Demonstration of a modelling-based multi-criteria decision analysis procedure for prioritisation of occupational risks from manufactured nanomaterials

Nanotoxicology

Volumn 10, Issue 9, 2016, Pages 1215-1228

  Hristozov, Danail ^a   Zabeo, Alex ^a   Alstrup Jensen, Keld ^b   Gottardo, Stefania ^c   Isigonis, Panagiotis ^a   Maccalman, Laura ^d   Critto, Andrea ^a   Marcomini, Antonio ^a  

^a CA' FOSCARI UNIVERSITY OF VENICE   (Italy)

^b NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTRE FOR THE WORKING ENVIRONMENT   (Denmark)

^c JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE   (Italy)

^d INSTITUTE OF OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Benchmark dose; margin of exposure; occupational exposure; risk assessment

Indexed keywords

MULTI WALLED NANOTUBE; SILVER; TITANIUM DIOXIDE; ZINC OXIDE; CARBON NANOTUBE; NANOMATERIAL;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; DOSE RESPONSE; DRY POWDER; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; IN VIVO STUDY; MONTE CARLO METHOD; MULTI CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; OCCUPATIONAL HAZARD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNCERTAINTY; ANALYSIS; BENCHMARKING; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; DEVICE MATERIAL; INDUSTRY; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS; THEORETICAL MODEL; TOXICITY; WORKPLACE;

BENCHMARKING; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; HUMANS; INDUSTRY; MANUFACTURED MATERIALS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; NANOSTRUCTURES; NANOTUBES, CARBON; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; RISK ASSESSMENT; WORKPLACE; ZINC OXIDE;

