The known unknowns of nanomaterials: Describing and characterizing uncertainty within environmental, health and safety risks

Nanotoxicology

Volumn 3, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 222-233

  Grieger, Khara D ^a   Hansen, Steffen F ^a   Baun, Anders ^a  

^a TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF DENMARK   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Nanomaterials; Nanotechnology; Risks; Uncertainty

Indexed keywords

NANOMATERIAL;

ARTICLE; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; NANOTECHNOLOGY; NANOTOXICOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 72449168540     PISSN: 17435390     EISSN: 17435404     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17435390902944069     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Aguar P. 2008. Proceedings of the workshop on research projects on the safety of nanomaterials: Reviewing the knowledge gaps. Brussels: European Commission Research Directorate-General, Nano- and converging science and technologies. Available from the website: ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/ nanotechnology/ docs/final-report.pdf
2. Aguar P, Murcia Nicolàs JJ. 2008. EU nanotechnology R&D in the field of health and environmental impact of nanoparticles. European Commission, Research Directorate-General. Available: http://cordis.europa.eu/nanotechnology
3. Balbus JM, Maynard AD, Colvin VL, Castranova V, Daston GP, Denison RA, Dreher KL, Goering PL, Goldberg AM, Kulinowski KM, et al. 2007. Meeting report: Hazard assessment for nanoparticles - report from an interdisciplinary workshop. Environ Health Perspect 115(11):1654-1659.
4. Baun A, Hartmann NB, Grieger KD, Kusk KO. 2008. Ecotoxicity of engineered nanoparticles to aquatic invertebrates: A brief review and recommendations for future toxicity testing. Ecotoxicology 17(5):387-395.
5. Bloom B, Engelhart M, Furst E, Hills W, Krathwohl D. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals handbook 1. Cognitive domain. New York: Longmans Green.
6. Breggin L, Pendergrass J. 2007. Where does the nano go? End-oflife regulation of nanotechnologies.Washington DC: Project on Emerging Technologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Report No. PEN 10. Available from the website: http://www.nanotechproject.org/mint/pepper/tillkruess/ downloads/ tracker.php?url-http%3A//www.nanotechproject.org/process/ assets/files/2699/208-nanoend-of-life-pen10.pdf
7. British Standards Institution. 2007. Terminology for nanomaterials. London: British Standards Institution. Report No. PAS 136:2007.
8. Council for Science and Technology. 2007. Nanosciences and nanotechnologies: A review of Government's progress on its policy commitments. London: Council for Science and Technology.
9. Davis JM. 2007. How to assess the risks of nanotechnology: Learning from past experience. J Nanosci Nanotechno 7(2): 402-409.
10. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) 2006. Characterising the potential risks posed by engineered nanoparticles: UK Government research - a progress report. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Available from the website: http://www.defra.gov.uk/ ENVIRONMENT/nanotech/research/pdf/nanoparticles-progress report.pdf
11. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) 2007. Characterising the potential risks posed by engineered nanoparticles: Second UK Government research report. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Available: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/nanotech/research/ pdf/nanoparticles-riskreport07.pdf
12. Dori YJ, Herscovitz O. 1999. Question-posing capability as an alternative evaluation method: Analysis of an environmental case study. J Res Sci Teach 36(4):411-430.
13. Environmental Defense and Dupont. 2007. Nano risk framework. Washington DC: Environmental Defense-Dupont Nano Partnership. Available from the website: http://www.environme ntaldefense.org/documents/6496-Nano%20Risk%20Framework. pdf
14. European Commission. 2004. Nanotechnologies: A preliminary risk analysis on the basis of a workshop organized in Brussels on 1-2 March 2004 by the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General of the European Commission. Brussels: European Commission Community Health and Consumer Protection. Available from the website: http://ec.europa.eu/ health/ph-risk/documents/ev- 20040301-en.pdf
15. European Commission. 2007. Taking European knowledge society seriously. Brussels: European Commission Directorate-General for research, science, economy and society. Report of the expert group on science and governance to the science, economy and society. Report No. EUR 22700. Available from the website: http://www.cienciaviva.pt/divulgacao/jovensconhec imento/TakingSeriously.pdf
16. European Commission. 2008. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee: Regulatory aspects of nanomaterials. Brussels: Commission of the European communities. Report No. SEC(2008)2036. Available from the website: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do? uri-COM:2008:0366:FIN:EN:PDF
17. European Union. 2006. Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants. Official Journal of the European Union L209:3-29.
18. Fotta P. 2003. The source of philosophical questions (realistic philosophy and human knowledge). Filozofia 58 (5):305-323.
19. Franco A, Hansen SF, Olsen SI, Butti L. 2007. Limits and prospects of the 'incremental approach' and the European legislation on the management of risks related to nanomaterials. Regul Toxicol Pharm 48(2):171-183.
