Use of analytical hierarchy process and control banding to improve safety management of carbon nanomaterials

Guilherme Frederico B. Lenz e Silva [1,2]

Robert Hurt [2] [1] – University of São Paulo - USP, Polytechnic School - Department of Metallurgy and Materials Engineering, São Paulo, SP/Brazil. [2] – Brown University, School of Engineering, LEHN - Laboratory for Environmental and Health Nanoscience, Providence, RI/USA.

National Institute of Science and Technology Carbon Nanomaterials

Polytechnic School of University of São Paulo

DOE Department of Energy/EUA

ABSTRACT

Risk assessment and risk analysis are essential tools to improve safety when dealing with nanomaterials. The concern about safety issues of nanoparticles has been growing in the last decade. Uncertainties, few toxicological data and reliable occupational exposure limits (permissible or recommended) combined with the increasing amount of new chemicals and materials on nanoscale level demand new approaches, particularly regarding safety and environmental risk management. Quantitative and qualitative tools to manage risks are essential to provide a better safe workplace. In this work, a multicrieria method (AHP – Analytical Hierarchy Process) was used in order to evaluate risks from nanocarbon materials. An integration of AHP method with a control banding matrix has been developed in order to help risk management on workplaces. Key words: nanomaterials, nanocarbons, risk assessment, CB (control banding), AHP (Analytical hierarch Process).

Nano Risk Analysis II September 15-16, 2014 Milken Institute for Public Health George Washington University, Washington, D.C.

University of São Paulo

INTRODUCTION: NEW CHEMICALS, NANOMATERIALS & HSE MANAGEMENT

Date: 08/19/2014 – 17:31 pm Chemical Abstracts Service

How big is the nanomaterial risk issue problem?

US: workers suffer more than 190,000 illnesses and 50,000

deaths annually related to chemical exposures.

Source:ttps://www.osha.gov/dsg/safer_chemicals/index.html

New (nano)materials , “new” risks … Society and industry need new approaches

to deal with it !

Nano-structured HSE Program

Risk assessment (based on similarities,

differences and particularities)

Participative and global (works, suppliers clients, academia

and society)

Training, &

Information

Standards & Procedures:

- Rules - Legal aspects - (soft & hard

Law)

Dynamic, structured and corporative program

Investments in R&D, new facilities

and EHS management

Safety First: HSE Management

& Hierarchy of controls

NANOTECHNOLOGY HSE (HEALTH, SAFETY & ENVIRONMENTAL) MANAGEMENT

Risk analysis (toxicology)

Identification Evaluation Elimination Mitigation Monitoring Communication (management)

Risk identification

Expose evaluation

Dose – response

Characterization

RISK

International Standards for risk management: ISO 31000 – 2009, OSHAS 18001-2007

Hierarch of controls

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process)

CONCLUSIONS

Building and using multicriteria decision tools based on AHP and CB could provide a new way to evaluate and improve the quality of risk assessment on nanomaterials, also it could: - Improve the safety approach of laboratory and industry procedures; - Help on design of improved safe products and processes with a structured decisions strategy; - Make/build a ranking of different types of nanocarbons (and confirm this ranking with previous toxicological studies or new studies); - Integrate safety ranking with toxicological data from different nano raw materials; - Integrate different and multiple point of view from worldwide participants using web-platforms.

NEW APPROACH: COMBINED AHP + CB: ANALYTICAL HIERCHY PROCESS WITH CONTROL BANDING

(*)

(*) - Timing consuming; - Very expensive (equipment, facilities, methodologies, etc.) - Sometimes non conclusive - Need specialized staff and technicians;

(...) However, must be done appropriately !!!

The AHP (Analytic Hierarch Process) is a multicriteria method created by Thomas L. Saaty (University of Pittsburgh) in 1971. The AHP has the following approach: Decomposing a decision into smaller parts: one overall goal on the top level, several decision alternatives on the bottom level and several criteria contributing to the goal

Pairwise comparisons on each level; Comparing pairs of alternatives with respect to each criterion and pairs of criteria with respect to the achievement of the overall goal.

Synthesizing judgments.: Obtaining priority rankings of the alternatives with respect to each criterion and the overall priority ranking for the problem.

… Surface area, surface chemistry , concentration of particles.

Control banding: is a strategy for qualitative risk assessment and management of hazards in the workplace