Demonstration of a modelling-based multi-criteria decision analysis procedure for prioritisation of occupational risks from manufactured nanomaterials

References

• Arts JH, Hadi M, Irfan MA, Keene AM, Kreiling R, Lyon D, et al. 2015. A decision-making framework for the grouping and testing of nanomaterials (DF4nanoGrouping). Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 71:S1–27
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barlow S, Renwick AG, Kleiner J, Bridges JW, Busk L, Dybing E, et al. 2006. Risk assessment of substances that are both genotoxic and carcinogenic: report of an International Conference organized by EFSA and WHO with support of ILSI Europe. Food Chem Toxicol 44:1636–50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benford D, DiNovi M, Setzer RW. 2010. Application of the margin-of-exposure (MoE) approach to substances in food that are genotoxic and carcinogenic e.g.: benzo[a]pyrene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Food Chem Toxicol 48:S42–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burdett G, Bard D, Kelly A, Thorpe A. 2012. The effect of surface coatings on the dustiness of a calcium carbonate nanopowder. J Nanoparticle Res 15:1–17
   Google Scholar
• Cherrie JW. 1999. The effect of room size and general ventilation on the relationship between near and far-field concentrations. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 14:539–46
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cherrie JW, Maccalman L, Fransman W, Tielemans E, Tischer M, Van Tongeren M. 2011. Revisiting the effect of room size and general ventilation on the relationship between near- and far-field air concentrations. Ann Occup Hyg 55:1006–15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dongrui W, Mendel JM. 2010. Ordered Fuzzy Weighted Averages and Ordered Linguistic Weighted Averages. IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ), 2010 Jul 18–23, New Orleans, USA
   Google Scholar
• Duuren-Stuurman B, Vink S, Brouwer D, Kroese D, Heussen H, Verbist K, et al. 2011. Stoffenmanager Nano: Description of the Conceptual Control Banding Model. Zeist: TNO
   Google Scholar
• ECHA. 2007. Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment. Part D: Exposure Scenario Building. Helsinki
   Google Scholar
• ECHA. 2012. Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment. Appendix R 14.4 Recommendations for Nanomaterials Applicable to Chapter R.14 Occupational Exposure Estimation. Helsinki
   Google Scholar
• Egeghy PP, Vallero DA, Cohen Hubal EA. 2011. Exposure-based prioritization of chemicals for risk assessment. Environ Sci Policy 14:950–64
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2013. Europe 2020: a European Strategy For Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth. Brussels
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament and the Council. 2006. Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). Brussels: Official Journal of the European Union
   Google Scholar
• Fadel TR, Steevens JA, Thomas TA, Linkov I. 2015. The challenges of nanotechnology risk management. Nano Today 10:6–10
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Futures Markets. 2012. The Global Market for Zinc Oxide Nanopowders. Edinburgh: Future Markets
   Google Scholar
• Gosens I, Kermanizadeh A, Jacobsen NR, Lenz AG, Bokkers B, de Jong WH, et al. 2015. Comparative hazard identification by a single dose lung exposure of zinc oxide and silver nanomaterials in mice. PLoS One 10:e0126934
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grieger KD, Linkov I, Hansen SF, Baun A. 2012. Environmental risk analysis for nanomaterials: review and evaluation of frameworks. Nanotoxicology 6:196–212
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grieger KD, Redmon JH, Money ES, Widder MW, van der Schalie WH, Beaulieu SM, Womack D. 2015. A relative ranking approach for nano-enabled applications to improve risk-based decision making: a case study of Army materiel. Environ Syst Decis 35:42–53
   Google Scholar
• Grosse Y, Loomis D, Guyton KZ, Lauby-Secretan B, El Ghissassi F, Bouvard V, et al. 2014. Carcinogenicity of fluoro-edenite, silicon carbide fibres and whiskers, and carbon nanotubes. Lancet Oncol 15:1427–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halappanavar S, Saber AT, Decan N, Jensen KA, Wu D, Jacobsen NR, et al. 2015. Transcriptional profiling identifies physicochemical properties of nanomaterials that are determinants of the in vivo pulmonary response. Environ Mol Mutagen 56:245–64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hankin SM, Peters SAK, Poland CA, Hansen SF, Holmqvist J, Ross BL, et al. 2011. Specific Advice on Fulfilling Information Requirements for Nanomaterials Under REACH (RIP-oN 2). Edinburgh: Institute of Occupational Medicine
   Google Scholar
• Hansen S, Jensen K, Baun A. 2013. NanoRiskCat: a conceptual tool for categorization and communication of exposure potentials and hazards of nanomaterials in consumer products. J Nanoparticle Res 16:1–25
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffman FO, Hammonds JS. 1994. Propagation of uncertainty in risk assessments: the need to distinguish between uncertainty due to lack of knowledge and uncertainty due to variability. Risk Anal 14:707–12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hristozov DR, Gottardo S, Critto A, Marcomini A. 2012. Risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials: a review of available data and approaches from a regulatory perspective. Nanotoxicology 6:880–98
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hristozov DR, Gottardo S, Cinelli M, Isigonis P, Zabeo A, Critto A, et al. 2014a. Application of a quantitative weight of evidence approach for ranking and prioritising occupational exposure scenarios for titanium dioxide and carbon nanomaterials. Nanotoxicology 8:117–31
