Emerging methods and tools for environmental risk assessment, decision-making, and policy for nanomaterials: summary of NATO Advanced Research Workshop
Source abstract
Abstract
Nanomaterials and their associated technologies hold promising opportunities for the development of new materials and applications in a wide variety of disciplines, including medicine, environmental remediation, waste treatment, and energy conservation. However, current information regarding the environmental effects and health risks associated with nanomaterials is limited and sometimes contradictory. This article summarizes the conclusions of a 2008 NATO workshop designed to evaluate the wide-scale implications (e.g., benefits, risks, and costs) of the use of nanomaterials on human health and the environment. A unique feature of this workshop was its interdisciplinary nature and focus on the practical needs of policy decision makers. Workshop presentations and discussion panels were structured along four main themes: technology and benefits, human health risk, environmental risk, and policy implications. Four corresponding working groups (WGs) were formed to develop detailed summaries of the state-of-the-science in their respective areas and to discuss emerging gaps and research needs. The WGs identified gaps between the rapid advances in the types and applications of nanomaterials and the slower pace of human health and environmental risk science, along with strategies to reduce the uncertainties associated with calculating these risks.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Nanoparticles: synthesis and applications · Heavy Metal Exposure and Toxicity · Healthcare and Environmental Waste Management
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (42)
Show source-provided references
1. AIST (2008) Research Center for Chemical Risk Management. A nanotechnology-claimed consumer products inventory in Japan. Available via DIALOG. http://staff.aist.go.jp/kishimoto-atsuo/nano/e_link_text.htm
2. Balbus JM, Maynard AD, Colvin VL, Castranova V, Daston GP, Denison RA et al (2007) Meeting report: hazard assessment for nanoparticles—report from an interdisciplinary workshop. Environ Health Perspect 115:1654–165910.1289/ehp.10327 ↗
3. BCC (2008) BCC research, nanotechnology—a realistic market assessment (Report identifier Nano31C). http://www.bccresearch.com/report/NAN031C.html
4. Benn TM, Westerhoff P (2008) Nanoparticle silver released into water from commercially available sock fabrics. Environ Sci Technol 42(11):4133–4139. doi:10.1021/es703271810.1021/es7032718 ↗
5. Borm PJA, Robbins D, Haubold S, Kuhlbusch T, Fissan H, Donaldson K et al (1996) The potential risks of nanomaterials: a review carried out for ECETOC. Part Fibre Toxicol 3:1–35
6. Casey A, Herzog E, Davoren M, Lyng FM, Byrne HJ, Chambers G (2007) Spectroscopic analysis confirms the interactions between single walled carbon nanotubes and various dyes commonly used to assess cytotoxicity. Carbon 45:1425–1432. doi:10.1016/j.carbon.2007.03.03310.1016/j.carbon.2007.03.033 ↗
7. Cedervall T, Lynch I, Foy M, Berggård T, Donnely SC, Cagney G et al (2007a) Detailed identification of plasma proteins adsorbed on copolymer nanoparticles. Angew Chem Int Ed 46:5754–5756. doi:10.1002/anie.20070046510.1002/anie.200700465 ↗
8. Cedervall T, Lynch I, Lindman S, Nilsson H, Thulin E, Linse S et al (2007b) Understanding the nanoparticle protein corona using methods to quantify exchange rates and affinities of proteins for nanoparticles. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:2050–2055. doi:10.1073/pnas.060858210410.1073/pnas.0608582104 ↗
9. Davies JC (2006) Managing the effects of nanotechnology. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington, DC 20004-3027. Available via DIALOG. http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/files/2708/30_pen2_mngeffects.pdf
10. EC Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly-Identified Health Risks (EC 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. B-1049 Brussels, Belgium. Available via DIALOG. http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_010.pdf
11. European Commission (EC) (2005) Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee: Nanosciences and nanotechnologies: an action plan for Europe 2005–2009. B-1050, Brussels. Available via DIALOG. http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/pdf/nano_action_plan_en.pdf
12. European Technology Platform (2006) Nanomedicine nanotechnology for health: strategic research agenda for nanomedicine. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. European Commission. http://cordis.europa.eu/nanotechnology/nanomedicine.htm
13. Hansen SF, Maynard A, Baun A, Tickner JA (2008) Late lessons from early warnings for nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 3:444–447. doi:10.1038/nnano.2008.19810.1038/nnano.2008.198 ↗
14. Holsapple MP, Farland WH, Landry TD, Monteiro-Riviere NA, Carter JM, Walker NJ et al (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. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfi29310.1093/toxsci/kfi293 ↗
15. International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) (2005) White paper on risk governance: towards an integrative approach. By Ortwin Renn with Annexes by Peter Graham. CH-1219 Geneva, Switzerland. Available via DIALOG. http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/IRGC_WP_No_1_Risk_Governance__reprinted_version_pdf
