Risk assessment strategies as nanomaterials transition into commercial applications
Source abstract
Abstract
Commercial applications of nanomaterials are rapidly emerging in the marketplace. The environmental and human health risks of many nanomaterials remain unknown, and prioritizing how to efficiently assess their risks is essential. As nanomaterials are incorporated into a broader range of commercial products, their potential for environmental release and human exposure not only increases, but also becomes more difficult to model accurately. Emphasis may first be placed on estimating potential environmental exposure based on pertinent physical properties of the nanomaterials. Given that the greatest potential for global environmental impacts results from nanomaterials that are both persistent and toxic, this paper advocates screening first for persistence since it is easier to assess than toxicity. For materials that show potential for persistence, a higher burden of proof of their non-toxicity is suggested before they enter the commercial marketplace whereas a lower burden of proof may be acceptable for nanomaterials that are less persistent.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Nanoparticles: synthesis and applications · Nanotechnology research and applications · Microplastics and Plastic Pollution
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (26)
Show source-provided references
1. Alvarez PJJ, Colvin V et al (2009) Responsible priorities to advance eco-responsible nanotechnology. Am Chem Soc Nano 3(7):1616–1619
2. Boxall ABA, Chaudhry Q et al (2007) Current and future predicted environmental exposure to engineered nanoparticles. C. S. Laboratory, York
3. Burello E, Worth AP (2011) QSAR modeling of nanomaterials. WIREs Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 3(3):298–30610.1002/wnan.137 ↗
4. Chinnapongse SL, MacCuspie RI et al (2011) Persistence of singly dispersed silver nanoparticles in natural freshwaters, synthetic seawater, and simulated estuarine waters. Sci Total Environ 409(12):2443–245010.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.03.020 ↗
5. Dunphy Guzman KA, Taylor MR et al (2006) Environmental risks of nanotechnology: national nanotechnology initiative funding, 2000–2004. Environ Sci Technol 40(5):1401–140710.1021/es0515708 ↗
6. ECETOC (2005) TR 093-Targeted risk assessment E. C. f. E. a. T. o. Chemicals. ECETOC AISBL, Brussels
7. Fairbairn EA, Keller AA et al (2011) Metal oxide nanomaterials in seawater: linking physicochemical characteristics with biological response in sea urchin development. J Hazard Mater 192(3):1565–157110.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.06.080 ↗
8. Fransman W, Verbist K et al (2011) Development of Stoffen manager Nano. T. I. f. Life. TNO Quality of Life, Zeist
9. Gottschalk F, Scholz RW et al (2010a) Probabilistic material flow modeling for assessing the environmental exposure to compounds: methodology and an application to engineered nano-TiO(2) particles. Environ Model Softw 25(3):320–33210.1016/j.envsoft.2009.08.011 ↗
10. Gottschalk F, Sonderer T et al (2010b) Possibilities and limitations of modeling environmental exposure to engineered nanomaterials by probabilistic material flow analysis. Environ Toxicol Chem 29(5):1036–104810.1002/etc.135 ↗
11. Grieger KD, Linkov I, et al (2011) “Environmental risk analysis for nanomaterials: review and evaluation of frameworks.” Nanotoxicology: 1–17. Epub ahead of print
12. Hansen S, Michelson E et al (2008) Categorization framework to aid exposure assessment of nanomaterials in consumer products. Ecotoxicology 17(5):438–44710.1007/s10646-008-0210-4 ↗
13. Harvey C, Mackay D et al (2007) Can the unit world model concept be applied to hazard assessment of both organic chemicals and metals ions? Environ Toxicol Chem 26(10):2129–214210.1897/06-627R.1 ↗
14. Luoma SN (2008) Silver nanotechnologies and the environment: old problems or new challenges? The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington
15. Mackay D, Webster E et al (2003) Towards a consistent evaluation of the persistence of organic, inorganic and metallic substances. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 9(6):1445–147410.1080/10807030390250949 ↗
16. Mueller NC, Nowack B (2008) Exposure modeling of engineered nanoparticles in the environment. Environ Sci Technol 42(12):4447–445310.1021/es7029637 ↗
17. Owen R, Handy R (2007) Viewpoint: formulating the problems for environmental risk assessment of nanomaterials. Environ Sci Technol 41(16):5582–558810.1021/es072598h ↗
18. Puzyn T, Gajewicz A et al (2010) Nanomaterials—the next great challenge for QSAR modelers. In: Puzyn T, Leszczynski J, Cronin MT (eds) Recent advances in QSAR studies methods and applications, vol 8. Springer, The Netherlands, pp 383–40910.1007/978-1-4020-9783-6_14 ↗
19. Robichaud CO, Tanzil D et al (2005) Relative risk analysis of several manufactured nanomaterials: an insurance industry context. Environ Sci Technol 39(22):8985–899410.1021/es0506509 ↗
20. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2008) Novel materials in the environment: the case of nanotechnology. 27th report. T. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, London
21. Savage N, Wentsel R (2008) Draft nanomaterial research strategy (NRS). O. o. R. a. Development, U.S. EPA: 66
22. Tervonen T, Linkov I et al (2009) Risk-based classification system of nanomaterials. J Nanopart Res 11(4):757–76610.1007/s11051-008-9546-1 ↗
23. van Tongeren M (2010) Development of exposure scenarios for manufactured nanomaterials. Institute of Occupational Medicine, Edinburgh
24. Wiesner MR, Lowry GV et al (2009) Decreasing uncertainties in assessing environmental exposure, risk, and ecological implications of nanomaterials. Environ Sci Technol 43(17):6458–646210.1021/es803621k ↗
25. Woodrow Wilson Institute. (2011) “A nanotechnology consumer products inventory” project on emerging nanotechnologies. www.nanotechproject.org/
26. Zuin S, Micheletti C et al (2011) Weight of evidence approach for the relative hazard ranking of nanomaterials. Nanotoxicology 5(3):445–45810.3109/17435390.2010.512986 ↗