How safe are nanotechnologies?

Cost-benefit analysis is a challenging element of safety management because managers can choose between adequate safety and possible benefits from production with a lower level of safety. OHS law in most states allows for an almost formal assessment in managing a hazard or risk ‘as far as is reasonably practicable’. But what if that hazard is unknown? Does that mean that a cost-benefit analysis is easy because the cost cannot be determined?

In the past there have been several products whose hazards were left un-researched or ignored until the evidence became overwhelming. Often this evidence was the result of excessive pain to the handlers and manufacturers of these products and, too often, the most damning evidence came from worker deaths.

Over the last decade, a similar product has been developed for a range of manufacturing processes and products using nanotechnology. Nanomaterials are becoming widespread in products ranging from cosmetics to bicycle frames, high-resolution microscopes and devices to make the transportation of gas safer. There is no doubt nanomaterials are existing technologies that can benefit society in many positive ways.

However, there is growing evidence that the development speed of this technology may have overtaken good safety management. The US Congress conducted hearings into nanotechnology’s impact on society and related ethical issues and there is evidence that carbon nanotubes cause lung disease in mice but the pace of research into the human impact of nanotubes is slow, much slower than the development rate of nanotechnology applications.

Australia already uses nanotechnology and, although it’s not a world leader in this field, governments have begun investigating how to regulate such materials in order to, in most cases, increase the safety of nanomaterials. The May 2007 WorkCover NSW OHS overview into nanotechnology described nanotechnology as: “Engineered structures, materials and systems that operate at a scale of 100 nm or less. Nanoparticles can occur naturally (viruses and bushfire smoke), incidentally (diesel and combustion exhausts), and through engineering processes (carbon nanotubes).”

It says that nanotechnologies are used in industries such as IT, construction, health and cosmetics and that the technology covers a range of scientific disciplines. This is part of the reason managing nanotechnology is so difficult. It has not originated from a single discipline and has a wide application. WorkCover calls for more research into the technology.

A Monash University report entitled ‘A Review of Possible Impacts of Nanotechnology on Australia’s Regulatory Framework - Final Report’ went to the Australian government in September 2007. The size and complexity of the challenge was illustrated in the executive summary:

“While there is no immediate need for major changes to the regulatory regimes, there are many areas of our regulatory regimes which, potentially, will need amending, and this will be a long-term effort across multiple regulators and regulatory agencies as nanoproducts arise and as new knowledge on hazards, exposure and monitoring tools becomes available.”

The report identified six areas of potential concern:

• Uncertainty on whether nanoparticles of “conventional products would be considered as ‘different’ to traditional products”. The report said that most regulatory frameworks will need to be revised to accommodate nanomaterials.
• “... many regulatory triggers currently exist on the basis of a threshold weight or volume” and these measures are difficult to apply to nanomaterials for a range of reasons.
• There is insufficient knowledge on the risks of nanomaterials from which to make regulatory statements.
• Risk assessment methodologies may not be appropriate.
• Existing research and development exemptions on conventional materials may not be relevant for nanomaterials.
• Current regulatory frameworks often relate to overseas documents which may not be relevant for Australia.

According to Dr Paul Wright, coordinator of NanoSafe Australia, a subsidiary of Nanovic (a venture between Monash University, Swinburne University of Technology and RMIT University to pursue commercialisation of nanotechnologies for Australian industry), recent overseas studies into the health risks of carbon nanotubes have shown: “At very high doses, long fibre multiwalled carbon nanotubes cause mesothelioma similar to asbestos in a special animal model that is sensitive to genotoxin and oxidative stress-induced cancer, with short latency periods.”

Dr Wright has pointed out: “While earlier carbon nanotube studies (particularly in vitro) had suggested that the metal content in nanotubes (ie, catalyst remaining after nanotube synthesis) was an important determinant of cytotoxicity, these studies indicate that metal content is less important than the physical fibre dimensions of the nanotubes (and their inability to be broken down, ie, persistence).”

For those safety professionals and managers who have had some dealings with asbestos sufferers in the past, Dr Wright’s comments will sound familiar.

In November 2007, NanoSafe produced the position paper ‘Current OHS Best Practice for the Australian Nanotechnology Industry’, which said that the special properties of nanomaterials could result in toxicology that differs from the original source material. Workers who handle such materials in Australia could be exposed to nanoparticles through ingestion, dermal exposure or inhalation, although more work is needed in this area. Devices to monitor exposure are available but are currently complex and expensive. The report also says that control of nanomaterial hazards are best dealt with currently through the application of the hierarchy of controls as it relates to ultrafine particulates. The report emphasises a combination of personal protective equipment, engineering controls and administrative controls.

As with many elements of safety management, the NanoSafe report does not see safe work practices as an impediment to the continued development of nanomaterials.

Even though NanoSafe and the Australian Safety and Compensation Council advocate various hazard control measures, the effectiveness of these measures does not mean that research into the hazard can be forestalled. Most OHS legislation in Australia has, as one of its aims, the following or similar: “To eliminate at the source, risks to the health, safety or welfare of employees and other persons at work.”

In May 2007, the Australian Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research developed a National Nanotechnology Strategy that is administered by the Australian Office of Nanotechnology. The strategy ends in 2009 but includes these specific initiatives:

• Address the health, safety and environmental (HSE) impacts of nanotechnology on regulations and standards;
• Undertake a public awareness and engagement program to provide balanced advice on nanotechnology;
• Establish a nanoparticle metrology capability at the National Measurement Institute; and
• Facilitate a whole-of-government approach to nanotechnology through establishing the Australian Office of Nanotechnology.

New nanomaterials are being developed regularly in Australia. Products containing nanomaterials are being imported from around the world. As many government reports state, we don’t know enough about nanomaterials to say that they are safe for humans and the environment. Indeed, there is a growing body of evidence identifying risks associated with these materials.

Conclusion

Nanotechnology should not be another of the synthetic products that injure and kill workers, affecting their families, and pollute the environment. There are strong indications that we have learnt from experience but that is at the government, academic and policy level. Businesses using such nanomaterials need to focus on the micro-impact of nanomaterials on their employees, themselves and the environment. Control measures are available now and more effective measures are being investigated constantly as the body of knowledge expands.

Nanotechnology is an issue that needs to be closely watched. If a business doesn’t maintain its level of safety knowledge on this material, the personal and commercial impacts could be substantial.