Nanomaterials in the workplace Risk perception and risk communication
Based on a literature review by: Rosemary Gibson, Nicola Stacey and Roxanne Gervais
(HSL, UK), Hakan Wallin (NRCWE, DK), Eric Drais (INRS, FR), Wojciech Zatorski
(CIOP-PIB, PL)
Available at: http://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/literature_reviews/risk-perceptionand-risk-communication-with-regard-to-nanomaterials-in-the-workplace/view
Safety and health at work is everyone’s concern. It’s good for you. It’s good for business.
What are nanomaterials?
Commission Recommendation of 18 October 2011 on the definition of
Nanomaterial (2011/696/EU) [1]
"Nanomaterial" means:
• a natural, incidental or manufactured material
• containing particles, in an unbound state or as an aggregate or as an
agglomerate
• and where, for 50 % or more of the particles in the number size
distribution, one or more external dimensions is in the size range 1 nm 100 nm.
 In specific cases […] the number size distribution threshold of 50 % may be replaced
by a threshold between 1 and 50 %.
 By derogation […], fullerenes, graphene flakes and single wall carbon nanotubes with
one or more external dimensions below 1 nm should be considered as nanomaterials.
http://osha.europa.eu
2
Novel properties, benefits… and risks?
• Engineered nanomaterials (ENM) have different physicochemical properties than the same materials at the macro-scale
 As the particle size decreases, the surface area per unit mass increases, with more
atoms on the surface, hence an increased surface reactivity and new properties
• The properties of ENM can offer a wealth of benefits to society
 Novel medicines that target the site of disease or infection; new environmental
techniques to bring clean water to underdeveloped countries; to reduce the carbon
footprint and solvent use in manufactured products, etc.
 ENM are used in over 1,317 consumer applications [2]
• The increased reactivity of ENM can also mean increased toxicity. Hazards
of ENM to human health and safety need to be better understood, adopting a
case-by-case approach.
 Animal studies show that some ENM can reach the lungs, liver, kidneys, heart,
reproductive organs, brain, etc. via inhalation or ingestion. Effects are mainly found
in the lungs (e.g. inflammation, oxidative stress, fibrosis, tumours). Epidemiological
studies on natural or man-made nanomaterials also show effects on the cardiovascular system. Dermal absorption is being debated.
 Safety risks (fire, explosion) of some nano-powders (mainly metal powders)
http://osha.europa.eu
3
Engineered Nanomaterials (ENMs) in the workplace
• ENM are already in many workplaces
 20,000 to 114,000 jobs in 450 nanotechnology enterprises in Germany, 2004 [3]
 75% of EU companies manufacturing or using ENM are SMEs [4]
• The obligation to assess the risks of ENM in the workplace and to eliminate,
substitute or reduce the risks to the minimum following the hierarchy of control
measures apply (Directive 98/24/EC), although challenging due to uncertainty on
health and safety effects and on exposure measurement methods
 Guidance and tools for ENM risk management are available [3]
 Control measures: replacing powder ENM by ENM in a fluid matrix, local ventilation and
discharge control measures (e.g. filtration) used against ultrafine dust and aerosols,
organisational measures, and as last resort, personal protective equipment.
• ENM risk management is easier at the manufacturing stage but more difficult
down the user chain
 Little and poor quality information in the Safety Data Sheets makes it difficult for
downstream employers and workers to assess exposures and implement adequate
prevention measures.
http://osha.europa.eu
What is known from the research on risk perception
• Risk perception is rarely directly correlated to a strict assessment of
potential gains and losses
• Risk perceptions are not uniform across technologies, countries and time
• Risk perception depends on a mixture of:
 The general characteristics of a risk
 The socio-demographic attributes and cultural traditions
 Technical knowledge and common-sense reasoning
 Personal experience, psychological disposition and the perceived context
associated with risk events (communication, management and control)
 Social communication
• As an emerging scientific area, ENM have inherent characteristics (e.g.
uncertainty, lack of familiarity, man-made, unknown exposure, potential
delayed, irreversible damage) known to engender mistrust and fear and to
feed conflict. This has the potential to delay prevention and control.
