Environmental risk analysis for nanomaterials: Review and evaluation of frameworks

Nanotoxicology

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 196-212

  Grieger, Khara D ^a   Linkov, Igor ^b   Hansen, Steffen Foss ^a   Baun, Anders ^a  

^a TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF DENMARK   (Denmark)

^b US ARMY ENGINEER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Environmental risk assessment; Nanomaterials; Risk analysis

Indexed keywords

ALUMINUM OXIDE; IRON OXIDE; MULTI WALLED NANOTUBE; NANOMATERIAL; SILICON DIOXIDE; SINGLE WALLED NANOTUBE; TITANIUM DIOXIDE; ZINC OXIDE;

DECISION MAKING; ECOTOXICITY; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; LIFE CYCLE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; HUMANS; NANOSTRUCTURES; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84856684597     PISSN: 17435390     EISSN: 17435404     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/17435390.2011.569095     Document Type: Review

References (82)

1. Aitken R, Hankin S, Ross B, Tran CL, Stone V, Fernandes TF, Donaldson K, Duffin R, Chaudhry Q, Wilkins TA, et al. 2009. EMERGNANO: A review of completed and near completed environmental, health and safety research on nanomaterials and nanotechnology. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Project CB0409, Report TM/009/01.
2. Alvarez P, Colvin V, Lead J, Stone V. 2009. Research priorities to advance eco-responsible nanotechnology. Am Chem S Nano 3(7):1616-1619.
3. Anastas P, Davis M. 2010. August 2010 BOSC nanomaterial case studies workshop review letter report. US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC).
4. Baun A, Hartmann N, Grieger K, Hansen SF. 2009. Setting the limits for engineered nanoparticles in European surface waters - are current approaches appropriate? J Environ Monit 11(10):1774-1781.
5. Briggs D. 2008. A framework for integrated environmental health impact assessment of systemic risks. Environ Health 7(1):1-17.
6. Bühler Partec. 2010: Media releases: Bühler Partecs risk management system certified. Accessed 3 November 2010 from the website: http://www.buhlergroup.com/global/en/about-buhler/media/media-releases/ details-buehler-partecs-risk-managementsystem- certified.htm?title = B%C3%BChler+Partec%C2%B4s +risk+management+system+certifie.
7. Canis L, Seager T, Linkov I. 2010. Application of stochastic multiattribute analysis to assessment of single walled carbon nanotube synthesis processes. Environ Sci Technol 44(22): 8704-8711
8. Center for International Environmental Law. 2009. Discussion draft: Addressing nanomaterials as an issue of global concern. Accessed 4 November 2010 from the website: http://www.ciel. org/Publications/CIEL-NanoStudy-May09.pdf.
9. Choi J, Ramachandran G, Kandlikar M. 2009. The impact of toxicity testing costs on nanomaterial regulation. Environ Sci Technol 43(9):3030-3034.
10. Collingridge D. 1980. The social control of technology. 1st ed. London: Frances Pinter Limited. pp 210.
11. Council for Science and Technology. 2007. Nanosciences and nanotechnologies: A review of governments progress on its policy commitments. London, March 2007.
12. Dale VH, Biddinger GR, Newman MC, Oris JT, Suter GW, Thompson T, Armitage TM, Meyer JL, Allen-King RM, Burton GA, et al. 2008. Enhancing the ecological risk assessment process. Int Environ Assess Man 4(3):306-313.
13. Davis JM. 2007. How to assess the risks of nanotechnology: Learning from past experience. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 7(2):402-409
14. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). 2007. Characterising the potential risks posed by engineered nanoparticles: 2nd UK Government research report. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
15. Environment Agency. 2008. Environment Agency interim advice on wastes containing unbound carbon nanotubes. UK Environment Agency: 2008 May 19
16. Environmental Defense (ED) and Dupont. 2007a. Nano risk framework. Washington DC: Environmental Defense - Dupont Nano Partnership. Accessed 4 November 2010 from the website: http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/ 6496-Nano% 20Risk%20Framework
17. Environmental Defense (ED) and Dupont. 2007b. Nanomaterial risk assessment worksheet: DuPont- light stabilizer for use as a polymer additive. Washington DC: Environmental Defense - Dupont Nano Partnership. Accessed 4 November 2010 from the website: http://nanoriskframework.org/page.cfm?tagID = 1326
