Assessing nanosafety protocols: a tool for evaluating effectiveness and identifying areas for improvement: TI: ASUN

Abstract

The increasing use of nanomaterials in industries has heightened concerns regarding workplace safety and risk management. Exposure to nanomaterials is associated with health risks, including inflammation, oxidative stress, and neurodegenerative disorders, necessitating the implementation of nanosafety protocols by companies. However, assessing the effectiveness of nanosafety systems poses challenges due to the specialized nature of this field. This study introduces a novel nanosafety assessment tool designed to evaluate workplace nanosafety systems. The tool consists of 47 carefully crafted questions aligned with the European Union’s nanosafety recommendations. These questions underwent rigorous evaluation by a panel of five experts in the field to ensure relevance and effectiveness. This assessment tool serves as a valuable resource for companies to conduct preliminary evaluations of their nanosafety practices, enabling the identification of areas requiring improvement.

Keywords:

• Nanosafety
• assisting tool
• nanomaterials
• risk management
• occupational health and safety

1. Introduction

The pervasive integration of nanomaterials across a vast array of industrial sectors has escalated concerns over their potential deleterious health implications for exposed individuals. This apprehension is substantiated by an extensive body of research documenting the adverse effects of nanomaterial exposure. Investigations reveal that nanomaterials can infiltrate the respiratory system, inducing inflammation and oxidative stress, and possess the capacity to cross the blood-brain barrier, potentially inciting neurodegenerative disorders (Kumar et al., 2018; Leite et al., 2015; Nho, 2020; Zhao et al., 2023). Additionally, evidence suggests a correlation between exposure to nanomaterials and genotoxic effects, alongside an elevated risk of carcinogenesis (Giorgetti, 2019). These findings represent a mere fraction of the extensive research underscoring the detrimental impacts of nanomaterials, underlining the imperative for organizations to implement comprehensive occupational health and safety protocols.

The enactment of nanosafety measures within the workplace is fraught with challenges, stemming from the heterogeneity of nanomaterials, their intricate interactions with biological systems and the environment, and the complexities associated with exposure assessment. Despite these obstacles, international entities such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and the European Commission have spearheaded the formulation of guidelines to facilitate the safe handling of nanomaterials in professional settings (European Commission, 2014; NIOSH, 2012; WHO, 2017). These guidelines are meticulously tailored to counteract the distinctive challenges presented by nanomaterials, providing practical advice and strategies to mitigate risks and safeguard workers. In light of the global initiatives to foster nanosafety, corporations are equally responsible for adhering to these standards (Rauscher et al., 2017).

A survey leveraging data from 2017 in Ontario, Canada, indicates that firms from a wide array of sectors are allocating resources to occupational health and safety (OHS), with an average investment of $1302.80 per employee (Mustard & Yanar, 2023). This investment reflects a widespread commitment among businesses to improve their safety protocols. Additionally, a wealth of studies highlights a direct association between effective OHS practices and favorable business outcomes, such as a decrease in workplace incidents, lower rates of absenteeism, and improved employee morale (Lari, 2024). It is demonstrated that the act of investing in OHS will increase the company credibility and companies are aware about that (Thiede & Thiede, 2015). Given these considerations, it is reasonable to deduce that companies are generally keen on advancing their occupational safety initiatives, including nanosafety. However, while companies are keen on incorporating nanosafety measures, the inherent complexity and specialized requirements of these protocols present significant impediments (Hyun Lee et al., 2010). Moreover, the intricate and specialized nature of nanosafety also complicates the assessment of pre-existing nanosafety frameworks within organizations, particularly from a management standpoint (Hyun Lee et al., 2010; Johnston et al., 2020).

