In a world of finite resources and ecosystem capacity, the prevailing model of economic growth, founded on ever-increasing consumption of resources and emission pollutants, cannot be sustained any longer. In this context, the “green economy” concept has offered the opportunity to change the way that society manages the interaction of the environmental and economic domains. To enable society to build and sustain a green economy, the associated concept of “green nanotechnology” aims to exploit nano-innovations in materials science and engineering to generate products and processes that are energy efficient as well as economically and environmentally sustainable. These applications are expected to impact a large range of economic sectors, such as energy production and storage, clean up-technologies, as well as construction and related infrastructure industries. These solutions may offer the opportunities to reduce pressure on raw materials trading on renewable energy, to improve power delivery systems to be more reliable, efficient and safe as well as to use unconventional water sources or nano-enabled construction products therefore providing better ecosystem and livelihood conditions. However, the benefits of incorporating nanomaterials in green products and processes may bring challenges with them for environmental, health and safety risks, ethical and social issues, as well as uncertainty concerning market and consumer acceptance. Therefore, our aim is to examine the relationships among guiding principles for a green economy and opportunities for introducing nano-applications in this field as well as to critically analyze their practical challenges, especially related to the impact that they may have on the health and safety of workers involved in this innovative sector. These are principally due to the not fully known nanomaterial hazardous properties, as well as to the difficulties in characterizing exposure and defining emerging risks for the workforce. Interestingly, this review proposes action strategies for the assessment, management and communication of risks aimed to precautionary adopt preventive measures including formation and training of employees, collective and personal protective equipment, health surveillance programs to protect the health and safety of nano-workers. It finally underlines the importance that occupational health considerations will have on achieving an effectively sustainable development of nanotechnology.

In collaboration with RTI International, the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) administered a survey to North American companies working with nanomaterials to assess health and safety practices. The results would contribute to understanding the impact of the efforts made by the NIOSH Nanotechnology Research Center (NTRC) in communicating occupational health and safety (OHS) considerations for workers when handling these materials. The survey, developed by RAND Corporation, was conducted online from September 2019–December 2019. Forty-five companies or organizations in the U.S. and Canada that fabricate, manufacture, handle, dispose, or otherwise use nanomaterials completed the survey. The survey was designed to answer research questions regarding the nanomaterials in use, which resources the companies have consulted for OHS guidance, and the overall OHS culture at the companies. Other questions specifically addressed whether the companies interacted with NIOSH or NIOSH resources to inform OHS policies and practices. Among participating companies, 57.8% had a maximum of 50 employees. Gold nanoparticles and polymers were most common (n = 20; 45.5% each), followed by graphene (36.4%), carbon nanotubes and nanofibers (34.1%), and zinc oxide nanoparticles (31.8%). Environmental monitoring was performed by 31.8% of the companies. While 88.9% of the companies had laminar flow cabinets, only 67.5% required it to be used with ENMs. Information and training programs were indicated by 90% of the sample, and only 29.6% performed specific health surveillance for ENM workers. Personal protective equipment primarily included gloves (100%) and eye/face protection (97.7%). More than a third (37.8%) of the respondents reported using at least one NIOSH resource to acquire information about safe handling of ENMs. The small number of companies that responded to and completed the survey is a considerable limitation to this study. However, the survey data are valuable for gauging the reach and influence of the NIOSH NTRC on nano OHS and for informing future outreach, particularly to small businesses.

Emerging and novel technologies, materials, and information integrated into increasingly automated and networked manufacturing processes or into traditional manufacturing settings are enhancing the efficiency and productivity of manufacturing. Globally, there is a move toward a new era in manufacturing that is characterized by: (1) the ability to create and deliver more complex designs of products; (2) the creation and use of materials with new properties that meet a design need; (3) the employment of new technologies, such as additive and digital techniques that improve on conventional manufacturing processes; and (4) a compression of the time from initial design concept to the creation of a final product. Globally, this movement has many names, but “advanced manufacturing” has become the shorthand for this complex integration of material and technology elements that enable new ways to manufacture existing products, as well as new products emerging from new technologies and new design methods. As the breadth of activities associated with advanced manufacturing suggests, there is no single advanced manufacturing industry. Instead, aspects of advanced manufacturing can be identified across a diverse set of business sectors that use manufacturing technologies, ranging from the semiconductors and electronics to the automotive and pharmaceutical industries. The breadth and diversity of advanced manufacturing may change the occupational and environmental risk profile, challenge the basic elements of comprehensive health and safety (material, process, worker, environment, product, and general public health and safety), and provide an opportunity for development and dissemination of occupational and environmental health and safety (OEHS) guidance and best practices. It is unknown how much the risk profile of different elements of OEHS will change, thus requiring an evolution of health and safety practices. These changes may be accomplished most effectively through multi-disciplinary, multi-sector, public-private dialogue that identifies issues and offers solutions.