Best practices from nano-risk analysis relevant for other emerging technologies
Source abstract
Abstract
The experiences gained from the past 15 years of nanomaterial risk analysis may be useful for the risk analysis efforts of other emerging technologies.
The source flagged this abstract for review. Check formulas and completeness against the original publication.
Source: openaire · Quality: needs review · Source record ↗
Source flags: short_text
Source flags: short_text
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Nanoparticles: synthesis and applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (37)
Show source-provided references
1. 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 (European Commission, 2004).
2. 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 (Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly-Identified Health Risks, 2007).
3. Oomen, A. G. et al. NanoImpact 9, 1–13 (2018).10.1016/j.impact.2017.09.001 ↗
4. Investigating the Different Types of Risk Assessments of Manufactured Nanomaterials: Identifying Tools Available for Risk Management Measures and Uncertainties Driving Nano-Specific Data Needs (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2018).
5. National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan (National Science and Technology Council Committee on Technology, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology, 2016).
6. White Paper: Towards a more effective and efficient governance and regulation of nanomaterials (Prosafe, 2017).
7. Jantunen, P., Mech, A. & Rasmussen, K. Workshop on Regulatory Preparedness for Innovation in Nanotechnology (Joint Research Centre, 2018)
8. Linkov, I., Anklam, E., Collier, Z. A., Dimase, D. & Renn, O. Environ. Syst. Decis. 34, 134–137 (2014).10.1007/s10669-014-9488-3 ↗
9. Wickson, F. et al. Nat. Nanotechnol. 9, 870 (2014).10.1038/nnano.2014.237 ↗
10. Miller, G. & Wickson, F. Rev. Policy Res. 32, 485–512 (2015).10.1111/ropr.12129 ↗
11. Hjorth, R. Nat. Nanotechnol. 12, 1109–1110 (2017).10.1038/nnano.2017.232 ↗
12. Marchant G. E. The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight, Vol. 7 (eds. Marchant, G., Allenby, B. & Herkert, J.) 199–205 (Springer, 2011).10.1007/978-94-007-1356-7_13 ↗
13. National Nanotechnology Initiative Supplement to the President's 2019 Budget (Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering & Committee on Technology of the National Science and Technology Council, 2018).
14. National Nanotechnology Initiative. Environmental, health, and safety issues. Nano.gov https://www.nano.gov/you/environmental-health-safety (2019).
15. Syberg, K. & Hansen, S. F. Sci. Total Environ. 541, 784–794 (2016).10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.09.112 ↗
16. Dennis, S. D., Buchanan, R. L. & Miller, A. J. Microbial risk assessment: achievements and future challenges. Food Safety Magazine https://www.foodsafetymagazine.com/magazine-archive1/december-2001january-2002/microbial-risk-assessment-achievements-and-future-challenges/ (2001)
17. Aven, T. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 253, 1–13 (2016).10.1016/j.ejor.2015.12.023 ↗
18. Choi, J. Y., Ramachandran, G. & Kandlikar, M. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 3030–3034 (2009).10.1021/es802388s ↗
19. Guidance on Uncertainty in EFSA Scientific Assessment - DRAFT (European Food Safety Authority, 2015).
20. Aven, T. et al. Risk Analysis: Fundamental Principles (Society for Risk Analysis, 2018).
21. Grieger, K. D., Hansen, S. F. & Baun, A. Nanotoxicology 3, 1–U17 (2009).10.1080/17435390902944069 ↗
22. Hock, J. Proceedings of the Workshop on Research Projects on the Safety of Nanomaterials: Reviewing the Knowledge Gaps (European Commission, 2008).
23. US Environmental Protection Agency Nanotechnology White Paper (Nanotechnology Working Group, Science Policy Council, US Environmental Protection Agency, 2007).
24. Jantunen, A. P. K., Gottardo, S., Rasmussen, K. & Crutzen, H. P. NanoImpact 12, 18–28 (2018).10.1016/j.impact.2018.08.007 ↗
25. Subramanian, V. et al. J. Nanopart. Res. 18, 1–13 (2016).10.1007/s11051-016-3375-4 ↗
26. Grieger, K. D., Baun, A. & Owen, R. J. J. Nanopart. Res. 12, 383–392 (2010).10.1007/s11051-009-9829-1 ↗
27. Hardy, A. et al. EFSA J. 16, 5123 (2017).
28. Ramachandran, G. et al. J. Nanopart. Res. 13, 1345–1371 (2011).10.1007/s11051-011-0233-2 ↗
29. Kuzma, J. Regul. Gov. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12245 (2019).10.1111/rego.12245 ↗
30. Karcher, S. et al. NanoImpact 9, 85–101 (2018).10.1016/j.impact.2017.11.002 ↗
31. Kuzma, J. & Kuzhabekova, A. J. Nanopart. Res. 13, 1499–1512 (2011).10.1007/s11051-011-0235-0 ↗
32. Lai, R. W. S. et al. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 25, 3060–3077 (2018).10.1007/s11356-017-9489-0 ↗
33. Bowman, D. M. & Hodge, G. A. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 27, 118–132 (2007).10.1177/0270467606298216 ↗
34. Kuzma, J. & Roberts, J. P. J. Nanopart. Res. 18, 1–18 (2016).10.1007/s11051-016-3506-y ↗
35. Linkov, I. et al. Environ. Syst. Decis. 38, 170–176 (2018).10.1007/s10669-018-9686-5 ↗
36. Trump, B. D., Hristozov, D., Malloy, T. & Linkov, I. Nano Today 21, 9–12 (2018).10.1016/j.nantod.2018.03.002 ↗
37. Maynard, A. D. Nat. Nanotechnol. 10, 730 (2015).10.1038/nnano.2015.196 ↗