In response to the identified challenges, this study introduces the creation of an assessment tool specifically designed to evaluate nanosafety systems implemented within organizations from a managerial standpoint. This tool, structured as a diagnostic questionnaire, facilitates an initial self-assessment for companies, allowing them to gain insights into their strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in their nanosafety practices. Comprising a series of 47 questions, the tool is in alignment with the nanosafety recommendations issued by the European Union and has been evaluated by experts in the field. It is critical to note, however, that this tool is intended to provide a general overview and an initial evaluation from a management perspective, highlighting key processes. For a comprehensive understanding and detailed information, consulting guidelines from official organizations is recommended.

2. Background

In the contemporary era, the significance of nanosafety has notably increased, paralleled by an expansion in research within this domain (Zhu et al., 2020). The foundation of nanosafety research was laid in the early 2000s, marked by pioneering studies that identified the unique health and environmental risks posed by nanomaterials, attributed to their small size and large surface area (Nel et al., 2006; Oberdörster et al., 2007). Further empirical studies have corroborated the adverse effects of nanomaterials on human health (Handy & Shaw, 2007), prompting a substantial volume of research dedicated to the toxicological assessment of nanomaterials. This body of work has consistently stressed the importance of incorporating nanomaterial toxicity evaluations into occupational risk management frameworks (Fadeel et al., 2018; Faria et al., 2018). Concurrently, researchers in the field of occupational health and safety have pursued investigations to determine how nanomaterials can be utilized safely within occupational environments.

Reflecting the extensive scope of research in this area, numerous studies have made significant contributions to the development of comprehensive frameworks for the management of nanomaterials in occupational settings. These collective efforts have outlined systematic methodologies for assessing, managing, and communicating the risks associated with the use of nanomaterials, thereby facilitating their safe implementation in the workplace. For instance, the framework proposed by Schulte et al. represents a key example of such initiatives, yet it is just one among many scholarly contributions aimed at advancing nanosafety practices (Schulte et al., 2014). Furthermore, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the European Committee have played crucial roles in establishing extensive guidelines and frameworks for nanosafety implementation in workplace environments. These entities have defined essential safety standards necessary for the proper handling of nanomaterials (European Commission, 2014; NIOSH, 2012, 2022; WHO, 2017), offering indispensable guidance for both employers and employees. These guidelines provide essential insights into best practices and preventive measures vital for ensuring the safety of individuals involved with nanomaterials, thereby serving as a bridge between research findings and their practical application in industry.

While research has demonstrated a growing interest among companies to enhance their occupational safety, motivated by both financial and non-financial benefits (International Social Security Association, 2013; Mustard & Yanar, 2023), there is a consensus among scholars about the inadequate enforcement of nanosafety protocols within occupational settings (Díaz-Soler et al., 2017; Kim & Yu, 2016; Kuempel et al., 2012). This acknowledgment serves as a foundation for further exploration into the critical importance of nanosafety and the research community’s efforts to address related concerns. It is evident that there exists a genuine willingness among companies to implement nanosafety systems and protocols; however, the transition from willingness to effective implementation is impeded by several significant challenges. These challenges include difficulties in translating scientific research into practical, actionable strategies suitable for industrial applications, the complexities inherent in the implementation process, and a notable scarcity of data and information regarding specific nanosafety measures.

To enhance the facilitation of nanosafety measures within companies, an array of assistant tools has been introduced, categorized into six principal groups to address distinct aspects of nanosafety implementation (Hristozov et al., 2016). These categories encompass control banding tools for simplified hazard management, exposure assessment tools for gauging potential nanomaterial exposure levels, hazard assessment tools for identifying potential nanomaterial hazards, risk assessment models for quantifying risks, physicochemical characterization tools for analyzing nanomaterial properties, and decision analytical tools for supporting safety measure evaluations. Hristozov et al. (2016) offer a detailed examination of these tools, highlighting their importance in aiding the effective implementation of nanosafety protocols.

