Nanomaterials as a potential environmental pollutant: Overview of existing risk assessment methodologies

References

• Aitken RA, Bassan A, Friedrichs S, et al. 2011. Specific Advice on Exposure Assessment and Hazard/Risk Characterisation for Nanomaterials under REACH (RIP-oN 3)—Final Project Report RNC/RIP-oN3/FPR/1/FINAL. European Commission, Brussels
   Google Scholar
• Brouwer D. 2010. Exposure to manufactured nanoparticles in different workplaces. Toxicol 269:120–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brouwer D. 2012. Control banding approaches for nanomaterials. Ann Occup Hyg 56(5):506–14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calliess C and Stockhaus H. 2012. Precautionary principle and nanomaterials: REACH revisited. JEEPL 9(2):113–35
   Google Scholar
• Commission Recommendation of 18 October 2011 on the Definition of Nanomaterial. 2011/696/EU. October 20, 2011. Off J EU L 275:38–40
   Google Scholar
• Council Directive of 27 June 1967 on the Approximation of Laws, Regulations and Administrative Provisions Relating to the Classification Packaging and Labelling of Dangerous Substances (67/548/EEC). Off J EU 196(1):234–56
   Google Scholar
• Crane M, Handy RD, Garrod J, et al. 2008. Ecotoxicity test methods and environmental hazard assessment for engineered nanoparticles. Ecotoxicol 17:421–37
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Environmental Defense–DuPont Nano Partnership. 2007. Nano Risk Framework, DuPont, Wilmington and Environmental Defense, Washington, DC, USA
   Google Scholar
• Farre M, Gajda-Schrantz K, Kantiani L, et al. 2009. Ecotoxicity and analysis of nanomaterials in the aquatic environment. Anal Bioanal Chem 393:81–95
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gottschalk F, Scholz RW, and Nowack B. 2010. Probabilistic material flow modelling for assessing the environmental exposure to compounds: Methodology and an application to engineered nano-TiO2 particles. Environ Model Softw 25:320–32
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grieger KD, Linkov I, Hansen SF, et al. 2012. Environmental risk analysis for nanomaterials: Review and evaluation of frameworks. Nanotoxicol 6(2):196–212
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Handy RD, Cornelis G, Fernandes T, et al. 2012. Critical review—Ecotoxicity test methods for engineered nanomaterials: Practical experiences and recommendations from the bench. Environ Toxicol Chem 31(1):15–31
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Handy RD, Owen R, and Valsami-Jones E. 2008. The ecotoxicology of nanoparticles and nanomaterials: Current status, knowledge gaps, challenges, and future needs. Ecotoxicol 17:315–25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen SF, Baun A, and Alstrup-Jensen K. 2011. NanoRiskCat—A Conceptual Decision Support Tool for Nanomaterials. Environmental Project No. 1372 2011. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark
   Google Scholar
• Hendren CO, Mesnard X, Dröge J, et al. 2011. Estimating production data for five engineered nanomaterials as a basis for exposure assessment. Environ Sci Technol 45:2562–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Höck J, Epprecht T, Furrer E, et al. 2013. Guidelines on the Precautionary Matrix for Synthetic Nanomaterials. Federal Office of Public Health and Federal Office for the Environment, Berne, Version 3.0
   Google Scholar
• Hristozov DR, Gottardo S, Critto A, et al. 2012. Risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials: A review of available data and approaches from a regulatory perspective. Nanotoxicol 6:880–98
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Standards Organisation. 2011. Nanotechnologies—Nanomaterial Risk Evaluation. ISO/TR 13121: 2011. International Standards Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland
   Google Scholar
• Klaine SJ, Alvarez PJJ, Batley GE, et al. 2008. Nanomaterials in the environment: Behavior, fate, bioavailability, and effects. Environ Toxicol Chem 27(9):1825–51
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klaine SJ, Koelmans AA, Horne N, et al. 2012. Paradigms to assess the environmental impact of manufactured Nanomaterials. Environ Toxicol Chem 31(1):3–14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krug HF and Wick P. 2011. Nanotoxicology: An interdisciplinary challenge. Angew Chem Int Ed 50:1260–78
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavoine N, Desloges I, and Bra J. 2014. Microfibrillated cellulose as new release systems for active packaging. Carbohydr Polym 103:528–37
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linkov I, Steevens J, Adlakha-Hutcheon G, et al. 2009. Emerging methods and tools for environmental risk assessment, decision-making, and policy for nanomaterials: Summary of NATO Advanced Research Workshop. J Nanopart Res 11:513–27
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma H, Williams PL, and Diamond SA. 2013. Ecotoxicity of manufactured ZnO nanoparticles—A review. Environ Pollut 172:76–85
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martins NCT, Freire CSR, Pascoal Neto C, et al. 2013. Antibacterial paper based on composite coatings of nanofibrillated cellulose and ZnO. Colloids Surf, A 417:111–9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martins NCT, Freire CSR, Pinto RJB, et al. 2012. Electrostatic assembly of Ag nanoparticles onto nanofibrillated cellulose for antibacterial paper products. Cellulose 19:1425–36
