Published 27 June 2026 • By Dr. Megan Tranter
Engineered nanomaterials, intentionally manufactured structures with at least one dimension below 100 nanometers, have transformed materials science while introducing exposure risks that conventional industrial-hygiene frameworks were not designed to address. At the nanoscale, materials exhibit dramatically increased surface-area-to-mass ratios and novel surface reactivity, properties that drive their commercial value but also their biological activity. Carbon nanotubes and nanofibers, nano-scale titanium dioxide, silver nanoparticles, and metal-oxide nanomaterials are now produced and handled in research, manufacturing, and downstream processing settings, often without the mature toxicological understanding or validated exposure metrics available for legacy contaminants.
What You’ll Learn
- Why nanoscale properties make these materials behave differently from bulk solids.
- The two NIOSH recommended exposure limits for nanomaterials and what they cover.
- Why mass concentration alone is an inadequate exposure metric.
- How control banding fills the gap when validated limits are absent.
- The precautionary control steps an industrial hygienist should apply.
Introduction
Nanomaterials present a regulatory and assessment challenge precisely because their hazard often tracks particle number, surface area, and morphology rather than the mass-based metrics that underpin most exposure limits. With formal limits available for only a handful of materials, practitioners must combine the few published numbers with control banding, multi-metric sampling, and a precautionary posture. This post sets out the toxicological reasoning, the available limits, and the control framework that together govern responsible nanomaterial handling.
Why Nanoscale Matters
The toxicological behavior of nanomaterials cannot be predicted from the properties of their bulk counterparts. Particle number, surface area, morphology, biopersistence, and surface chemistry can each govern biological response more strongly than mass concentration, the metric on which most occupational exposure limits and sampling methods rest. High-aspect-ratio nanomaterials such as certain multi-walled carbon nanotubes raise particular concern because their fibrous geometry and biopersistence evoke comparisons to asbestos, with animal studies demonstrating pulmonary inflammation, fibrosis, granuloma formation, and mesothelioma. These insights extend the long-standing principles governing respirable industrial dust into a regime where mass alone is an inadequate descriptor of hazard. The fiber-toxicology parallels with asbestos in the built environment are explicit in the regulatory literature.
NIOSH Recommended Exposure Limits
NIOSH has issued two landmark recommendations. Current Intelligence Bulletin 63 recommends an exposure limit for ultrafine (nanoscale) titanium dioxide of 0.3 mg/m³ as a time-weighted average, distinguishing it from the higher limit for fine TiO2. Current Intelligence Bulletin 65 recommends an exposure limit for carbon nanotubes and nanofibers of 1 microgram per cubic meter of respirable elemental carbon as an eight-hour TWA, an exceptionally low value reflecting both potency and the practical detection limit of the analytical method. The scarcity of formal limits for most other nanomaterials means that the broader logic of occupational exposure limits must often be applied through analogy and precaution rather than through a published number.
Exposure Assessment Challenges
Characterizing nanomaterial exposure typically requires a multi-metric strategy. Real-time instruments measuring particle number and surface area (condensation particle counters, scanning mobility particle sizers, and diffusion chargers) are combined with filter-based sampling for mass and offline electron-microscopic confirmation of particle identity and morphology. Because nanoparticles are ubiquitous in ambient and combustion-influenced air, distinguishing process-related engineered nanomaterials from incidental background is a central analytical difficulty, often requiring elemental or morphological fingerprinting. Recent reviews of workplace exposure assessment methods stress harmonized, tiered measurement strategies to make results comparable across studies and facilities.
Control Banding and Precautionary Controls
Given pervasive toxicological uncertainty, control banding has become the dominant framework for nanomaterial risk management. Schemes such as the CB Nanotool and the ANSES and ISO/TR approaches assign control levels based on hazard surrogates and exposure potential, defaulting toward stringent containment when data are sparse. The hierarchy of controls applies with emphasis on elimination of dry powder handling, fully enclosed processes, and high-efficiency filtered local exhaust ventilation, supplemented by HEPA-equipped respiratory protection where airborne release cannot be excluded.
What Industrial Hygienists Should Do
Industrial hygienists should adopt a precautionary posture proportionate to the toxicological uncertainty surrounding nanomaterials. Begin with a process inventory identifying every point where dry powders are weighed, transferred, or generated, and prioritize enclosure and elimination of dust-generating steps. Apply control banding where validated limits are absent, and design exposure assessments around multiple metrics, particle number, surface area, and mass, rather than mass alone, with microscopy to confirm material identity. Treat high-aspect-ratio nanomaterials with the same gravity historically reserved for asbestiform fibers. Maintain detailed records of materials, processes, and controls to support both worker protection and the evolving evidence base, and revisit control decisions as NIOSH and ISO guidance matures.
Summary
Engineered nanomaterials demand a control philosophy built on precaution because their hazard often depends on surface area, number, and shape rather than mass, and validated limits exist for only a few materials. NIOSH limits for nanoscale titanium dioxide and for carbon nanotubes anchor the small set of published values, while control banding and multi-metric exposure assessment fill the wide gap that remains. High-aspect-ratio nanomaterials warrant asbestos-level caution until the evidence base matures.
Helpful Resources
- NIOSH: Nanotechnology research and guidance
- ISO/TC 229: Nanotechnologies standards
- Related posts on this site: Industrial Dust, Respirable Crystalline Silica, and Asbestos in the Built Environment.
Bibliography
McCormick, S., Niang, M., & Dahm, M. M. (2021). Occupational exposures to engineered nanomaterials: A review of workplace exposure assessment methods. Current Environmental Health Reports, 8(3), 223-234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-021-00316-6
Guseva Canu, I., Batsungnoen, K., Maynard, A., & Hopf, N. B. (2020). State of knowledge on the occupational exposure to carbon nanotubes. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 225, 113472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2020.113472
International Organization for Standardization. (2018). ISO/TR 12885: Nanotechnologies – Health and safety practices in occupational settings. ISO.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2009). Approaches to safe nanotechnology: Managing the health and safety concerns associated with engineered nanomaterials (DHHS [NIOSH] Publication No. 2009-125). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2011). Current intelligence bulletin 63: Occupational exposure to titanium dioxide (DHHS [NIOSH] Publication No. 2011-160). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2013). Current intelligence bulletin 65: Occupational exposure to carbon nanotubes and nanofibers (DHHS [NIOSH] Publication No. 2013-145). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2022). Occupational exposure sampling for engineered nanomaterials (DHHS [NIOSH] Publication No. 2022-153). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Paik, S. Y., Zalk, D. M., & Swuste, P. (2008). Application of a pilot control banding tool for risk level assessment and control of nanoparticle exposures. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 52(6), 419-428. https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/men041
Plog, B. A., & Quinlan, P. J. (Eds.). (2012). Fundamentals of industrial hygiene (6th ed.). National Safety Council.
Poland, C. A., Duffin, R., Kinloch, I., Maynard, A., Wallace, W. A. H., Seaton, A., Stone, V., Brown, S., MacNee, W., & Donaldson, K. (2008). Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study. Nature Nanotechnology, 3(7), 423-428. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2008.111
Schulte, P. A., Murashov, V., Zumwalde, R., Kuempel, E. D., & Geraci, C. L. (2010). Occupational exposure limits for nanomaterials: State of the art. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 12, 1971-1987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-010-0008-1