However, a notable gap exists in the availability of diagnostic tools for auditing internal nanosafety management systems. The literature on health and safety management systems increasingly emphasizes the vital role of diagnostic tools, including management audits, as indispensable for the effective implementation and continuous improvement of these systems (Lindsay, 1992). Diagnostic tools are highlighted as crucial for conducting internal management audits, serving as essential instruments for systematically evaluating an organization’s internal management practices, policies, and procedures related to health and safety. These tools are pivotal in identifying deficiencies, assessing regulatory compliance, and evaluating the efficacy of existing health and safety management systems (Edavalath & Bharathan, 2021). The field of nanosafety is perceived to lack such diagnostic tools for internal management audits. While guidelines provide a baseline for evaluating internal management, developing a set of straightforward diagnostic questions that reflect the essential aspects of these guidelines could be extraordinarily beneficial. Such an approach offers numerous advantages, including simplifying the understanding of complex guidelines, enabling quicker identification and rectification of weaknesses, and significantly reducing the time required for the auditing process. Furthermore, it allows for a direct approach to addressing issues without the necessity of reviewing extensive documentation, thereby streamlining the evaluation of nanosafety practices within organizations.

Consequently, the author posits that the development of a nanosafety diagnostic tool for companies is of paramount importance. Such a tool would enable organizations to ascertain whether their processes and the various tools they employ are comprehensively integrated into their implemented nanosafety frameworks.

3. Methodology

In the development of the assessment tool, the authors utilized the European guideline document for nanosafety, specifically “Guidance on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the potential risks related to nanomaterials at work,” version 2014 issued by the European Commission (European Commission, 2014). The foundational document was meticulously chosen to inform the creation of diagnostic questions due to its origination from an internationally recognized authority, ensuring that the recommendations are both credible and authoritative. This approach guarantees that the questions are anchored in established guidelines and best practices for nanosafety. Additionally, the document provides a detailed blueprint of essential actions and procedures aimed at mitigating nanosafety risks in the workplace.

The selection of the 2014 version of this document takes into account the time typically required by organizations to integrate new knowledge into their operational practices. Studies indicate that the integration process can span from one to ten years (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006), suggesting that sufficient time has elapsed for organizations to adopt and implement the guidelines contained within the document. This period facilitates the gradual assimilation of knowledge, necessitating iterative adjustments to organizational practices over time (Szulanski, 2000)

Following the question development phase, the study engaged with leading experts in the field, enlisting the expertise of five notable specialists. These experts are Dr. Tim Takaro, a Professor at Simon Fraser University; Professor Iseult Lynch from the University of Birmingham; Dr. Ernesto Alfaro-Moreno, serving as a Group Leader at the International Iberian Nanotechnology Laboratory in Braga, Portugal; Dr. Pavadee Aungkavattana, the Deputy Executive Director at the National Nanotechnology Center, NSTDA, Thailand; and Montserrat Puiggené Vallverdú, who is occupational health physician and president of the Catalan Society of Occupational Health. Their contributions were critical in refining the questions to enhance their accuracy and relevance.

Originally, the diagnostic questionnaire was intended to survey a broad spectrum of companies to evaluate the current status of nanosafety implementation. Despite extensive efforts to engage companies, including widespread dissemination of the questionnaire and support from the Nanosafety Cluster EU organization, the response rate was disappointingly low.

However, the design and objectives of the questions, aimed at providing a comprehensive evaluation of nanosafety practices in the market and commerce in a general view, render this tool potentially valuable for each company assessments. The diagnostic nature of the questionnaire supports a thorough analysis of nanosafety measures, thereby offering organizations a means to independently evaluate their compliance with nanosafety protocols. While expert opinions were based on evaluation of nanosafety practices in the market and commerce in a general view, authors believes that feedback from experts also could be used in sense of evaluating individually the company. Hence authors considered that this series of questions could be designed as an assessing tool for evaluating nanosafety implementation inside the companies.

These questions now serve as an assessment tool for evaluating nanosafety implementation in the workplace, and are presented in this study.

