Environmental risk analysis for nanomaterials: Review and evaluation of frameworks

Abstract

In response to the challenges of conducting traditional human health and ecological risk assessment for nanomaterials (NM), a number of alternative frameworks have been proposed for NM risk analysis. This paper evaluates various risk analysis frameworks proposed for NM based on a number of criteria. Among other results, most frameworks were found to be flexible for multiple NM, suitable for multiple decision contexts, included life cycle perspectives and precautionary aspects, transparent and able to include qualitative and quantitative data. Nevertheless, most frameworks were primarily applicable to occupational settings with minor environmental considerations, and most have not been thoroughly tested on a wide range of NM. Care should also be taken when selecting the most appropriate risk analysis strategy for a given risk context. Given this, we recommend a multi-faceted approach to assess the environmental risks of NM as well as increased applications and testing of the proposed frameworks for different NM.

Keywords::

• Environmental risk assessment
• nanomaterials
• risk analysis

Acknowledgements

We would like to sincerely thank the authors of the investigated frameworks for their communication and responses to our analysis. Many of them provided extremely valuable insight and further information on their strategies as well as critical information pertinent to this analysis. Specifically we would like to thank Mike Davis and Juergen Höck especially for their very elaborate explanations and responses, as well as Markus Widmer, Christine Hendren, Markus Widmer, Jo Anne Shakin, Christoph Studer, Hens-Henning Homann, and Ortwin Renn for their discussions, communications and responses. This study was funded in part by the US Army Engineer Research and Development Center Nanotechnology Focus Area. Permission was granted by the Chief of Engineers to publish this information. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the individual authors and not those of the US Army or other sponsor agencies.

Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflict of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.