Nanomaterial sampling at NIST


Published on

Sampling protocols used to determine employee exposure to nanoparticles at NIST

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 1. Speaking from perspective of applied Industrial Hygiene2. Assuming audience has limited familiarity with Industrial Hygiene – will touch on traditional IH practices and philosophies
  • Instruments were selected to match NIOSH’s work. More comparable instruments available each year.Will provide basic descriptive statistics.
  • Applied industrial hygiene not researchGaithersburg – Center for Nanoscale Science and TechnologyBoulder – smaller # researchers, Optoelectronics, Materials Reliability, Electromagnetics
  • As an Industrial Hygienist I measure people’s exposures to air contaminants.
  • NIOSH Current Intelligence Bulletin for CNT 2010 as a draft that was released for public commentCNT REL = 7 µg/m3, 8-hr TWA = LoD for analytical methodTiO2 REL = 0.3 mg/m3 for ultrafine (<100 nm), 2.4 mg/m3 for fine
  • Nanoparticle Emission Assessment Technique (NEAT)Pre-dated draft CIB for CNTs and carbon nanofibersInstruments shouldbe specific, field-portable and affordable (not an SMPS Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer)
  • Pros: Gets down to nanometer size rangeCons: Provides a single count combining all sizes of particles Non-specific Does not correlate with traditional OELs
  • ** Increase in small size WITHOUT increase in large sizes = nanoparticles** Small sizes correlate with CPC = nanoparticlesPros: Provides six separate size channelsCons: Only gets down to 300 nm particle size Limited data memory forces longer logging intervals, difficult to match to CPC
  • Higher flow rate will capture more material; may be able to reach 7 lpm with personal pump; 10 lpm maximumSEM/TEM difficult to quantify air concentration, especially as mass
  • Fume hoods not intended to control spraying of materials.
  • Standard chemical fume hood, HEPA filtered exhaust; Checked that face velocity was adequateTarget leaning against center of back wallSonicator enclosure back right cornerDry weighing performed in front on enclosure – partial blockage of inward airflow
  • Left photo shows researcher holding air brush in right handNote metal target, sample filters behind targetRight photo shows researcher using canned air with left hand
  • Pumps and Filters on stand at face of hoodFilters inside hoodAqua sonicator inside hoodPersonal pumps usually reach 3.5 – 5.0 lpm; some rated at 7.0 lpm; AC pumps to 10 lpm (NIOSH max.)
  • Note CPC, OPC, target, air brush
  • Sampling period included both rounds of prep and spraying, along with final cleanupAll samples below analytical laboratory’s lower limit of detectionBEST PROOF OF RESEARCHER’S SAFETY: Adequate to prove exposure level was below the OELSEM – Preliminary results = not seeing anything
  • Background in hallway outside labEnter lab; previously unoccupiedWeigh and sonicate MWCNTVacuum lab floor – skews range of measurementsTurn on HEPA-filtered recirculating fume hood – Totally changed background level within labSeen the same thing when recirc. hood left on in lab after sampling and sampler left running, 2 hours and background = 0Beginning of data shown in following charts – much of this variation would have been lost at higher backgroundEnd of data shown in following charts>7 Move instrument to hallway outside of lab – back to original background level
  • Slight increase in small and large particles on the OPCNo corresponding increase on CPCNo proof of individual nanoparticles; seeing liquid aerosols??
  • Strong match for high and low pointsSee increases in small and large particles at the same times
  • Limited correlation between the two instrumentsTime scale of the two instruments slightly different – difficult to ID specific brief events
  • Nanomaterial sampling at NIST