4. Results and discussions

Table 1 showcases the structured questionnaire developed as an assessment tool, derived from the European Commission’s guidelines in the document “Guidance on the protection of workers’ health and safety against potential risks related to nanomaterials at work.” Designed to offer a managerial perspective, these questions aim to provide a comprehensive yet general overview, focusing on identifying key indicators and processes for effective nanosafety implementation, rather than delving into technical details.

Table 1. Nanosafety implementation assessment tool for internal nanosafety management auditing.

General questions
	Questions	Possible answers
1	Do you use nanomaterials at your workplace?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
2	Do you know whether exposure some Nanomaterials could have a negative impact on human health?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
3	Do you know how many people are working with nanomaterial in your organization approximately?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
4	If you are using nanomaterials in your workplace, do you have a Risk Assessment and Management Process in place specifically for nanomaterials?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
5	Please select the steps which you consider in your risk Assessment and management Process of nanosafety?	Identification of the MNMs *Detect where you have nanomaterials (In activities) and which kind of nanomaterials Hazard assessment *Detect where risk of nanomaterials exists, Toxicity of nanomaterials, gather information of risk of nanomaterials Exposure Assessment *Detect which activities involve nanomaterials, possibility of generate dusts or aerosols of Nanomaterials, how often is exposure likely to occur? Categorization of Risk (Control Banding) *Using tools to calculate level of risk in case of Nanomaterials Detailed Risk Assessment *Gathering details information from other sources regarding OELs, Toxicity and etc. for calculating risk level in details Risk Management *All the actions and decisions to reduce and managing risk of nanomaterials Review * Reviewing the risk assessment and the efficacy of the implemented risk management measures periodically [consider asking how often] and before any changes in the chemical agents or working conditions
6	Does your company have a committee of occupational health and safety?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
7	If you have the committee of worker health and safety, have Nanoparticles been discussed at this committee?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
8	Do workers and staff participate in the occupational health and safety committee meetings?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
Nanomaterials identification
9	Please select the appropriate responds in each row if you apply them in your nanomaterial identification step.	We check Safety data sheet in our nanomaterial identification step. We check provided material information by supplier of our nanomaterial in nanomaterial identification step. If safety data sheet not exist, and information from supplier also is not exist regarding a specific nanomaterial, we check information from other suppliers. Where there is uncertainty, employers we contact the suppliers/manufacturers of the substances/mixtures to specifically request the necessary information.
Hazard assessment
10	Which of the following risks do you consider in general hazard assessment for detecting potential risks arising from the presence of Nanomaterials? Please select all that apply.	Risks due to inhalation of the agent. Risks due to absorption through the skin. Risks due to contact with the skin or eyes. Risks due to ingestion. Risks of fire and/or explosion Risks due to hazardous chemical reactions. Risks arising from installations which may have consequences on the health and safety of workers
11	Which of the following factors do you consider in the assessment of potential risks arising from the presence of nanomaterials? Please select all that apply.	Toxicity of the MNM Physicochemical characteristics of the MNM Environmental concentration Exposure time Particularly sensitive workers Inappropriate selection and/or use of RPE Location and extent of the contact with the skin Toxicity of the MNM agent via the skin Duration and frequency of contact Inappropriate selection and/or use of PPE Inappropriate work procedure Incorrect transfer procedure Potential toxicity of the MNM Incorrect personal hygiene habits Possibility of eating, drinking or smoking in the workplace Physical state (ultrafine dust) Pressure/temperature Flammability/calorific value Airborne concentration Sources of ignition Chemical reactivity and instability of hazardous chemical agents Inadequate cooling systems Unreliable system for controlling key variables in the reaction (pressure, temperature and flow control) Corrosion of materials and installations Deficient or non-existent facilities for controlling leaks and spills (retaining trays, protection against mechanical impacts) Deficient or non-existent preventive maintenance Special protection during cleaning and maintenance of HVAC other potential collection points
12	In the context of occupational health and safety, what sources of information do you typically consult to obtain data on the hazardous properties of chemical agents that may be present in the workplace?	Labels (pictograms). Safety data sheets. European Commission recommendations. Occupational exposure limit values. Other sources: -----------
13	In the context of risk assessment for hazardous substances, do you gather information, such as the shape of particles contained the substance/mixture and its solubility and/or biopersistence characteristics, reactions with other workplace chemicals, from suppliers or other readily available sources?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
14	Are you aware of the legal responsibilities of suppliers of substances and mixtures are in terms of to providing information to downstream users?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
15	Which characteristics of nanomaterials (from the following list) do you collect during the process of their characterization? select all that apply	• Chemical name and product name • Manufacturer/supplier company name • CAS Number and EC Number • Chemical Formula/Chemical Structure • Intended Purpose of the MNM • Physical Hazard Classification of the bulk form • Health Hazard Classification of the bulk form • Environmental Classification of the bulk form • Appearance • Surface Composition • Geometry/Shape, rigidity • Number Particle Size Distribution • Water solubility • Dustiness • Flammability • Incompatibility with other compounds, or formulations
Exposure assessment
