Nanosafety in University Research Prof. Conrad R. Stoldt Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Colorado at

1. Nanosafety in University Research Prof. Conrad R. Stoldt Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Colorado at Boulder

2. My Research at CU-Boulder Magnetic Nanocrystal Engineering: Molecular Imaging Colloidal Microwave Absorbers: Group IV Nanocrystal Synthesis: 10 nm Germanium crystals

3. Diversity on any Campus Inorganic nanomaterials NEMS/MEMS Biological nanostructures Animal testing Organic nanomaterials

4. University Nanoresearch Some generalizations - but not always true • small yields, limited reactants consumed • well-controlled reaction environment • ‘standard’ precautions employed • limited testing, low usage • small quantities stored on-site • recommended waste disposal routes used • Unusual materials require special considerations. • Protection, confinement, storage, disposal, etc. • Principal Investigator is ultimately responsible. 

5. University EHS Guidelines Some examples University of Dayton General lab safety guidelines “Pursue classic Industrial Hygiene (IH) practices for hazardous materials” Florida State University Safety issues, handling requirements, toxicity  nanoparticle research Institute for Complex Materials, Switzerland General guidelines, carbon nanotube user information and toxicity data Texas A&M Engineering General lab safety guideline, particulate controls & protection Focus on nanoparticle and carbon nanotube materials “Current knowledge is inadequate for risk assessment purposes.” Lawrence Berkeley Nat’l Lab Molecular Foundry - precautions, handling, disposal, and oversight Bottom line: No coherent story emerges.

6. Case Study: Inorganic nanoparticles Precautions, handling and disposal Thermocouple Reagents Condenser Inert Gas Reaction Vessel low concentrations of product liquid storage - stable, contained standard waste disposal

7. Case Study: Fume hood acquisition EH&S interactions and bottleneck • Arranged to purchase new fume hood to support expanding research program. • Indicated to EH&S my usage of nanoparticles  panic. • Per my requirements, vendor suggested new fume hoods with better particulate containment. • EH&S not familiar with new containment technologies. • Blocked purchase, but could not suggest alternatives. • After time lost, purchase finally OK’d for conventional chemical fume hood acquisition. • In conclusion: Final solution adequate, but concrete guidelines would have streamlined the process AND perhaps allowed for installation of technologically superior equipment.

8. Conclusions for your consideration • Regulations do not exist for ‘most’ nanomaterials. • Suggestions for proper usage do. • On-campus research is varied, quantities produced and waste generation are low. • In general, standard guidelines are adequate for most university applications. • The PI should decide how to properly handle and dispose of nanowaste. • Plan should be jointly crafted with EH&S officials. • Lab employees must follow agreed upon of guidelines. • Perhaps detailed guidelines need to be developed on a case-by-case basis for university lab work?