18. Environmental Defense (ED) and Dupont. 2007c. Nanomaterial risk assessment worksheet: Incorporation of single and multiwalled carbon nano tubes (CNTs) into polymer nanocomposites by melt processing. Washington DC: Environmental Defense - Dupont Nano Partnership. Accessed 4 November 2010 from the website: http://nanoriskframework.org/page.cfm?tagID = 1326.
19. Environmental Defense (ED) and Dupont. 2007d. Nanomaterial risk Assessment worksheet: Zero valent nano sized iron nanoparticles (nZVI) for environmental remediation. Washington DC: Environmental Defense - Dupont Nano Partnership. Accessed 4 November 2010 from the website: http:// nanoriskframework. org/page.cfm?tagID = 1326.
20. European Commission. 2000. Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. Accessed 4 November 2010 from the website: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health- consumer/library/pub/pub07-en.
21. Grieger K, Hansen SF, Baun A. 2009. The known unknowns of nanomaterials: Describing and characterizing uncertainty within environmental, health and safety risks. Nanotoxicol 3(3):1-12.
22. Grieger K, Fjordbøge A, Hartmann N, Eriksson E, Bjerg P, Baun A. 2010a. Environmental benefits and risks of zero-valent iron nanoparticles (nZVI) for in situ remediation: Risk mitigation or trade-off? J Contam Hydrol 118:165-183.
23. Grieger K, Baun A, Owen R. 2010b. Redefining risk research priorities for nanomaterials. J Nanopart Res 12(2):383-392.
24. Handy R, Owen R, Valsami-Jones E. 2008. The ecotoxicology of nanoparticles and nanomaterials: Current status, knowledge gaps, challenges, and future needs. Ecotoxicol 17(5):315-325.
25. Hansen SF. 2009 Regulation and risk assessment of nanomaterials: Too little, too late? [dissertation] Technical University of Denmark. 111 pp. Available from: Department of Environmental Engineering, Kongens Lyngby Denmark; http://www2.er.dtu. dk/publications/fulltext/2009/ENV2009-069.pdf.
26. Höck J, Hofmann H, Krug H, Lorenz C, Limbach L, Nowack B, Riediker M, Schischke K, Som C, Stark W, et al. 2008. Guidelines on the Precautionary Matrix for synthetic nanomaterials. Berne: Swiss Federal Office for Public Health and Federal Office for the Environment.
27. Höck J, Epprecht T, Hofmann H, Höhner K, Krug H, Lorenz C, Limbach L, Gehr P, Nowack B, Riediker M, et al. 2010. Guidelines on the Precautionary Matrix for synthetic nanomaterials, Version 2. Berne: Swiss Federal Office for Public Health and Federal Office for the Environment
28. International Risk Governance Council (IRGC). 2005. Risk governance: Towards an integrative approach. Geneva: IRGC
29. International Risk Governance Council (IRGC). 2007. Nanotechnology risk governance: Recommendations for a global, coordinated approach to the governance of potential risks. Geneva: IRGC. International Risk Governance Council (IRGC). 2009. Appropriate risk governance strategies for nanotechnology applications in food and cosmetics. Geneva: IRGC.
30. Kim B, Park CS, Murayama M, Hochella MF. 2010. Discovery and characterization of silver sulfide nanoparticles in final sewage sludge products. Environ Sci Technol 44(19): 7509-7514.
31. Linkov I, Satterstrom FK. 2006. Weight of evidence: What is the state of the science? Risk Anal 25(6):1545-1557.
32. Linkov I, Satterstrom FK. 2008. Nanomaterial risk assessment and risk management: Review of regulatory frameworks. In: Linkov I, Ferguson E, Magar V, editors. Real time and deliberative decision making: Application to risk assessment for non-chemical stressors. Amsterdam: Springer. pp 129-157.
33. Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Kiker G, Batchelor C, Bridges T, Ferguson E. 2006. From comparative risk assessment to multi-criteria decision analysis and adaptive management: Recent developments and applications. Environ Int 32(8):1072-1093. (Pubitemid 44637296)
34. Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Steevens J, Ferguson E, Pleus RC. 2007. Multi-criteria decision analysis and environmental risk assessment for nanomaterials. J Nanopart Res 9(4):543-554. (Pubitemid 46800846)
35. Linkov I, Steevens J, Adlakha-Hutcheon G, Bennett E, Chappell M, Colvin V, Davis JM, Davis T, Elder A, Hansen SF, et al. 2009a. Emerging methods and tools for environmental risk assessment, decision-making, and policy for nanomaterials: Summary of NATO Advanced Research Workshop. J Nanopart Res 11(3):513-527.
36. Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Monica JC, Hansen SF, Davis T. 2009b. Nano risk governance: Current developments and future perspectives. Nanotechnol Law Bus 6:203-220.
37. Linkov I, Loney D, Cormier S, Satterstrom FK, Bridges T. 2009c. Weight-of-evidence evaluation in environmental assessment: Review of qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sci Tot Environ 407(19):5199-5205.