16	For each work activity involving the nanomaterial, please select the actions that company undertakes:	Identify what are the tasks where the workers are exposed to nanomaterials. Check if the material is dusty or the process likely to generate dusts or aerosols of nanomaterials. Check if the process includes cutting, shearing, grinding, abrasion, or other mechanical release of nanomaterials or materials containing nanomaterials. Know the physical state of the Nanomaterial in each stage of the work process. (i.e. Dry powder / suspension or liquid / embedded or bound in other materials). Know the potential routes of human exposure (e.g. inhalation, dermal absorption). Know the chance of exposure occurring, considering not just exposures during normal routine working but also possible accidental releases, maintenance, and cleaning. Check how often exposure is likely to occur, for example continuously over a working shift, intermittently, rarely.
Categorization of risk (control banding)
17	Have you implemented any procedures to determine if it necessary to implement control measures to limit nanomaterials exposure?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
18	Are you familiar with the control banding concept for assessing risk in the particular case of exposure to nanomaterials?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
19	Are you aware of the potential levels of risk that can be identified by combining the information gathered from the health concern categorization and level of exposure for each nanomaterial and work activity?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
20	Are you familiar with the hierarchy of controls and the risk management measures advisable for different risk levels?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
Risk management
21	Do you know what is principle of “The design and organization of systems of work at the workplace to eliminate or reduce the risk of working with nanomaterials"? (Prevention through Design)	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
22	Does your organization apply the principle of "the design and organization of systems of work at the workplace to eliminate or reduce the risk of working with nanomaterials "?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
23	Does your organization provide appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to employees working with nanomaterials?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
24	Does your organization have a strategy or system to reduce to a minimum the number of workers exposed or likely to be exposed to nanomaterials?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
25	Does your organization have a strategy or system to reduce to a minimum the duration and intensity of exposure to nanomaterials?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
26	Does your organization have a strategy or system to reducing the quantity of nanomaterials present at the workplace to the minimum required?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
27	Are you aware about what hygiene measures are needed for nanomaterials generally?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
28	Does your organization have appropriate hygiene measures for Nanosafety?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
29	Does your organization apply suitable working procedures including arrangements for the safe handling, storage and transport within the workplace of nanomaterials?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
30	Are you aware of this Hierarchy of Controls for reducing risks?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
31	Do you apply Hierarchy of Controls for reducing risks from nanomaterials in your organization?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
32	Does your organization have any Information, Instruction and Training for workers regarding nanosafety?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
33	If you have any training for workers, please select from the following options to describe the content of your organization’s training provision. If you do not have training only select the last option which is "We do not provide training”.	The risks in relation to physicochemical hazards (e.g. fire and explosion). The potential nature of health concerns. The proper use of protective equipment (e.g. wearing appropriate personal protection equipment before handling nanomaterials) and the need to maintain such equipment. The need to comply with all operational procedures enacted to ensure protection.
34	Do workers have a mechanism for alerting management about exposure concerns that protects them from any retribution for reporting?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
Detailed risk assessment:
35	Does your organization regularly assess (e.g. annual) potential exposure quantitatively and verify the adequacy of engineering controls for hazardous substances, including nanomaterials?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
36	Regarding the previous question, is this information shared with workers or the safety committee?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
37	Does your organization conduct regular (e.g. annual) monitoring of the correct functioning of engineering controls such as extractors and fume cupboards?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
38	Regarding the previous question, is this information shared with the health and safety committee and workers?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
39	Are you aware of any nano specific Occupational Exposure Limits (OELs)?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
40	Regarding the previous question, do you know which Occupational Exposure Limits (OELs) apply for the nanomaterials that company works with?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
41	Does your organization conduct periodic exposure measurements (where suitable sampling and analytical methodologies exist for nanomaterials), taking into account any nanomaterials-specific Occupational Exposure Limits (OELs)?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
42	Regarding the previous question, if your organization does, is this information shared with the health and safety committee and workers?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
43	Are you familiar with the “Threshold limit value" term?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
44	Does your organization ensure compliance with any existing generic threshold limit values, such as general dust limit-values for alveolar and respirable dust fractions, irrespective of the sources contributing to these fractions?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
45	Does your organization compare the extent of nanomaterial exposure against nominal, non-health-based, benchmark values in the absence of Occupational Exposure Limit (OEL) or Derived No-Effect Level (DNEL) values?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
Review
46	Does your organization undertake systematic reevaluations of the risk assessments and risk management strategies that have been implemented, to ensure they remain effective and up-to-date?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know
47	Is there a feedback mechanism for workers who are exposed or injured on the job so that lessons are learned in each case (e.g. workers’ compensation system linked back to systems improvement?	A) Yes B) No C) I do not know

