Ultrafine particles (UFPs) can be released unintentionally during metal additive manufacturing (AM). Experts agree on the urgent need to increase the knowledge of the emerging risk of exposure to nanoparticles, although different points of view have arisen on how to do so. This article presents a case study conducted on a metal AM facility, focused on studying the exposure to incidental metallic UFP. It intends to serve as a pilot study on the application of different methodologies to manage this occupational risk, using qualitative and quantitative approaches that have been used to study exposure to engineered nanoparticles. Quantitative data were collected using a condensation particle counter (CPC), showing the maximum particle number concentration in manual cleaning tasks. Additionally, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy dispersive X-ray analyzer (EDS) measurements were performed, showing no significant change in the particles’ chemical composition, size, or surface (rugosity) after printing. A qualitative approach was fulfilled using Control Banding Nanotool 2.0, which revealed different risk bands depending on the tasks performed. This article culminates in a critical analysis regarding the application of these two approaches in order to manage the occupational risk of exposure to incidental nanoparticles, raising the potential of combining both.

The benefits of metal 3D printing seem unquestionable. However, this additive manufacturing technology brings concerns to occupational safety and health professionals, since recent studies show the existence of airborne nanomaterials in these workplaces. This article explores different approaches to manage the risk of exposure to these incidental nanomaterials, on a case study conducted in a Portuguese organization using Selective Laser Melting (SLM) technology. A monitoring campaign was performed using a condensation particle counter, a canning mobility particle sizer and air sampling for later scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive X-ray analysis, proving the emission of nano-scale particles and providing insights on number particle concentration, size, shape and chemical composition of airborne matter. Additionally, Control Banding Nanotool v2.0 and Stoffenmanager Nano v1.0 were applied in this case study as qualitative tools, although designed for engineered nanomaterials. This article highlights the limitations of using these quantitative and qualitative approaches when studying metal 3D Printing workstations. As a result, this article proposes the IN Nanotool, a risk management method for incidental nanomaterials designed to overcome the limitations of other existing approaches and to allow non-experts to manage this risk and act preventively to guarantee the safety and health conditions of exposed workers.

Polymer binder modification with inorganic nanomaterials (NM) could be a potential and efficient solution to control matrix flammability of polymer concrete (PC) materials without sacrificing other important properties. Occupational exposures can occur all along the life cycle of a NM and “nanoproducts” from research through scale-up, product development, manufacturing, and end of life. The main objective of the present study is to analyse and compare different qualitative risk assessment methods during the production of polymer mortars (PM) with NM. The laboratory scale production process was divided in 3 main phases (pre-production, production and post-production), which allow testing the assessment methods in different situations. The risk assessment involved in the manufacturing process of PM was made by using the qualitative analyses based on: French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety method (ANSES); Control Banding Nanotool (CB Nanotool); Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne method (EPFL); Guidance working safely with nanomaterials and nanoproducts (GWSNN); Istituto Superiore per la Prevenzione e la Sicurezza del Lavoro, Italy method (ISPESL); Precautionary Matrix for Synthetic Nanomaterials (PMSN); and Stoffenmanager Nano. It was verified that the different methods applied also produce different final results. In phases 1 and 3 the risk assessment tends to be classified as medium-high risk, while for phase 2 the more common result is medium level. It is necessary to improve the use of qualitative methods by defining narrow criteria for the methods selection for each assessed situation, bearing in mind that the uncertainties are also a relevant factor when dealing with the risk related to nanotechnologies field.