• For communicators to manage the risk decision-making process in a
rapidly evolving environment requires an understanding of a wide range of
risk perceptions and trust levels.
http://osha.europa.eu
5
Current trends in perception of ENM
• The public and some workers generally have minimal knowledge and
understanding of ENM, which reduces their ability to reach an informed
stance
 The majority of Europeans (54%) have never heard of nanotechnology [5].
 More than 51% of all participants from surveys in the EU, US and Japan, reported
knowing 'nothing at all', and nearly 30% ‘just a little’ about nanotechnologies. Only
20% claimed to know 'some’ or ‘a lot’ about nanotechnology [6]
 Differences between countries: Some Scandinavian countries (Norway, Denmark,
Sweden) show higher public awareness, with at least three quarters of respondents
who had heard of nanotechnology, while other EU countries reflect lower awareness,
with only a quarter of respondents having heard of it (e.g. Portugal, Malta) [5]
• Awareness is affected by socio-demographic factors [5]:
 Gender: 54% of men compared to 39% of women have heard of nanotechnology
 Educational level:
• those who have heard of nanotechnology are either managers, or left school to go into full-time
education or are everyday users of the Internet
• while those least familiar with nanotechnology left school early and are non-users of the
Internet.
http://osha.europa.eu
6
Perception of benefits against risks: a fragile balance
• The risk/benefit perception varies with sector and application
 Medical applications for the purpose of curing disease generally meet with public
approval whereas medical application for improving human performance does not,
nor does the use of nanotechnology in food
• Despite low level of knowledge, the general public expects benefits of ENM
to predominate over risks.
• Experts are generally more concerned about ENM health hazards, although
they are limited in their knowledge of the exact benefits/risks balance
• As yet, there is no outright rejection of ENM, but the perception of
risk/benefit balance is fragile and could easily be damaged, e.g. by a public
scare [7]
• The lack of knowledge or concern about occupational health and safety
hazards of ENM in SMEs appears to be a significant challenge for risk
management
 Few SMEs are concerned with health and safety questions associated with ENM
(less than with ENM properties or economical potential).
 SMEs think that public acceptance of nanomaterial is not a barrier for the
application of ENM, which reflects a ‘lack of awareness on the potential risks of
such aspects for the nanomaterial branch‘ [4]
http://osha.europa.eu
7
Risk communication on ENM is more challenging than
for traditional chemicals
• The scientific uncertainties (on ENM hazards and on exposure and risk
quantification) allow opposing sides to draw contradictory or sweeping
conclusions, lead to misunderstandings that can foster distrust, and provide
a fertile ground for confusion, controversy and delay in risk management.
• Poor risk communication based on misinformation may generate confusion
and lead to unjustified fears or to underestimation of the risks, with
consequent damage to health and the environment.
• The complexity and diversity of nano-scale forms of chemicals and the fact
that materials with the same name can have different properties at the nanoscale can cause confusion, lead to the generation of misleading information
on their properties and result in ambiguity in risk communication.
 People tend to underestimate common or familiar risks, therefore for some ENM
where people are familiar with the name, such as silver, it may be difficult to
convince them for the need of control measures
• Individuals generally expect risks from dangerous substances to increase
with quantity, whereas ENM are often handled in smaller quantities, which
can add to this potential for confusion.
http://osha.europa.eu
8
Importance of risk communication on ENM
• Various sources acknowledge and that risk communication is an integral
part of risk management and that an effective, transparent, balanced and
open dialogue with all concerned parties is key to the responsible, healthy
and sustainable development of nanotechnology.
• The European Commission (EC) Recommendation on a code of conduct for
responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research (2008)
recognises the need for 'a high level of public health, safety, environmental
and consumer protection‘, 'to identify and address safety concerns (real or
perceived) at the earliest possible stage‘, and for risk communication. [8]
• Benefits from good risk communication include [9]:
 people being 'informed of how to protect themselves and how to distinguish
between reliable and unreliable information';
 risk managers gaining 'a better idea of the concerns and preferences of
stakeholders';
 enhancing 'an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect that is essential for cooperation and joint problem solving, in particular in crisis situations'.
http://osha.europa.eu
9
What is a good risk communication?