38. Martuzzi M, Tickner J. 2004. The precautionary principle: Protecting public health, the environment and the future of our children. Copenhagen: World Health Organization. pp 220.
39. Maynard AD. 2006. Nanotechnology: Assessing the risks. Nano Today 1(2):22-33. (Pubitemid 44069459)
40. Metcalfe C, Bennett E, Chappell MA, Steevens JA, Depledge M, Goss G, Goudey S, Kaczmar S, OBrien N, Picado A. 2009. SMARTEN: Strategic management and assessment of risks and toxicity of engineered nanomaterials. In: Linkov I, Ferguson E, Magar V, editors. Real time and deliberative decision making: Application to risk assessment for non-chemical stressors. Amsterdam: Springer. pp 95-108.
41. Murashov V, Howard J. 2009. Essential features for proactive risk management. Nature Nanotechnol 4(8):467-470
42. National Academies of Science. 2008. Science and decisions advancing risk assessment. Washington DC.
43. Oberdörster G. 2010. Safety assessment for nanotechnology and nanomedicine: Concepts of nanotoxicology. J Intern Med 267(1):89-105.
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. (Pubitemid 40984181)
45. OBrien N, Cummins E. 2008. Recent developments in nanotechnology and risk assessment strategies for addressing public and environmental health concerns. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 14(3):568-592 (Pubitemid 351883233)
46. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2009. Preliminary review of OECD test guidelines for their applicability to manufactured nanomaterials. Paris, France: Environment Directorate, Joint Meeting of the Chemicals Committee and the Working Party on chemicals, pesticides and biotechnology. Report No. ENV/JM/MONO (2009)21
47. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2010. Series on the safety of manufactured nanomaterials no. 21: Report of the workshop on risk assessment of manufactured nanomaterials in a regulatory context. Paris, France: Environment Directorate, Joint Meeting of the Chemicals Committee and the Working Party on chemicals, pesticides and biotechnology. Report No. ENV/JM/MONO(2010)10.
48. Owen R, Handy R. 2007. Formulating the problems for environmental risk assessment of nanomaterials. Environ Sci Technol 41(16):5582-5588. (Pubitemid 47291982)
49. Owen R, Crane M, Grieger K, Handy R, Linkov I, Depledge M. 2009. Strategic approach for the management of environmental risk uncertainties posed by nanomaterials. In: Linkov I, Ferguson E, Magar V, editors. Real time and deliberative decision making: Application to risk assessment for non-chemical stressors. Amsterdam: Springer. pp 369-384.
50. Raphael D. 2009. Alternatives assessment: Decision making in the face of scientific uncertainty. The role of science and precaution in decision making, international workshop, Vienna, March 30-31.
51. Renn O. 2008. Risk governance: Coping with uncertainty in a complex world. 1st ed. London: Earthscan. pp 455.
52. Robichaud CO, Tanzil D, Weilenmann U, Wiesner MR. 2005. Relative risk analysis of several manufactured nanomaterials: An insurance industry context. Environ Sci Technol 39(22):8985-8994.
53. Rocks S, Pollard S, Dorey R, Levy L, Harrison P, Handy R. 2008. Comparison of risk assessment approaches for manufactured nanomaterials. Report compiled as part of Defra project (CB403), Cranfield University
54. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP). 2008. Novel materials in the environment: The case of nanotechnology. Norwich: The Stationery Office (TSO)
55. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. 2004 Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. London: The Royal Society.
56. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. 2006. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties - two-year review of progress on government actions. London: The Royal Society
57. Safenano [Internet]. REACH-NanoInfo: Rip-oN 2. 2010a. Accessed 30 October 2010 from the website: http://www. safenano.org/REACHnanoInfo.aspx
58. Safenano [Internet]. REACH-NanoHazEx: Rip-oN 3. 2010b. Accessed 30 October 2010 from the website: http://www. safenano.org/REACHnanoHazEx.aspx.
59. Saltelli A, Ratto M, Andres T, Campolongo F, Cariboni J, Gatelli D, Saisana M, Tarantola S. 2008. Global sensitivity analysis: The primer. 1st ed. Chichester: Wiley. pp 304
60. 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
61. Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR). 2009. Risk assessment of products of nanotechnologies. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission Health and Consumer Protection Directorate - General, Directorate C - Public Health and Risk Assessment, C7 - Risk Assessment.