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hristozov DR, Zabeo A, Foran C, Isigonis P, Critto A, Marcomini A, Linkov I. 2014b. A weight of evidence approach for hazard screening of engineered nanomaterials. Nanotoxicology 8:72–87
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Höck J, Epprecht T, Hofmann H, Höhner K, Krug H, Lorenz C, et al. 2010. Guidelines on the Precautionary Matrix for Synthetic Nanomaterials. Berne: Federal Office for Public Health and Federal Office for the Environment
   Google Scholar
• IOM. 2012. EU FP7 ENPRA project final report. Edinburgh
   Google Scholar
• Jensen K, Koponen I, Clausen P, Schneider T. 2009. Dustiness behaviour of loose and compacted bentonite and organoclay powders: what is the difference in exposure risk? J Nanopart Res 11:133–46
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen K, Saber A, Kristensen H, Koponen I, Liguori B, Wallin H. 2013. NanoSafer vs. 1.1 – Nanomaterial risk assessment using first order modeling. 6th International Symposium on Nanotechnology, Occupational and Environmental Health 2013, Nagoya, Japan
   Google Scholar
• Koivisto AJ, Jensen ACO, Levin M, Kling KI, Maso MD, Nielsen SH, et al. 2015. Testing the near field/far field model performance for prediction of particulate matter emissions in a paint factory. Environ Sci Process Impacts 17:62–73
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kristensen HV, Hansen SB, Rasmussen GKAJ, Koponen IK, Saber AT, Nielsen SH, Wallin H. 2010. Nanopartikler i arbejdsmiljøet – Viden og inspiration om håndtering af nanomaterialer. Industriens Branchearbejdsmiljøråd, Branchearbejdsmiljørådet for Undervisning og Forskning samt Universitets og Bygningsstyrelsen. Copenhagen: Teknologisk Institut, Center for Arbejdsliv, Det Nationale Forskningscenter for Arbejdsmilj
   Google Scholar
• Linkov I, Kurth M, Hristozov D, Keisler J. 2015. Nanotechnology: promoting innovation through analysis and governance. Environ Syst Decis 35:22–3
   Google Scholar
• Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Monica JC JrHansen SF, Davis TA. 2009a. Nano risk governance: current developments and future perspectives. Nanotechnol Law Business 6:203–20
   Google Scholar
• Linkov I, Steevens J, Chappell M, Tervonen T, Figueira JR, Merad M. 2009b. Classifying nanomaterial risks using multi-criteria decision analysis. In: Linkov I, Steevens J, eds. Nanomaterials: Risks and Benefits. Netherlands: Springer, 179–91
   Google Scholar
• Malloy TF, Sinsheimer PJ, Blake A, Linkov I. 2013. Use of multi-criteria decision analysis in regulatory alternatives analysis: a case study of lead free solder. Integr Environ Assess Manag 9:652–64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell J, Pabon N, Collier ZA, Egeghy PP, Cohen-Hubal E, Linkov I, Vallero DA. 2013. A decision analytic approach to exposure-based chemical prioritization. PLoS One 8:e70911
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NIOSH. 2011. Current intelligence bulletin 63: occupational exposure to titanium dioxide
   Google Scholar
• NIOSH. 2013. Current intelligence bulletin 65: occupational exposure to carbon nanotubes and nanofibers
   Google Scholar
• NSF & NNCO. 2014. Market Report on Emerging Nanotechnology. Washington, DC
   Google Scholar
• Omenn GS, Kessler AC, Anderson NT, Chiu PY, Doull J, Goldstein B, et al. 1997. Risk Assessment And Risk Management in Regulatory Decision-Making. Washington, DC Presidential and Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management
   Google Scholar
• Ostiguy C, Riediker M, Triolet J, Troisfontaines P, Vernez D. 2010. Development of a Specific Control Banding Tool for Nanomaterials. Maisons-Alfort Cedex: French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety
   Google Scholar
• Paik SY, Zalk DM, Swuste P. 2008. Application of a pilot control banding tool for risk level assessment and control of nanoparticle exposures. Ann Occup Hyg 52:419–28
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robichaud CO, Uyar AE, Darby MR, Zucker LG, Wiesner MR. 2009. Estimates of upper bounds and trends in nano-TiO2 production as a basis for exposure assessment. Environ Sci Technol 43:4227–33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider T, Brouwer DH, Koponen IK, Jensen KA, Fransmann W, van Duuren-Stuurman B, et al. 2011. Conceptual model for assessment of inhalation exposure to manufactured nanoparticles. J Exp Sci Environ Epidemiol 5:450–63
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider T, Jensen KA. 2008. Combined single-drop and rotating drum dustiness test of fine to nanosize powders using a small drum. Ann Occup Hyg 52:23–34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider T, Jensen KA. 2009. Relevance of aerosol dynamics and dustiness for personal exposure to manufactured nanoparticles. J Nanopart Res 11:1637–50
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider T, Jensen KA, Clausen PA, Afshari A, Gunnarsen L, Wahlin P, et al. 2004. Prediction of indoor concentration of 0.5-4 μm particles of outdoor origin in an uninhabited apartment. Atmos Environ 38:6349–59
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slob W. 2002. Dose-response modeling of continuous endpoints. Toxicol Sci 66:298–312
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone V, Pozzi-Mucelli S, Tran L, Aschberger K, Sabella S, Vogel U, et al. 2014. ITS-NANO – Prioritising nanosafety research to develop a stakeholder driven intelligent testing strategy. Part Fibre Toxicol 11:9. doi: 10.1186/1743-8977-11-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Hristozov D, Zondervan-van den Beuken E, Linkov I, Marcomini A. 2015. Review of decision analytic tools for sustainable nanotechnology. Environ Syst Decis 35:29–41
   Google Scholar
• Tervonen T, Linkov I, Figueira J, Steevens J, Chappell M, Merad M. 2009. Risk-based classification system of nanomaterials. J Nanopart Res 11:757–66
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US EPA. 2011. Decision Document: Conditional Registration of HeiQ AGS-20 as a Materials Preservative in Textiles. Washington, DC
   Google Scholar