• It should not be ‘an attempt to convince people that the communicator has
done the right thing‘ but assist stakeholders to arrive at a balanced judgement
in relation to their own interests and values [9]
• It is not simply the provision of information but a two-way process by which all
sides can learn something from one another.
• It needs to be accessible, tailored to the target audiences, taking into account
their different information needs, preferences, concerns and value systems.
• Different approaches should be used depending on whether risks are routine,
highly uncertain or potentially controversial [9]
• Five inter-related areas shape perception and have to be considered [10]
 the perception-specific mechanisms, the cultural attitudes, how the risk is framed in a
message, the role of the media and the place of scientists
• Effective risk communication should involve four key steps:




understand the issue and risks
determine what needs to be communicated, by whom and to whom
establish and implement a risk communication strategy
evaluate and review
http://osha.europa.eu
10
Existing risk communication initiatives on ENM
• Much of the risk communication material on ENM is prepared mostly in
English by scientists for other scientists, occupational safety & health
specialists or regulators rather than for workers and employers.
• There are good examples of risk communication on ENM, although not always
specifically targeted at the workplace:
 Many ENM projects in the EU Framework programmes include risk communication
although mostly not directly relevant or appropriate for workplaces.
 The EC Nanotech Communication Roadmap is a dialogue with the public via a range
of approaches such as television and road-shows [11]
 Initiatives by Member States (e.g. AU, DE, DK, FR, IT, NL or UK), producers, industry
associations or trade unions.
• E.g. BASF produced a Code of Conduct for nanotechnology and engages with its workers
through one-to-one conversation, dialogue events, and printed and web media [12]
• Information material by the trade unions, e.g. from the European Trade Union Institute [13]
• Web platforms set up by academics, industry and governments, e.g. GoodNanoGuide [14]
http://osha.europa.eu
11
Recommendations (1)
• Aitken et al. (2009) remind researchers, who publish and review papers
on the human health impacts of ENM and communicate with the media,
the public and decision-makers, to ensure that [16]:
 all descriptions of ENM hazards recognise the intrinsic heterogeneity of ENM
and discuss the uncertainty of alleged causality;
 there is a convincing and scientifically sustainable link between ENM exposure
and pathological outcomes putatively associated with that exposure;
 sufficient physical and chemical characterisation data are provided on the
ENM in question to support valid data interpretation and comparison.
• Policy-makers should develop risk communication strategies on ENM
targeted at workplaces learning from previous risk communication
initiatives.
• For this, they should beforehand gain an understanding of the nature of
their audience, their values and concerns (often raised by novel science
or emerging technology).
• Their participation and visibility in public debates and dialogues are also
important for engendering trust and openness.
http://osha.europa.eu
12
Recommendations (2)
• When devising risk communication strategies for workplaces, the
existing level of knowledge has to be considered.
• Communication needs to begin by explaining what nanomaterials mean
and how the worker is potentially going to encounter them.
• When communicating to workplaces, the terminology employed may
need to be refined and made more specific. The usefulness of the
generic terminology “nanomaterial” while different types of ENM have
different properties and health effects is questionable when
communicating to workplaces.
• More exploration required on how to overcome the potential for
confusion caused by nomenclature, i.e. materials with essentially the
same name having vastly different properties at the nano-scale.
• Policy makers and stakeholders need to be consistent in the framing of
ENM and use of terminology.
• In the occupational settings it is crucial that key risk information is
retained and acted upon. Good use should be made of influential and
trusted intermediaries.
http://osha.europa.eu
13
Recommendations (3)
• There is the potential for controversy in relation to ENM, and some
already exists, so it is also important to justify risks in terms of potential
benefits and the acceptability of risks from an ethical and moral
perspective [9]
• It is thereby important to communicate and discuss not only the potential
risks of ENM, but also the uncertainties currently surrounding the field of
their hazard characterisation.
• Since there are uncertainties about ENM risks, it is important that those
responsible for risk communication and management are not only
competent but also recognised as such.
• Regulators need to engage with industry, trade unions and consumer
associations, sharing the responsibility for risk communication activities
in order to develop science-based risk management policies.