EID: 84976385228     PISSN: 17435390     EISSN: 17435404     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/17435390.2016.1144827     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. J.H.Arts, M.Hadi, M.A.Irfan, A.M.Keene, R.Kreiling, D.Lyon, et al. 2015. A decision-making framework for the grouping and testing of nanomaterials (DF4nanoGrouping). Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 71:S1–27
2. S.Barlow, A.G.Renwick, J.Kleiner, J.W.Bridges, L.Busk, E.Dybing, et al. 2006. Risk assessment of substances that are both genotoxic and carcinogenic:report of an International Conference organized by EFSA and WHO with support of ILSI Europe. Food Chem Toxicol 44:1636–50
3. D.Benford, M.DiNovi, R.W.Setzer. 2010. Application of the margin-of-exposure (MoE) approach to substances in food that are genotoxic and carcinogenic e.g.:benzo[a]pyrene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Food Chem Toxicol 48:S42–8
4. G.Burdett, D.Bard, A.Kelly, A.Thorpe. 2012. The effect of surface coatings on the dustiness of a calcium carbonate nanopowder. J Nanoparticle Res 15:1–17
5. J.W.Cherrie. 1999. The effect of room size and general ventilation on the relationship between near and far-field concentrations. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 14:539–46
6. J.W.Cherrie, L.Maccalman, W.Fransman, E.Tielemans, M.Tischer, M.Van Tongeren. 2011. Revisiting the effect of room size and general ventilation on the relationship between near- and far-field air concentrations. Ann Occup Hyg 55:1006–15
7. W.Dongrui, J.M.Mendel. 2010. Ordered Fuzzy Weighted Averages and Ordered Linguistic Weighted Averages. IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ), 2010 Jul 18–23, New Orleans, USA
8. B.Duuren-Stuurman, S.Vink, D.Brouwer, D.Kroese, H.Heussen, K.Verbist, et al. 2011. Stoffenmanager Nano:Description of the Conceptual Control Banding Model. Zeist:TNO
9. ECHA. 2007. Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment. Part D:Exposure Scenario Building. Helsinki
10. ECHA. 2012. Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment. Appendix R 14.4 Recommendations for Nanomaterials Applicable to Chapter R.14 Occupational Exposure Estimation. Helsinki
11. P.P.Egeghy, D.A.Vallero, E.A.Cohen Hubal. 2011. Exposure-based prioritization of chemicals for risk assessment. Environ Sci Policy 14:950–64
12. European Commission. 2013. Europe 2020:a European Strategy For Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth. Brussels
13. European Parliament and the Council. 2006. Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). Brussels:Official Journal of the European Union
14. T.R.Fadel, J.A.Steevens, T.A.Thomas, I.Linkov. 2015. The challenges of nanotechnology risk management. Nano Today 10:6–10
15. Futures Markets. 2012. The Global Market for Zinc Oxide Nanopowders. Edinburgh:Future Markets
16. I.Gosens, A.Kermanizadeh, N.R.Jacobsen, A.G.Lenz, B.Bokkers, W.H.de Jong, et al. 2015. Comparative hazard identification by a single dose lung exposure of zinc oxide and silver nanomaterials in mice. PLoS One 10:e0126934
17. K.D.Grieger, I.Linkov, S.F.Hansen, A.Baun. 2012. Environmental risk analysis for nanomaterials:review and evaluation of frameworks. Nanotoxicology 6:196–212
18. K.D.Grieger, J.H.Redmon, E.S.Money, M.W.Widder, W.H.van der Schalie, S.M.Beaulieu, D.Womack. 2015. A relative ranking approach for nano-enabled applications to improve risk-based decision making:a case study of Army materiel. Environ Syst Decis 35:42–53
19. Y.Grosse, D.Loomis, K.Z.Guyton, B.Lauby-Secretan, F.El Ghissassi, V.Bouvard, et al. 2014. Carcinogenicity of fluoro-edenite, silicon carbide fibres and whiskers, and carbon nanotubes. Lancet Oncol 15:1427–8
20. S.Halappanavar, A.T.Saber, N.Decan, K.A.Jensen, D.Wu, N.R.Jacobsen, et al. 2015. Transcriptional profiling identifies physicochemical properties of nanomaterials that are determinants of the in vivo pulmonary response. Environ Mol Mutagen 56:245–64
21. S.M.Hankin, S.A.K.Peters, C.A.Poland, S.F.Hansen, J.Holmqvist, B.L.Ross, et al. 2011. Specific Advice on Fulfilling Information Requirements for Nanomaterials Under REACH (RIP-oN 2). Edinburgh:Institute of Occupational Medicine
22. S.Hansen, K.Jensen, A.Baun. 2013. NanoRiskCat:a conceptual tool for categorization and communication of exposure potentials and hazards of nanomaterials in consumer products. J Nanoparticle Res 16:1–25
23. F.O.Hoffman, J.S.Hammonds. 1994. Propagation of uncertainty in risk assessments:the need to distinguish between uncertainty due to lack of knowledge and uncertainty due to variability. Risk Anal 14:707–12
24. D.R.Hristozov, S.Gottardo, A.Critto, A.Marcomini. 2012. Risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials:a review of available data and approaches from a regulatory perspective. Nanotoxicology 6:880–98
25. D.R.Hristozov, S.Gottardo, M.Cinelli, P.Isigonis, A.Zabeo, A.Critto, et al. 2014a. Application of a quantitative weight of evidence approach for ranking and prioritising occupational exposure scenarios for titanium dioxide and carbon nanomaterials. Nanotoxicology 8:117–31