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meesters JAJ, Veltman K, Hendriks AJ, et al. 2013. Environmental assessment of engineered nanoparticles: Why REACH needs adjustment. Integrated Environ Assess Manag 9(3):e15–e26
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Missoum K, Martoïa F, Belgacem MN, et al. 2013. Effect of chemically modified nanofibrillated cellulose addition on the properties of fiber-based materials. Ind Crop Prod 48:98–105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakanishi J. 2011. Risk Assessment of Manufactured Nanomaterials: “Approaches”—Overview of Approaches and Results. Final Report Issued on August 17, 2011. NEDO Project (p06041) “Research and Development of Nanoparticle Characterization Methods,” Japan
   Google Scholar
• Nano Risk Framework Case Studies. 2007. Available at http://www.nanoriskframework.com/case-studies
   Google Scholar
• Orts-Gil G, Natte K, and Österle W. 2013. Multi-parametric reference nanomaterials for toxicology: State of the art, future challenges and potential candidates. RSC Adv 3:18202–15
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owen R and Handy R. 2007. Formulating the problems for environmental risk assessment of nanomaterials. Environ Sci Technol 41:5582–88
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poland CA, Duffin R, Kinloch I, et al. 2008. Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study. Nature Nanotech 3:423–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Praetorius A, Arvidsson R, Molander S, et al. 2013. Facing complexity through informed implications: A research agenda for aquatic exposure assessment of nanoparticles. Environ Sci: Processes Impacts 15:161–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 Concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), Establishing a European Chemicals Agency, Amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing council regulation (EEC) no 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC. 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. December 12, 2006. Off J EU, L 396:3–280
   Google Scholar
• Reihlen A and Jepsen D. 2012. Discussion and results of the German NanoCommission's work and the Stakeholder Dialogue “Risk Management in the Nano World”; German Federal Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Hamburg, Germany
   Google Scholar
• Royal Society of Chemistry. 2013. Environment, Health and Safety Committee: Note on Environmental Risk Assessment. RSC, London, UK
   Google Scholar
• Safe Work Australia. 2014. Available at http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/SWA/about/Publications/Documents/547/Work_health_safety_tool_handling_engineered_nanomaterials.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Savolainen K, Alenius H, Norppa H, et al. 2010. Risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials and nanotechnologies—A review. Toxicol 269:92–104
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savolainen K, Backman U, Brouwer D, et al. 2013. Prerequisites for Nanosafety research. In: McDonald E and Pylkkänen L (eds), Nanosafety in Europe 2015–2025: Towards Safe and Sustainable Nanomaterials and Nanotechnology Innovations, pp 73–118. Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland
   Google Scholar
• Som C, Nowack B, Krug HF, et al. 2012. Toward the development of decision supporting tools that can be used for safe production and use of nanomaterials. Acc Chem Res 46(3):863–72
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Som C, Wick P, Krug H, et al. 2011. Environmental and health effects of nanomaterials in nanotextiles and façade coatings. Environ Int 37:1131–42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoffenmanager Nano. 2014. Available at https://stoffenmanager.nl/Default.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Stone V, Nowack B, Baun A, et al. 2010. Nanomaterials for environmental studies: Classification, reference material issues, and strategies for physicochemical characterisation. Sci Total Environ 408:1745–54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun TY, Gottschalk F, Hungerbühler K, et al. 2014. Comprehensive probabilistic modelling of environmental emissions of engineered nanomaterials. Environ Pollut 185:69–76
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Takagi A, Hirose A, Nishimura T, et al. 2008. Induction of mesothelioma in p53+/− mouse by intraperitoneal application of multi-wall carbon nanotube. J Toxicol Sci 33(1):105–16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Technical Guidance Document on Risk Assessment, Part II, in Support of Commission Directive 96/67/ECC. 2003. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 and Directive 98/8/EC, Luxembourg, European Commission
   Google Scholar
• USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. Nanomaterial Case Studies: Nanoscale Titanium Dioxide in Water Treatment and in Topical Sunscreen. National Center for environmental Assessment—RTP Division office of Research and Development. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
   Google Scholar
• Wegner TH and Jones EP. 2009. A fundamental review of the relationships between nanotechnology and lignocellulosic biomass, In: Lucia LA and Rojas OJ (eds), The Nanoscience and Technology of Renewable Biomaterials, pp 1–41. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA
   Google Scholar