Abstract
Control banding (CB) has been widely recommended for the selection of exposure controls for engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) in the absence of ENM-specific occupational exposure limits (OELs). Several ENM-specific CB strategies have been developed but have not been systematically evaluated. In this article, we identify the data inputs and compare the guidance provided by eight CB tools, evaluated on six ENMs, and assuming a constant handling/use scenario. The ENMs evaluated include nanoscale silica, titanium dioxide, silver, carbon nanotubes, graphene, and cellulose. Several of the tools recommended the highest level of exposure control for each of the ENMs in the evaluation, which was driven largely by the hazard banding. Dustiness was a factor in determining the exposure band in many tools, although most tools did not provide explicit guidance on how to classify the dustiness (high, medium, low), and published data are limited on this topic. The CB tools that recommended more diverse control options based on ENM hazard and dustiness data appear to be better equipped to utilize the available information, although further validation is needed by comparison to exposure measurements and OELs for a variety of ENMs. In all CB tools, local exhaust ventilation was recommended at a minimum to control exposures to ENMs in the workplace. Generally, the same or more stringent control levels were recommended by these tools compared with the OELs proposed for these ENMs, suggesting that these CB tools would generally provide prudent exposure control guidance, including when data are limited.