Journal of Health and Safety at Work

---

Introduction: Due to uncertainties regarding the risks of engineered nanomaterials for human health and the environment, different organizations and researchers have developed various management frameworks and assessment tools to mitigate hazards during the procedures and applications of engineered nanomaterials. However, most of these techniques do not meet all the individual requirements. This study provides a review and introduction to the techniques developed for the management of safety, health, and environmental risks associated with engineered nanomaterials.
Material and Methods: In order to find pertinent documents on the safe handling of engineered nanomaterials, a search was conducted using the following keywords: “Engineered nanomaterials”, “Framework”, “Tool”, “Risk management”, “Occupational exposure”, “Environment”, “Risk assessment”, and “Nanotechnology”. The search was conducted on various databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, NIOSH, ECHA, and ISO. Among the search results, tools and frameworks that specifically focus on the safety, health, and environmental risk management or assessment of engineered nanomaterials were selected.
Results: Among the search results, 17 frameworks and 11 developments in the field of managing occupational, environmental, and toxicological risks associated with engineered nanomaterials were discussed. Various frameworks and tools for identifying, evaluating, and managing the potential risks of engineered nanomaterials vary in terms of their scope, goals, risk assessment approaches, and output, offering diverse applications.
Conclusion: Various tools and frameworks, each with unique properties, applications, and limitations, can assist organizations in achieving their goals related to safety, health, and environmental issues in the field of nanotechnology. Currently, there is no consensus on the optimal approach for assessing the risks of nanomaterials, underscoring the necessity for additional research, development, and collaboration in this field.
 

---

Introduction: Workplaces often contain potential risks, such as exposure to toxic chemicals. Conducting a thorough health risk assessment helps employers recognize these dangers and implement necessary controls. In the 20th century, modern risk assessment frameworks began to be established with the rise of public health agencies.
Material and Methods: The present study is a narrative review. In order to obtain necessary information, Persian and English texts were searched in Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, SID and Magiran databases. Keywords such as “health risk assessment”, “chemicals” and “nanomaterials” were used in this study.
Results: Both quantitative and qualitative health risk assessments play critical roles in occupational health, with each method providing different levels of depth and accuracy depending on the situation. EPA Model, Monte-Carlo Simulation, Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Modeling, Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) Models, Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA), Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA), and Biologically Based Dose-Response (BBDR) Models, are among the most important quantitative methods for assessing the health risk of chemicals. COSHH Model, ICCT Model, ICMM Model, Australian Model, and Romanian Model, are the most important qualitative methods for health risk assessment of chemicals. In addition to the quantitative and qualitative methods, semi-quantitative methods like Singapore Model, LEC Method, and SEP Model, have also been proposed for assessing the health risk of chemicals. The preference for qualitative over quantitative methods in the risk assessment of activities involving nanomaterials stems from substantial uncertainties, limited data availability, and the unique and complex behaviors of nanomaterials in the workplaces.
Conclusion: Overall, the evolution of health risk assessment methods reflects a continuous drive towards greater accuracy, reliability, and relevance. As we continue to innovate and expand our knowledge, the field is well-positioned to address the complex and evolving landscape of chemical and material risks, ensuring the protection of human health and the environment. 

---

Introduction: Nanomaterials are widely applied across diverse scientific and industrial sectors; however, their emergence has introduced a new generation of occupational hazards for workers. Concurrent with discussions on the adverse effects of nanomaterials on human health, researchers have sought to develop methods for assessing occupational risks associated with these materials. Accordingly, this study aims to propose a general framework for the development of such methods.
Material and Methods: This is a critical analysis study designed to evaluate existing methods for assessing occupational risks related to nanomaterials and ultimately propose a modified framework for refining these methods. By examining current approaches and identifying their strengths and weaknesses, the authors have proposed an improved framework for occupational risk assessment of nanomaterials.
Results: The proposed framework is based on two key dimensions: “Severity/Hazard” and “Probability/Exposure.” The first dimension determines the potential risk level arising from exposure to nanomaterials, with the most critical factors being the intrinsic properties and toxicology of the nanomaterial itself, parent materials, and similar substances. The second dimension describes the likelihood and nature of exposure to nanomaterials during work activities, with the most influential factors being worker, job tasks, and workplace environment characteristics.
Conclusion: The lack of sufficient data and numerous uncertainties regarding bio-nano interactions make quantitative risk assessment (the traditional occupational health approach) difficult, less reliable, and in some cases unfeasible for nanomaterials—given current knowledge. Qualitative and semi-quantitative approaches, such as Control Banding, despite demonstrating positive aspects, have faced significant criticism. The framework-based method proposed herein appears capable of partially overcoming these challenges.