16. International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) (2006) White paper on nanotechnology risk governance. By Ortwin Renn and Mike Roco with Annexes by Mike Roco and Emily Litten. CH-1219 Geneva, Switzerland. Available via DIALOG. http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/IRGC_white_paper_2_PDF_final_version-2.pdf. (See publication: Renn O, Roco MC (2006) Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. J Nanopart Res 8:153–191. doi:10.1007/s11051-006-9092-710.1007/s11051-006-9092-7 ↗
17. International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) (2007) Policy brief: nanotechnology risk governance: recommendations for a global, coordinated approach to the governance of potential risks. CH-1219 Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/PB_nanoFINAL2_2_.pdf
18. Linkov I, Satterstrom K (2008) Nanomaterial risk assessment and risk management: review of regulatory frameworks. In: Linkov I, Ferguson E, Magar V (eds) Real time and deliberative decision making: application to risk assessment for non-chemical stressors. Springer, Amsterdam (in press)
19. Linkov I, Steevens J (2009) Nanotechnology: risks and benefits. Springer, Amsterdam (in press)10.1007/978-1-4020-9491-0 ↗
20. Linkov I, Satterstrom K, Corey L (2008) Nanotoxicology and nanomedicine: making hard decisions. Nanomedicine 4:167–17110.1016/j.nano.2008.01.001 ↗
21. Lynch I, Dawson KA, Linse S (2006) Detecting cryptic epitopes in proteins adsorbed onto nanoparticles. Science STKE 327:pe14
22. Lynch I, Cedervall T, Lundqvist M, Cabaleiro-Lago C, Linse S, Dawson KA (2007) The nanoparticle-protein complex as a biological entity: a complex fluids and surface science challenge for the 21st century. Adv Colloid Interface Sci 134–135:167–174. doi:10.1016/j.cis.2007.04.02110.1016/j.cis.2007.04.021 ↗
23. Michaelis K, Hoffmann MM, Dreis S, Herbert E, Alyautdin RN, Michaelis M et al (2006) Covalent linkage of apolipoprotein E to albumin nanoparticles strongly enhances drug transport into the brain. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 317:1246–1253. doi:10.1124/jpet.105.09713910.1124/jpet.105.097139 ↗
24. NanoRoadMap EU 6th Framework (2005) http://www.nanoroadmap.it/
25. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) (2008) Strategy for nanotechnology-related environmental, health and safety research. Available via DIALOG. http://www.nano.gov/NNI_EHS_Research_Strategy.pdf
26. Nel A, Xia T, Mädler L, Li N (2006) Toxic potential of materials at the nanolevel. Science 311:622–627. doi:10.1126/science.111439710.1126/science.1114397 ↗
27. NNI (2004) Nanoscience research for energy needs. Report of the national nanotechnology initiative grand challenge workshop
28. Oberdörster G, Oberdörster E, Oberdörster J (2005) Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environ Health Perspect 113:823–83910.1289/ehp.7339 ↗
29. Petersen JL, Egan DM (2002) Small security: nanotechnology and future defense. Def Horiz 8:1–6
30. Poland CA, Duffin R, Kinloch I, Maynard A, Wallace WA, Seaton A et al (2008) Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study. Nat Nanotechnol 3(7):423–428. doi:10.1038/nnano.2008.11110.1038/nnano.2008.111 ↗
31. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) (2008) A Nanotechnology Consumer Products Inventory. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Available via DIALOG. http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer/. Accessed March 2008
32. Québec Commission de l’éthique de la science et de la technologie (QC) (2006) Position statement: ethics and nanotechnology: a basis for action. Québec G1V 4Z2. Available via DIALOG. http://www.ethique.gouv.qc.ca/IMG/pdf/Avis-anglaisfinal-2.pdf
33. Responsible NanoCode (RNC) (2006) Workshop report: how can business respond to the technical, social and commercial uncertainties of nanotechnology? Available via DIALOG. http://www.responsiblenanocode.org/documents/Workshop-Report_07112006.pdf
34. Ryman-Rasmussen JP, Riviere JE, Monteiro-Riviere NA (2007) Variables influencing interactions of untargeted quantum dot nanoparticles with skin cells and identification of biochemical modulators. Nano Lett 7:1344–1348. doi:10.1021/nl070375j10.1021/nl070375j ↗
35. Stone V, Johnston H, Clift MJ (2007) Air pollution, ultrafine and nanoparticle toxicology: cellular and molecular interactions. IEEE Trans Nanobiosci 6(4):331–340. doi:10.1109/TNB.2007.90900510.1109/TNB.2007.909005 ↗
36. Theron J, Walker JA, Cloete TE (2008) Nanotechnology and water treatment: applications and emerging opportunities. Crit Rev Microbiol 34:43–69. doi:10.1080/1040841070171044210.1080/10408410701710442 ↗
37. The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering UK (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. Available online at http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalreport.htm. Accessed 27 July 2008
38. UK Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (UK DEFRA) (2006) UK voluntary reporting scheme for engineered nanoscale materials. London SW1P 3JR. Available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/nanotech/policy/pdf/vrs-nanoscale.pdf
39. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2007) Nanotechnology white paper. Prepared for the US EPA by members of the nanotechnology workgroup, a group of EPA’s Science Policy Council
40. US Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) (2007) Nanotechnology: a report of the U.S. food and drug administration nanotechnology task force. July 25, 2007. Available via DIALOG http://www.fda.gov/nanotechnology/taskforce/report2007.html
41. Wiesner MR, Lowry GV, Alvarez P, Dionysiou D, Biswas P (2006) Assessing the risks of manufactured nanomaterials. Environ Sci Technol 40(14):4336–434510.1021/es062726m ↗
42. Wörle-Knirsch JM, Pulskamp K, Krug HF (2006) Oops they did it again! carbon nanotubes hoax scientists in viability assays. Nano Lett 6:1261–1268. doi:10.1021/nl060177c10.1021/nl060177c ↗