Investigation into dealing with nanoparticles in the Dutch workplace

The measures Dutch industry and knowledge institutions use to protect employees in dealing with nanoparticles are largely similar to those in other countries. However improvement is possible when it comes to testing the measures for effectiveness, the exchange of information about dealing with nanoparticles and the distribution of information about good practices.  
These are the most important results from a study published in the autumn of 2008 by the Centre of Expertise in Life Sciences (CEL) of the Hogeschool Zuyd university in Heerlen, the Expertise Centrum Toxische Stoffen (Expertise Centre for Toxic Substances or ECTS) of Arbo Unie in Roermond and the DSM Arbodienst (Occupational Health and Safety service) in Geleen. For the study, 60 Dutch institutes and companies using the synthetic difficult-to-degrade nanoparticles were visited. Nanoparticles smaller than 100 nm (0.1 µm) could be hazardous to the health, because they may be subject to fewer hindrances by natural defence mechanisms such as the skin. 37 companies and knowledge institutions eventually cooperated. The investigation focused on good practices in dealing with nanoparticles, the attention paid to them in risk inventories and communication within the chain about the possible dangers of nanoparticles.  
Most applications for nanoparticles lie in surfaces and coatings. Their use in research ran a close second. The nanoparticles used in large quantities are carbon black, which serves among other things as a material strengthener and filler in rubbers), amorphous silica (used in making glass) and aluminium oxides. Of the 41,000 employees in the survey, around 400 work with nanoparticles regularly. 
Almost all participating companies and institutions took measures to manage exposure to nanoparticles. No major discrepancies were found between companies and institutes. 22 per cent of the companies visited had carried out a risk analysis or were in the process of doing so. Ventilation was the most-used mitigating measure.     
However little is yet known about the effectiveness of the measures used, and systematic testing is rarely done. Only 8 per cent of the companies and institutes carried out testing for exposure to nanoparticles. Information exchange in the chain is inadequate. For half of the participants, no information provision about the presence and risks of nanoparticles occurred in the chain. Neither did safety information publications say anything about this in most instances.
There certainly appears to be a need for information about good practices. Participants in the research indicated they would benefit from, among other things, a database of companies making or using nanoparticles, and an expertise centre for good practices and the effectiveness of various measures. The question is how the production of nanomaterials will grow and how large the number of employees exposed to them will be. Given the rapid growth in applications and the market penetration (particularly in the automotive and textile sectors and ceramic applications), the researchers advise repeating a survey such as this at least twice in the coming decade. 

The Omgang met nanodeeltjes op de werkvloer report can be found at www.szw.nl