26. D.R.Hristozov, A.Zabeo, C.Foran, P.Isigonis, A.Critto, A.Marcomini, I.Linkov. 2014b. A weight of evidence approach for hazard screening of engineered nanomaterials. Nanotoxicology 8:72–87
27. J.Höck, T.Epprecht, H.Hofmann, K.Höhner, H.Krug, C.Lorenz, et al. 2010. Guidelines on the Precautionary Matrix for Synthetic Nanomaterials. Berne:Federal Office for Public Health and Federal Office for the Environment
28. IOM. 2012. EU FP7 ENPRA project final report. Edinburgh
29. K.Jensen, I.Koponen, P.Clausen, T.Schneider. 2009. Dustiness behaviour of loose and compacted bentonite and organoclay powders:what is the difference in exposure risk? J Nanopart Res 11:133–46
30. K.Jensen, A.Saber, H.Kristensen, I.Koponen, B.Liguori, H.Wallin. 2013. NanoSafer vs. 1.1 – Nanomaterial risk assessment using first order modeling. 6th International Symposium on Nanotechnology, Occupational and Environmental Health 2013, Nagoya, Japan
31. A.J.Koivisto, A.C.O.Jensen, M.Levin, K.I.Kling, M.D.Maso, S.H.Nielsen, et al. 2015. Testing the near field/far field model performance for prediction of particulate matter emissions in a paint factory. Environ Sci Process Impacts 17:62–73
32. H.V.Kristensen, S.B.Hansen, G.K.A.J.Rasmussen, I.K.Koponen, A.T.Saber, S.H.Nielsen, H.Wallin. 2010. Nanopartikler i arbejdsmiljøet – Viden og inspiration om håndtering af nanomaterialer. Industriens Branchearbejdsmiljøråd, Branchearbejdsmiljørådet for Undervisning og Forskning samt Universitets og Bygningsstyrelsen. Copenhagen:Teknologisk Institut, Center for Arbejdsliv, Det Nationale Forskningscenter for Arbejdsmilj
33. I.Linkov, M.Kurth, D.Hristozov, J.Keisler. 2015. Nanotechnology:promoting innovation through analysis and governance. Environ Syst Decis 35:22–3
34. I.Linkov, F.K.Satterstrom, J.C.J.MonicaJC JrS.F.Hansen, T.A.Davis. 2009a. Nano risk governance:current developments and future perspectives. Nanotechnol Law Business 6:203–20
35. I.Linkov, J.Steevens, M.Chappell, T.Tervonen, J.R.Figueira, M.Merad. 2009b. Classifying nanomaterial risks using multi-criteria decision analysis. In:I.Linkov, J.Steevens, eds. Nanomaterials:Risks and Benefits. Netherlands:Springer, 179–91
36. T.F.Malloy, P.J.Sinsheimer, A.Blake, I.Linkov. 2013. Use of multi-criteria decision analysis in regulatory alternatives analysis:a case study of lead free solder. Integr Environ Assess Manag 9:652–64
37. J.Mitchell, N.Pabon, Z.A.Collier, P.P.Egeghy, E.Cohen-Hubal, I.Linkov, D.A.Vallero. 2013. A decision analytic approach to exposure-based chemical prioritization. PLoS One 8:e70911
38. NIOSH. 2011. Current intelligence bulletin 63:occupational exposure to titanium dioxide
39. NIOSH. 2013. Current intelligence bulletin 65:occupational exposure to carbon nanotubes and nanofibers
40. NSF & NNCO. 2014. Market Report on Emerging Nanotechnology. Washington, DC
41. G.S.Omenn, A.C.Kessler, N.T.Anderson, P.Y.Chiu, J.Doull, B.Goldstein, et al. 1997. Risk Assessment And Risk Management in Regulatory Decision-Making. Washington, DC Presidential and Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management
42. C.Ostiguy, M.Riediker, J.Triolet, P.Troisfontaines, D.Vernez. 2010. Development of a Specific Control Banding Tool for Nanomaterials. Maisons-Alfort Cedex:French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety
43. S.Y.Paik, D.M.Zalk, P.Swuste. 2008. Application of a pilot control banding tool for risk level assessment and control of nanoparticle exposures. Ann Occup Hyg 52:419–28
44. 2 production as a basis for exposure assessment. Environ Sci Technol 43:4227–33
45. T.Schneider, D.H.Brouwer, I.K.Koponen, K.A.Jensen, W.Fransmann, B.van Duuren-Stuurman, et al. 2011. Conceptual model for assessment of inhalation exposure to manufactured nanoparticles. J Exp Sci Environ Epidemiol 5:450–63
46. T.Schneider, K.A.Jensen. 2008. Combined single-drop and rotating drum dustiness test of fine to nanosize powders using a small drum. Ann Occup Hyg 52:23–34
47. T.Schneider, K.A.Jensen. 2009. Relevance of aerosol dynamics and dustiness for personal exposure to manufactured nanoparticles. J Nanopart Res 11:1637–50
48. T.Schneider, K.A.Jensen, P.A.Clausen, A.Afshari, L.Gunnarsen, P.Wahlin, et al. 2004. Prediction of indoor concentration of 0.5-4 μm particles of outdoor origin in an uninhabited apartment. Atmos Environ 38:6349–59
49. W.Slob. 2002. Dose-response modeling of continuous endpoints. Toxicol Sci 66:298–312
50. V.Stone, S.Pozzi-Mucelli, L.Tran, K.Aschberger, S.Sabella, U.Vogel, et al. 2014. ITS-NANO – Prioritising nanosafety research to develop a stakeholder driven intelligent testing strategy. Part Fibre Toxicol 11:9. doi:10.1186/1743-8977-11-9
51. V.Subramanian, E.Semenzin, D.Hristozov, E.Zondervan-van den Beuken, I.Linkov, A.Marcomini. 2015. Review of decision analytic tools for sustainable nanotechnology. Environ Syst Decis 35:29–41
52. T.Tervonen, I.Linkov, J.Figueira, J.Steevens, M.Chappell, M.Merad. 2009. Risk-based classification system of nanomaterials. J Nanopart Res 11:757–66
53. US EPA. 2011. Decision Document:Conditional Registration of HeiQ AGS-20 as a Materials Preservative in Textiles. Washington, DC