62. Seager TP, Linkov I. 2008. Coupling multicriteria decision analysis and life cycle assessment for nanomaterials. J Ind Ecol 12(3):282-285.
63. Shatkin JA. 2008. Nanotechnology: Health and environmental risks. 1st ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp 192.
64. Shatkin JA. 2009a. Investigating the life cycle risks of a nanomaterial in a coating using nano LCRA. Society for risk analysis annual meeting, Symposium M4-I, Baltimore, December 7.
65. Shatkin JA. 2009b. Risk analysis for nanotechnology: State of the science and implications. US Department of Agriculture, Washington DC, October 7.
66. Stone V, Aitken R, Aschberger K, Baun A, Christensen FM, Fernandes TF, Hansen SF, Hartmann NB, Hutchison G, Johnston H, et al. 2010. Engineered nanoparticles: Review of health and environmental safety (ENRHES). ENRHES European Union Framework Programme 7 project, Final report
67. Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) [internet]. Workplace safety is first priority. 2010. Accessed 4 November 2010 from the website: http://www.bafu.admin.ch/dokumentation/umwelt/10649/10660/index.html?lang = en
68. Swiss Federal Office of Public Health. 2010. Application of precautionary matrix on life cycle of anti-fingerprint product. 2nd NanoImpactNet conference, Lausanne, March 912.
69. Tervonen T, Linkov I, Figueira JR, Steevens J, Chappell M, Merad M. 2009. Risk-based classification system of nanomaterials. J Nanopart Res 11(4):757-766.
70. TüV SüD. 2008. Certification standard CENARIOS-. Munich: TüV SüD Industrie Service GmbH
71. US Army Environmental Policy Institute. 2009. Army Environmental Policy Institute (AEPI) report: Managing the life cycle risks of nanomaterials. Arlington: Army Environmental Policy Institute.
72. US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2007. Nanotechnology white paper. Washington DC: Science Policy Council, US Environmental Protection Agency. Report No. EPA 100/B-07/001.
73. US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2008. Draft nanomaterial research strategy. Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency. Report No. EPA/600/S-08/002.
74. US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2009. External review draft nanomaterial case studies: Nanoscale titanium dioxide in water treatment and in topical sunscreen. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency. Report No. EPA/600/R-09/057.
75. US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2010a. Nanomaterial case study: Nanoscale silver in disinfectant spray (external review draft). Washington DC: US Environmental Protection Agency. Report No. EPA/600/R-10/081. Accessed 4 November 2010 from the website: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/ recordisplay.cfm?deid = 226723.
76. US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2010b. Nanomaterial case studies workshop: Developing a comprehensive environmental assessment research strategy for nanoscale titanium dioxide. Workshop summary for the EPA Board of Scientific Counselors, 29-30 September 2009. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Center for Environmental Assessment-RTP Division Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency. Report No. EPA/600/R-10/042.
77. van der Sluijs JP, Craye M, Funtowicz SO, Kloprogge P, Ravetz JR, Risbey JS. 2005. Combining quantitative and qualitative measures of uncertainty in model based environmental assessment: The NUSAP system. Risk Anal 25(2):481-492. (Pubitemid 40664372)
78. van der Sluijs JP, Petersen AC, Janssen PHM, Risbey JS, Ravetz J.R. 2008. Exploring the quality of evidence for complex and contested policy decisions. Environ Res Lett 3(2). (DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/3/2/024008).
79. 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.
80. Wardak A, Gorman ME, Swami N, Deshpande S. 2008. Identification of risks in the life cycle of nanotechnology-based products. J Ind Ecol 12(3):435-448.
81. Wiesner MR, Lowry GV, Jones KL, Hochella J, Michael F, Di Giulio RT, Casman E, Bernhardt ES. 2009. Decreasing uncertainties in assessing environmental exposure, risk, and ecological implications of nanomaterials. Environ Sci Technol 43(17):6458-6462.
82. Wise J, Schwartz J, Woodruff TJ. 2010. A nanotechnology policy framework for California: Policy recommendations for addressing potential health risks from nanomaterials. San Francisco: University of California, San Francisco.