Engineered nanomaterial emission and exposure characterization studies have been completed at more than 60 different facilities by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). These experiences have provided NIOSH the opportunity to refine an earlier published technique, the Nanoparticle Emission Assessment Technique (NEAT 1.0), into a more comprehensive technique for assessing worker and workplace exposures to engineered nanomaterials. This change is reflected in the new name Nanomaterial Exposure Assessment Technique (NEAT 2.0) which distinguishes it from NEAT 1.0. NEAT 2.0 places a stronger emphasis on time-integrated, filter-based sampling (i.e., elemental mass analysis and particle morphology) in the worker's breathing zone (full shift and task specific) and area samples to develop job exposure matrices. NEAT 2.0 includes a comprehensive assessment of emissions at processes and job tasks, using direct-reading instruments (i.e., particle counters) in data-logging mode to better understand peak emission periods. Evaluation of worker practices, ventilation efficacy, and other engineering exposure control systems and risk management strategies serve to allow for a comprehensive exposure assessment.

In January 2007, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) conducted a field study to evaluate process specific emissions during the production of ENMs. This study was performed using the nanoparticle emission assessment technique (NEAT). During this study, it was determined that ENMs were released during production and cleaning of the process reactor. Airborne concentrations of silver, nickel, and iron were found both in the employee's personal breathing zone and area samples during reactor cleaning. At the completion of this initial survey, it was suggested that a flanged attachment be added to the local exhaust ventilation system. NIOSH re-evaluated the facility in December 2011 to assess worker exposures following an increase in production rates. This study included a fully comprehensive emissions, exposure, and engineering control evaluation of the entire process. This study made use of the nanoparticle exposure assessment technique (NEAT 2.0). Data obtained from filter-based samples and direct reading instruments indicate that reactor cleanout increased the overall particle concentration in the immediate area. However, it does not appear that these concentrations affect areas outside of the production floor. As the distance between the reactor and the sample location increased, the observed particle number concentration decreased, creating a concentration gradient with respect to the reactor. The results of this study confirm that the flanged attachment on the local exhaust ventilation system served to decrease exposure potential. Given the available toxicological data of the metals evaluated, caution is warranted. One should always keep in mind that occupational exposure levels were not developed specifically for nanoscale particles. With data suggesting that certain nanoparticles may be more toxic than the larger counterparts of the same material; employers should attempt to control emissions of these particles at the source, to limit the potential for exposure.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) occupational exposure banding process seeks to create a consistent and documented process with a decision logic to characterize chemical hazards so that timely, well-informed risk management decisions can be made for chemical substances that lack OELs. Users can band a chemical manually or by using the occupational exposure banding e-Tool. Overall, this document provides the background, rationale, and instructions for the occupational exposure banding process and gives guidance for risk managers to identify control levels for chemicals without authoritative OELs.

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.

Background: US businesses were considerably impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Return to work after exposure or illness was challenging. Objective: This study aimed to assess employers' experiences and perspectives during the pandemic with SARS-CoV-2 testing in their workforce. Methods: An anonymous survey was delivered to employers across nine NORA sectors. Data were analyzed using SAS Version 9.4. Results: Thirty percent of the respondents worked in a small-sized company (<100 employees), 28% were 100–500 employees, and 42% were more than 500. Small, medium, and large companies were differentially affected, with larger companies affected the most. Sixty-eight percent reported utilizing testing in their return-to-work strategy. Delay in getting results was the most common reported barrier to testing during the early phase of the pandemic (60%). Conclusion: This study will help prepare employers in return-to-work testing decisions in future pandemics.