    1. 1. Applying NIOSH’s Nanomaterial Sampling Methods in the Laboratory Setting – Preliminary Observations<br />Michael K. Blumer, CIH<br />Jason T. Capriotti, CIH, CSP<br />National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)<br />Office of Safety, Health and Environment (OSHE)<br />
    2. 2. Presentation Outline <br />Review Occupational Exposure Monitoring<br />Review NIOSH Sampling Methods & Limitations<br />Case Study: Spraying Multi-walled Carbon Nanotubes<br />Photo: Carbon nanotubes with impurities; Credit: NIST<br />2<br />
    3. 3. Disclaimers<br />Certain commercial instruments are identified in this paper in order to specify the sampling procedures adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the equipment identified is necessarily the best for the purpose.<br />Due to the preliminary nature of the sampling activities, no attempt at deriving statistical inferences was made.<br />3<br />
    4. 4. Introduction<br />NIST Safety Office is evaluating exposures in working labs<br />NIST researchers fabricate, test, and use variety of nanomaterials<br />Laboratory Setting<br />Small amounts of many different materials<br />Short-duration activities<br />Small population of highly educated, specialized workers<br />Exposure controls are commonly present<br />Local exhaust ventilation; fume hood, etc.<br />Personal protective equipment; lab coats, gloves, glasses<br />Ref: NIST HSI #23<br />Photo: Assembly of polystyrene particles held together by polyelectrolyte interaction fabricated by the Complex Fluids Group; Credit: NIST<br />4<br />
    5. 5. Occupational Exposure Monitoring<br />Traditional Exposure Monitoring<br />Occupational Exposure Limit (OEL)<br />Airborne concentration – mass of contaminant<br />Set by governmental agency or scientific association<br />Based on medical case studies, toxicology, epidemiology<br />Collect physical sample of airborne contaminant with pump and filter or adsorption tube<br />Laboratory analysis to quantify material collected<br />Calculate concentration and compare with OEL<br />5<br />
    6. 6. ENM Exposure Monitoring<br />No OELs in most cases<br />Instead, evaluate change over background(Standard philosophy is to control exposure to carcinogens as low as technically possible)<br />Chemical-specific OELs for Carbon Nanotubes and Nanowires and Titanium Dioxide<br />Methods sensitive enough to reach lower OEL<br />NIOSH sampling methods for ENMs<br />6<br />
    7. 7. NIOSH NEAT Sampling Protocol<br />Particle Counters - Hand-held direct-reading<br />Condensation Particle Counter (CPC)<br />Optical Particle Counter (OPC)<br />Together provide semi-quantitative estimate of nanoparticles<br />Filter sample for SEM/TEM analysis<br />Particle identification and morphology<br />Filter sample for airborne chemical mass concentration<br />Traditional NIOSH sampling & analytical methods<br />Filter pairs at nanoparticle source and researcher’s personal breathing zone (PBZ)<br />Ref: Methner, M. , Hodson, L. and Geraci, C. (2010) 'Nanoparticle Emission Assessment Technique (NEAT) for the Identification and Measurement of Potential Inhalation Exposure to Engineered Nanomaterials — Part A', Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 7: 3, 127 — 132, First published on: 16 December 2009 (iFirst)<br />7<br />
    8. 8. Condensation Particle Counter<br />Saturated alcohol condenses on particles to grow them to 10 micrometers (µm)<br />Count with optical detector<br />10 nm – 1,000 nm particle size<br />1 – 100,000 (particles/cm3)<br />Concentration accuracy ± 20 %<br />8<br />
    9. 9. Optical Particle Counter<br />Counts particles based on laser light scattering<br />Six size channels: 300 nm – 10,000 nm<br />Smallest size channel = 300 nm – 500 nm<br />Limited data-logging memory<br />Counting efficiency 50 % @ 300 nm,100 % @ >450 nm<br />Results in particles/liter of air<br />9<br />
    10. 10. Filter Sampling<br />Carbon Nanotubes<br />NIOSH Method 5040, Diesel Particulate Matter (as Elemental Carbon)<br />Thermal-optical analysis, flame ionization detector<br />Estimated LoD: 0.3 µg per filter portion<br />Precision: 0.19 @ 1 µg Carbon, 0.01 @ 10 – 72 µg Carbon<br />SEM/TEM Analysis<br />Filter selection: Analyst’s preference or NIOSH Method 7402, Asbestos by TEM<br />Bulk sample to assist analyst in ENM identification<br />Difficult with under- or over-loaded filter<br />Ref: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH):Methods 5040 and 7402. In NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods(NMAM), 4th ed. DHHS (NIOSH) Pub. No. 94-113. P.C. SchlechtandP.F. O’Conner (eds.) Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NIOSH,<br />1994.<br />10<br />
    11. 11. Case Study: Spraying Carbon Nanotubes<br />All work performed in fume hood, HEPA filtered exhaust to outside<br />Weigh dry powder<br />Add 20 ml water and surfactant<br />Sonicate solution inside enclosure and in open-top aqua sonicator<br />Spray liquid solution of MWCNTs by use of air brush<br />Apply “canned” compressed air to speed drying<br />Two rounds of spraying totaling 30 minutes<br />11<br />
    12. 12. Work Location<br />12<br />
    13. 13. Spraying MWCNTs<br />13<br />
    14. 14. Filter Sampling<br />Three pairs of filters<br />Researcher’s personal breathing zone<br />Stationary samples at face of fume hood<br />Inside fume hood, next to target<br />Pump flow of 3.5 lpm for 82 minutes provides limit of quantification below REL for carbon nanotubes<br />14<br />
    15. 15. Personal Samples<br />15<br />
    16. 16. Particle Counters<br />CPC logs data every 1 minute<br />OPC logs data every 30 seconds, 1-sec. delay<br />Background levels before and after ENM handling<br />Hand-held from point of operation to PBZusually at face of hood<br />16<br />
    17. 17. Filter Sampling Results<br />17<br />
    18. 18. Particle Counter Results<br />Three sets of data<br />Smallest size channel on OPC (0.3 µm – 0.5 µm)<br />Five larger OPC size channels combined (0.5 µm – >5 µm)<br />CPC data (0.1 µm –>1 µm)<br />Four stages of work<br />Background<br />Two rounds of prep combined<br />Two rounds of spraying combined<br />Cleanup<br />Compare geometric means, work / background<br />18<br />
    19. 19. Effect of Background Particulate Levels<br />19<br />
    20. 20. Comparison of Work and Background Particulate Concentrations (Geometric means)<br />OPC Small Size Channel<br />OPC Large Size Channels<br />CPC<br />20<br />
    21. 21. Optical Particle Counter MeasurementsSmall- and Large-Size Channels (one scale)<br />21<br />
    22. 22. Optical Particle Counter MeasurementsSmall- & Large-Size Channels (two scales)<br />22<br />
    23. 23. 23<br />
    24. 24. Conclusions<br />Researcher was not exposed to measureable levels of airborne MWCNTs during spraying<br />Local exhaust ventilation with HEPA filtration is effective at controlling nanoparticles<br />Limitations of particle counters significantly hamper identification of nanoparticles<br />Difficult to identify ENMs over normal background<br />Can improve sensitivity by activelylowering background particleconcentration<br /> - Do not need to HEPA filter incoming air<br />Photo: Nanowires that emit UV lightCredit: Lorelle Mansfield/NIST<br />24<br />
    25. 25. Questions?<br /><br />Photo: A 40-nanometer-wide NIST logo made with cobalt atoms on a copper surface. The ripples in the background are made by electrons, which create a fluid-like layer at the copper surface. Each atom on the surface acts like a pebble dropped in a pond. Credit: J. Stroscio, R. Celotta/NIST<br />25<br />