20. Goldman L, Coussens C. 2005. Implications of nanotechnology for environmental health research. Washington DC: Roundtable on Environmental Health Sciences, Research and Medicine. National Academies Press. Available from the website: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11248.html
21. Handy R, Owen R, Valsami-Jones E. 2008a. The ecotoxicology of nanoparticles and nanomaterials: Current status, knowledge gaps, challenges, and future needs. Ecotoxicology 17(5): 315-325.
22. Handy R, Henry T, Scown T, Johnston B, Tyler C. 2008b. Manufactured nanoparticles: Their uptake and effects on fish-a mechanistic analysis. Ecotoxicology 17(5):396-409.
23. Hansen SF, Michelson ES, Kamper A, Borling P, Stuer Lauridsen F, Baun A. 2008. Categorization framework to aid exposure assessment of nanomaterials in consumer products. Ecotoxicology 17(5):438-447.
24. Helland A, Wick P, Koehler A, Schmid K, Som C. 2007. Reviewing the environmental and human health knowledge base of carbon nanotubes. Environ Health Perspect 115(8):1125-1131.
25. Holsapple MP, Farland WH, Landry TD, Monteiro-Riviere NA, Carter JM, Walker NJ, Thomas KV. 2005. Research strategies for safety evaluation of nanomaterials, part II: Toxicological and safety evaluation of nanomaterials, current challenges and data needs. Toxicol Sci 88(1):12-17.
26. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 2008a. Nanotechnologies-terminology and definitions for nanoobjects- Nanoparticle, nanofibre and nanoplate. ISO/TS 27687:2008.
27. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 2008b. International workshop on documentary standards for measurement and characterization in nanotechnologies. Gaithersburg, MD: NIST, 6-28 February 2008.
28. ISI Web of Knowledge [Internet]. Journal Citation Reports, Thomson Reuters 2008. Accessed 16 October 2008 from the website: http://admin-apps. isiknowledge.com.globalproxy.cvt. dk/JCR/JCR
29. Janssen PH, Petersen AC, van der Sluijs JP, Risbey JS, Ravetz JR. 2003. RIVM/MNP guidance for uncertainty assessment and communication: Quickscan hints & actions list. Bilthoven, The Netherlands: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM). Available from the website: http://www.rivm.nl/ bibliotheek/ digitaaldepot/Guidance-QS-HA.pdf
30. Janssen PH, Petersen AC, van der Sluijs JP, Risbey JS, Ravetz JR. 2005. A guidance for assessing and communicating uncertainties. Water Sci Technol 52(6):125-131.
31. Kandlikar M, Ramachandran G, Maynard A, Murdock B, Toscano WA. 2007. Health risk assessment for nanoparticles: A case for using expert judgment. J Nanopart Res 9(1): 137-156.
32. Krayer von Krauss M, van Asselt MB, Henze M, Ravetz J, Beck MB. 2005. Uncertainty and precaution in environmental management. Water Sci Technol 52(6):1-9.
33. LaDuke B. 2004. Knowledge creation: The quest for questions. Futurist 38(1):68.
34. Lindberg JE, Quinn MM. 2007. Research brief: A survey of environmental, health and safety risk management information needs and practices among nanotechnology firms in the Massachusetts region. Washington DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. Available from the website: http://www.nanotech project.org/process/assets/ images/5921/picture-1.jpg
35. Manning W, Fryback D, Weinstein M. 1996. Reflecting uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Gold M, Siegel J, Russell L, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press. pp 247-274.
36. Maynard AD. 2006a. Nanotechnology: Assessing the risks. Nano Today 1(2):22-33.
37. Maynard AD. 2006b. Nanotechnology: A research strategy for addressing risk. Washington DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. Report No. Pen 3. Available from the website: http:// www.nanotechproject.org/file-download/77
38. Maynard AD, Aitken RJ, Butz T, Colvin V, Donaldson K, Oberdorster G, Philbert MA, Ryan J, Seaton A, Stone V, et al. 2006. Safe handling of nanotechnology. Nature 444(7117):267-269.
39. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 2006. Approaches to safe nanotechnology: An information exchange with NIOSH. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Available from the website: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/nanotech/safenano/ pdfs/approaches-to-safe-nanotechnology.pdf
40. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). 2006. Environmental, health, and safety research needs for engineered nanoscale materials. Washington DC: Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee, Committee on Technology, National Science and Technology Council. Available from the website: http://www.nano.gov/NNI-EHS-research-needs.pdf
41. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). 2008. Strategy for nanotechnology-related environmental, health and safety research. Washington DC: Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology, Committee on Technology, National Science and Technology Council. Available from the website: http://www.nano.gov/NNI-EHS-Research-Strategy.pdf
42. National Nanotechnology Strategy Taskforce. 2006. Options for a national nanotechnology strategy: Report to Minister Industry, Tourism and Resources. Australian Government, Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources. Available from the website: http://www.innovation.gov.au/Industry/Nanotechnology/ Documents/Execsummary20060829115240.pdf
43. Nowack B, Bucheli TD. 2007. Occurrence, behavior and effects of nanoparticles in the environment. Environ Pollut 150(1): 5-22.