• There needs to be a clear process by which risk communication
initiatives influence policy otherwise stakeholders will not engage.
http://osha.europa.eu
14
Conclusions
• The huge scope, novelty, excitement about promised benefits coupled
with the uncertainty and low current level of understanding in a rapidly
changing scientific field poses significant challenges for risk
communication on ENM to workplaces.
• Risk communication strategies need to handle these uncertainties and
to be able to adapt to facilitate reframing and redefining of the issues as
they change with the emergence of new ENM and scientific knowledge.
• Because there is as yet no outright rejection of nanotechnology, policymakers have the opportunity to define how to frame communication on
ENM to promote a sensible risk management. Once this frame has
been found it needs to be used consistently among stakeholders.
• In order to ensure long-term success of risk communication initiatives to
workplaces, these should inform decisions that employers make about
workplaces and support them in implementing adequate prevention
measures; and empower individual workers to exert personal control
over their own situations and environments.
http://osha.europa.eu
15
References
[1] Commission Recommendation of 18 October 2011 on the definition of Nanomaterial (2011/696/EU). http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:275:0038:0040:EN:PDF
[2] Woodrow Wilson, Consumer products inventory, 2011. http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer/
[3] EU-OSHA, Workplace exposure to nanoparticles, European Risk Observatory, Report 2, 2009.
http://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/literature_reviews/workplace_exposure_to_nanoparticles
[4] Steinbeis Europa Zentrum, Nanoroad SME, 2005
[5] EC - European Commission, Special Eurobarometer, Biotechnology in Europe, 2010.
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_en.pdf
[6] Satterfield, T., Kandlikar, M., Beaudrie, C. E. H., Conti, J., Herr Harthorn, B., ‘Anticipating the perceived risk of
nanotechnologies’, Nature Nanotechnology, Vol. 4, 2009, pp. 752-758
[7] Stilgoe, J., Nanodialogues Experiments in public engagement with science, DEMOS Report, 2007.
http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Nanodialogues - web.pdf
[8] EC, Recommendation of 07/02/2008 on a Code of Conduct, for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research.
http://ec.europa.eu/nanotechnology/pdf/nanocode-rec_pe0894c_en.pdf
[9] OECD - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Guidance Document on Risk Communication for
Chemical Risk Management, ENV/JM/MONO(2002)18, 2002.
http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/displaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono(2002)18&doclanguage=en
[10] Schuler, E., A prospective look at risk communication in the nanotechnology field, Institute for Prospective Technological
Studies (IPTS), 2004
[11] EC, Communicating Nanotechnology, Why, to whom, saying what and how? An action-packed roadmap towards a brand
new dialogue, 2010. ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/nanotechnology/docs/communicating-nanotechnology_en.pdf
[12] BASF, Nanotechnology. http://www.basf.com/group/corporate/en/sustainability/dialogue/in-dialogue-withpolitics/nanotechnology/index
[13] ETUI - European Trade Union Institute, Nanotechnologies. http://www.etui.org/Topics/Health-Safety/Nanotechnologies
[14] GoodNanoGuide: www.goodnanoguide.org
[15] CNDP – French National Commission for Public Debate, Result of the public debate on development and regulation of
nanotechnologies - 15 Octobre 2009 – 24 Février 2010 [Bilan du débat public sur le développement et la régulation des
nanotechnologies 15 Octobre 2009 – 24 Février 2010]. http://www.debatpublic-nano.org/informer/bilan_debat.html
[16] Aitken, R., Borm, P., Donaldson, K., Ichihara, G., Loft, S., Marano, F., Maynard, A., Oberdörster, G., Stamm, H., Stonem V.,
Tran, L., Wallin, H., ‘Nanoparticles – one word: A multiplicity of different hazards,’ Nanotoxicology, Vol. 3, 2009, pp. 263-264.
http://osha.europa.eu
16
Cover pictures (from top left to bottom right):
Picture 1: Materialscientist
Picture 2: Jeremy Baumberg - University of Southampton, UK
Picture 3: Yong Peng - University of Sheffield, UK
Picture 4: Jeremy Baumberg - University of Southampton, UK
Picture 5: A. Yakunin et al - Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands
Picture 6: Stan Guthrie - Yale University, USA
All pictures licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
http://osha.europa.eu
17