The questions, organized into eight categories including General Questions, Nanomaterials Identification, Hazard Assessment, Exposure Assessment, Categorization of Risk (Control Banding), Risk Management, Detailed Risk Assessment, and finally, Review Step. This categorization follows the procedural recommendations of the European Commission for integrating nanosafety systems within organizations.

General Questions probe the awareness and baseline practices regarding nanomaterials in the workplace, including their use, the perceived health impacts, and the existence of risk assessment and management processes specifically for nanomaterials.

Nanomaterials Identification and Hazard Assessment sections seek detailed insights into how organizations identify nanomaterials and assess potential hazards associated with their use.

Exposure Assessment evaluates how companies assess the likelihood and extent of employee exposure to nanomaterials.

Categorization of Risk (Control Banding), Risk Management, and Detailed Risk Assessment sections delve into the methodologies employed by organizations to categorize risks, manage them, and conduct detailed risk assessments.

The Review Step assesses the periodic review practices of risk assessments and management strategies to ensure they remain effective and up-to-date.

Each section comprises questions with predefined possible answers (Yes, No, I do not know), and in some areas, prompts for more detailed responses regarding the specific steps taken or measures implemented. This structure not only facilitates a straightforward evaluation of nanosafety practices but also highlights areas for improvement by identifying gaps in knowledge, process, and implementation.

The questionnaire’s comprehensive approach, covering from general awareness to specific risk management practices, provides valuable insights into the current state of nanosafety implementation within companies. It serves as a diagnostic tool, enabling organizations to assess their nanosafety systems’ effectiveness and alignment with the recommended European guidelines.

The survey questions serve as critical items on a checklist, with the primary objective being for respondents to answer “yes” to every inquiry. Accordingly, if a company’s response to any question is “No” or “I do not know,” it is advisable for the company to conduct further investigation into the issue addressed by that question. For questions that offer multiple choices, if a company does not select an option, it is recommended that the company explore and consider the relevance and applicability of that unselected option. This approach encourages companies to engage in a critical assessment of their current nanosafety practices and identify areas where improvements are necessary or where additional information and understanding could enhance their nanosafety management systems. By actively investigating these areas, companies can ensure that they are adopting comprehensive and effective strategies to protect workers’ health and safety in relation to nanomaterials.