44. Oberdörster G, Oberdörster E, Oberdörster J. 2005. Nanotoxicology: An emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environ Health Perspect 113(7):823-839.
45. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2007. Current developments/activities on the safety of manufactured nanomaterials/nanotechnologies: Tour de table at the 2nd meeting of the Working Party on manufactured nanomaterials. Berlin, Germany: Environment Directorate, Joint Meeting of the Chemicals Committee and the Working Party on chemicals, pesticides and biotechnology. Report No. ENV/JM/MONO(2007)16. Available from the website: http:// www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2007doc.nsf/LinkTo/NT00002EB2/ $FILE/ JT03230791.PDF
46. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2008. List of manufactured nanomaterials and list of endpoints for phase one of the OECD testing programme. Paris, France: Environment Directorate, Joint Meeting of the Chemicals Committee and the Working Party on chemicals, pesticides and biotechnology. Report No. ENV/JM/ MONO(2008)13. Available from the website: http://www.olis. oecd.org/olis/2008doc.nsf/LinkTo/NT000034C6/$FILE/JT03 248749.PDF
47. Owen R, Handy R. 2007. Formulating the problems for environmental risk assessment of nanomaterials. Environ Sci Technol 41(16):5582-5588.
48. Refsgaard JC, van der Sluijs JP, Hojberg AL, Vanrolleghem PA. 2007. Uncertainty in the environmental modelling process- a framework and guidance. Environ Modell and Soft 22(11): 1543-1556.
49. Rickerby DG, Morrison M. 2007. Nanotechnology and the environment: A European perspective. Sci Technol Adv Mat 8(1-2):19-24.
50. Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) 2006. The appropriateness of existing methodologies to assess the potential risks associated with engineered and adventitious products of nanotechnologies. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General, Directorate C-Public Health and Risk Assessment, C7- Risk Assessment. Report No. SCENIHR/002/05. Available from the website: http://ec. europa.eu/health/ph-risk/committees/04-scenihr/docs/scenihr- o-003b.pdf
51. Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) 2007. Opinion on: The appropriateness of the risk assessment methodology in accordance with the technical guidance documents for new and existing substances for assessing the risks of nanomaterials. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General, Directorate C-Public Health and Risk Assessment, C7- Risk Assessment. Available from the website: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph-risk/committees/04-scenihr/docs/ scenihr-o-010.pdf
52. Singh S, Nalwa HS. 2007. Nanotechnology and health safety - Toxicity and risk assessments of nanostructured materials on human health. J Nanosci Nanotechno 7(9): 3048-3070.
53. Spohn P, Hirsch C, Hasler F, Bruinink A, Krug HF, Wick P. 2008. C60 fullerene: A powerful antioxidant or a damaging agent? The importance of an in-depth material characterization prior to toxicity assays. Environ Pollut. 157(4):1134-1139.
54. Stern P, Fineberg H. 1996. Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
55. Stern ST, McNeil SE. 2008. Nanotechnology safety concerns revisited. Toxicol Sci 101(1):4-21.
56. The Royal Society, The Royal Academy of Engineering. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. London: The Royal Society. Available from the website: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm
57. The Royal Society, The Royal Academy of Engineering. 2006. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. Two-year review of progress on government actions: Joint academies' response to the Council for Science and Technology's call for evidence. London: The Royal Society, The Royal Academy of Engineering. Report No. 35/06. Available from the website: http://royalsociety.org/displaypage doc.asp?id-22538
58. US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2007. Nanotechnology white paper. Washington DC: Science Policy Council, US Environmental Protection Agency, Nanotechnology Workgroup. Report No. EPA 100/B-07/001. Available from the website: http://es.epa.gov/ncer/nano/publications/ whitepaper12022005.pdf
59. US Food and Drug Administration (US FDA). 2007. Nanotechnology: A report of the US Food and Drug Administration nanotechnology task force. Rockville, MD: US Food and Drug Administration. Available from the website: http://www.fda. gov/nanotechnology/taskforce/report2007.pdf
60. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2007. Emerging challenges: Nanotechnology and the environment. In: Global Environment Outlook Year Book 2007. Geneva: Earth-Print.com. pp 62-70.
61. van der Sluijs JP, Petersen AC, Janssen PH, Risbey JS, Ravetz JR. 2008. Exploring the quality of evidence for complex and contested policy decisions. Environ Res Lett 3(2):1-9.
62. Walker W, Harremöes P, Rotmans J, van der Sluijs J, Van Asselt M, Janssen P, Krayer von Krauss M. 2003. Defining uncertainty: A conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support. J Integr Asses 4(1):5-17.
63. Wiesner MR, Lowry GV, Alvarez P, Dionysiou D, Biswas P. 2006. Assessing the risks of manufactured nanomaterials. Environ Sci Technol 40(14):4336-4345.
64. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. 2008. Consumer products: An inventory of nanotechnology-based consumer products currently on the market [Internet]. Washington DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. Available from the website: http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer/