Qualitative risk assessment during polymer mortar test specimens preparation - methods comparison

4th International Conference on Safe Production and Use of Nanomaterials

Silva, F.^1,2 ; Sousa, S.P.B.^3 ; Arezes, P.^2 ; Swuste, P.^4 ; Ribeiro, M.C.S.^3,5 ; Baptista, J.S.^5

Technological Centre for Ceramic and Glass, Coimbra, Portugal^1

School of Engineering, University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal^2

Institute of Mechanical Engineering and Industrial Management, Campus da FEUP, Porto, Portugal^3

Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands^4

Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal^5

关键词: Inorganic nanomaterials;    Manufacturing process;    Occupational exposure;    Occupational health;    Preparation method;    Qualitative analysis;    Qualitative risk assessment;    Scale production process;   

Others  :  https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/617/1/012037/pdf
DOI  :  10.1088/1742-6596/617/1/012037

来源: IOP

【 摘 要 】

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.