5. Conclusion

In conclusion, this study introduces a pioneering diagnostic tool for companies to evaluate their implementation of nanosafety measures, as elaborated in Table 1. This tool, comprising 47 pointed questions, acts as an initial mechanism for organizations to assess their awareness and adherence to pivotal nanosafety concerns. Designed to elicit responses of “Yes,” “No,” “I do not know,” or to select from multiple-choice options, it directs companies to further exploration in instances where responses reveal gaps in knowledge or practical application. It is vital to recognize that while this tool lays the groundwork for assessing adherence to general nanosafety practices and European Commission guidelines, it is not exhaustive. Its core aim is to spotlight areas requiring enhancements in comprehension and execution of nanosafety measures. Therefore, this diagnostic tool marks a critical initial stride in fostering greater nanosafety consciousness and practices among companies. It signals the need for its expansion and the integration of a broader array of guidelines to ensure a thorough and efficacious evaluation. By facilitating companies in scrutinizing their nanosafety practices, this tool also highlights the significance of continuous improvement and the need to keep pace with advancing safety standards, thus contributing to safer workplace environments in the realm of nanotechnology.

For future investigations, it is acknowledged that developing a more comprehensive version of the diagnostic tool, one that encompasses all relevant guidelines and frameworks, will be highly beneficial. This endeavor would not only enhance the tool’s depth and breadth but also ensure that it remains aligned with the latest in nanosafety standards and practices. Additionally, the transition of this tool into a digital format presents a significant opportunity for improvement. A digital tool could offer greater accessibility and ease of use for companies, facilitating more widespread adoption and consistent application of nanosafety assessments. Furthermore, generating detailed recommendations for each question in the event of a negative response represents a critical advancement. Providing specific, actionable guidance in such instances would greatly aid companies in addressing identified gaps in their nanosafety practices. This approach ensures that the tool not only serves as a means for evaluation but also as a resource for continuous improvement, guiding companies toward higher levels of nanosafety compliance and implementation.

Ultimately, the concept of a comprehensive and accessible diagnostic tool, equipped with detailed recommendations for improvement, could be seamlessly integrated by organizations responsible for producing nanosafety guidelines. By incorporating this tool directly within their guideline documents, these organizations can provide a practical, actionable resource for companies seeking to align their practices with the latest standards. This integration not only enhances the utility of the guidelines but also encourages proactive engagement with nanosafety measures, facilitating a more straightforward path for organizations to identify and rectify compliance gaps. Such an approach underscores a commitment to advancing nanosafety at both the organizational and industry levels, promoting a culture of continuous improvement and heightened awareness of nanomaterial-related risks and safety protocols.

Additionally, we extend our sincere appreciation to the EU NanoSafety Cluster for their support in publishing our survey on their platform. We are deeply grateful for their invaluable support and the opportunity to share our work through such a respected and impactful channel.

Acknowledgments

This study greatly benefited from the insights and expertise of several distinguished experts, to whom we extend our deepest gratitude. Dr. Tim Takaro of Simon Fraser University, Professor Iseult Lynch from the University of Birmingham, Dr. Ernesto Alfaro-Moreno at the International Iberian Nanotechnology Laboratory, Dr. Pavadee Aungkavattana from the National Nanotechnology Center, NSTDA, Thailand, and Montserrat Puiggené Vallverdú, Occupational Health Physician and President of the Catalan Society of Occupational Health, each played a pivotal role. Their contributions were instrumental in refining the study’s questions, enhancing both their accuracy and relevance, and thus ensuring the study’s success. Their guidance and scholarly expertise have been invaluable, and it is with profound appreciation that we acknowledge their support.

Additionally, we extend our sincere appreciation to the EU NanoSafety Cluster for their support in publishing our survey on their platform. We are deeply grateful for their invaluable support and the opportunity to share our work through such a respected and impactful channel.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.