertheless, this would entail further improvement and modification of
the current conventional risk assessment methods. For instance, the mass- or
volume-based toxicity standards currently used to evaluate environmental and
worker exposure are to be modified. Environmental fate and exposure measurement
should be done throughout the experiment, tests, and modeling. Information
obtained through such testing must be considered in aggregation with exposure
and transformation potential of nanoparticles during life cycle. Combined application of life cycle and risk assessment for nanomaterials has better possibility to
provide inclusive answers to questions associated with the risk in their production
and use (Christensen and Olsen 2004). Some approaches for managing or preventing
nanomaterial risks are redefinition and adaptation of safety policy and necessities,
exercising proper level of precaution, qualitative risk assessment, and connecting
stakeholders and industry for voluntary cooperation (Murashov and Howard 2009).
Conducting such testing in addition to robust characterization of the material being
tested requires valid test methods and appropriate dose metrics (Morris et al. 2011).
9.3.2 Recommendation for Safe Nanotechnology
for Workplace
The nations have been engaged in framing guidelines for using safe nanotechnology.
They are trying to balance between potential hazards to environment and human and
the prospect of this technology in daily life. As a result, countries have come out with
draft guidelines and precautionary measures to address the issue. Europe, the USA,
and other developed and developing countries are on a continuous process to provide
logical guidance to its users through monitoring at research as well as consumption
level and import and export levels too (Table 9.5). The National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), USA, has prepared a number of recommendations for safe use of nanotechnology for workplace, and it is an area of
emphasis for the Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN) (http://
go.nature.com/rGNFu8). The Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
Germany, and German Chemical Industry Association have made guidelines for the
handling and use of nanomaterials in the workplace (http://go.nature.com/8CgPeg).
For some of the nanomaterial, it will take substantial time to address the numerous
safety questions. Therefore, researchers and risk managers should work in collaboration to develop approaches to limit exposure and identify that specific
nanomaterial which may be the source of potential hazards in the future. Industry
should come together in this effort.
338
P. Pramanik et al.