Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:13:56.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Available Tools for Assessment of Emerging Risks of Nanomaterials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

David G. Rickerby ,
Iria M. Rio Echevarria  and
Andreas N. Skouloudis
David G. Rickerby
Affiliation:
Institute for Health and Consumer Protection
Iria M. Rio Echevarria
Affiliation:
Institute for Health and Consumer Protection
Andreas N. Skouloudis
Affiliation:
Institute for Environment and Sustainability
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The environmental and health effects of nanomaterials represent significant emergingrisks. However, there is at present rather limited knowledge regarding the ways in which nanomaterials might be released from products and enter the environment or how they are transported and accumulate in ecosystems. Additional data is therefore needed to estimate the possible release of nanomaterials at various stages of the life- cycle to allow identification of potential pathways into the environment. Available tools for risk assessment of nanomaterials are reviewed with the aim of identifying unknowns and uncertainties and data requirements. To carry out risk assessment it is first necessary to determine where nanomaterials are likely to present hazards that are different from those of conventional chemicals and therefore where the challenges will be greatest. Some of the limitations of current risk assessment methodologies for nanomaterials are examined.

Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , December 2015 , pp. 586 - 596
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Jovanović, Aleksander S. and Baloš, Daniel, “iNTeg-Risk Project: Concept and First Results”, 16 Journal of Risk Assessment (2013), pp. 275–291 Google Scholar.

2 Jovanović, Aleksander S. and Pilić, Vladimir, “Dealing with Risk- Risk Interdependencies and Trade-offs in Relation to Development and Use of New Technologies”, 16 Journal of Risk Assessment (2013), pp. 393–406 Google Scholar.

3 Meyer, David E., Curran, Mary A. and Gonzalez, Michael A., “An Examination of Existing Data for the Industrial Manufacture and Use of Nanocomponents and Their Role in the Life Cycle Impact of Nanoproducts”, 43 Environmental Science and Technology (2009), pp. 1256–1263 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council 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, OJ 2006 L 396/3.

5 Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the European Council on waste, OJ 2006 L 114/9.

6 Council Directive 2008/1/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, OJ 2008 L 24/8.

7 Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control), OJ 2010 L 334/17.

8 Klaine, Stephen J., Alvarez, Pedro J.J., Batley, Graeme E. et al., “Nanomaterials in the Environment: Behaviour, Fate, Bioavailability and Effects”, 27 Environmental Technology and Chemistry (2008), pp. 1825–1651Google ScholarPubMed.

9 Hendren, Christine Ogilvie, Lowry, Michael, Grieger, Khara D. et al., “Modelling Approaches for Characterising and Evaluating Environmental Exposure to Engineered Nanomaterials in Support of Risk-Based Decision Making”, 47 Environmental Science and Technology (2012), pp. 1190–1205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Mueller, Nicole C. and Nowack, Bernd, “Exposure Modelling of Engineered Nanoparticles in the Environment”, 42 Environmental Science and Technology (2008), pp. 4447–4453 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on Regulatory Aspects of Nanomaterials, COM(2008)366 final.

12 Commission Staff Working Document: summary of legislation in relation to health, safety and environment aspects of nanomaterials, regulatory research needs and related measures SEC(2008) 2036.

13 Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, OJ L 353/1.

14 Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, OJ 1967 196/1.

15 Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 1999 concerning the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations, OJ 1999 L 200/1.

16 Directive 2012/18/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directive 96/82/EC, OJ 2012 L 197/1.

17 Alan Aitken, R., Bassan, Arianna, Friedrichs, Steffi et al., 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 (Brussels: European Commission 2011)Google Scholar.

18 Council Directive 2008/1/EC, supra note 6.

19 Directive 2010/75/EU, supra note 7.

20 Directive 2006/12/EC, supra note 5.

21 Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste, OJ 1991 L 377/20.

22 Council Directive 67/548/EEC, supra note 14.

23 Environment, Health and Safety Committee, Note on Environmental Risk Assessment (London: Royal Society of Chemistry, 2008)Google Scholar.

24 Fairman, Robyn, Mead, Carl D. and Peter Williams, W., Environmental Risk Assessment - Approaches, Experiences and Information Sources, Environmental Issues Report No. 4 (Copenhagen: European Environment Agency, 1999)Google Scholar.

25 Environmental Protection Agency, Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment, EPA/630/R-95/002F (Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998)Google ScholarPubMed.

26 OECD Environment Directorate, Environmental Exposure Assessment Strategies for Existing Industrial Chemicals in OECD Member Countries, OECD Series on Testing and Assessment No. 17 (Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1999)Google Scholar.

27 National Academy of Sciences, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process, (Washington DC: US National Academy of Science, National Academy Press, 1983)Google Scholar.

28 European Chemicals Bureau, Technical Guidance Document on Risk Assessment (Brussels: European Commission, 2003)Google Scholar.

29 European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals, Targeted Risk Assessment, Technical Report No. 93 (Brussels: ECETOC AISBL, 2004)Google ScholarPubMed.

30 Feijtel, Tom, Boeije, Geert, Comber, Mike et al., “The ECETOC Approach to Targeted Environmental Risk Assessment”, 24 Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (2005), pp. 251–252 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

31 European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals, Addendum to ECETOC Targeted Risk Assessment Report No. 93, Technical Report No. 107 (Brussels: ECETOC AISBL, 2009).

32 Nowack, Bernd and Bucheli, Thomas D., “Occurrence, Behavior and Effects of Nanoparticles in the Environment”, 150 Environmental Pollution (2007), pp. 5–22 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

33 Gottschalk, Fadri and Nowack, Bernd, “The Release of Engineered Nanomaterials to the Environment”, 13 Journal of Environmental Monitoring (2011), pp. 1145–1155 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

34 Mueller and Nowack 2008, supra note 10.

35 Gottschalk, Fadri, Scholz, Roland W., and Nowack, Bernd, “Probabilistic Material Flow Modelling for Assessing the Environmental Exposure to Compounds: Methodology and an Application to Engineered Nano TiO2 Particles”, 25 Environmental Modelling and Software (2010), pp. 320–332 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Robichaud, Christine Ogilvie, Uyar, Ali Emre, Darby, Michael R. et al., “Estimates of Upper Bounds and Trends in Nano-TiO2Production as a Basis for Exposure Assessment”, 43 Environmental Science and Technology (2008), pp. 4227–4233 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

37 Wiesner, Mark R., Lowry, Gregory V., Alvarez, Pedro, et al., “Assessing the Risks of Manufactured Nanomaterials”, 40 Environmental Science and Technology (2006), pp. 4337–4445 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

38 Wiesner, Mark R., Lowry, Gregory V., Jones, Kimberly L. et al., “Decreasing Uncertainties in Assessing Environmental Exposure, Risk, and Ecological Implications of Nanomaterials”, 43 Environmental Science and Technology (2009), pp. 6458–6462 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

39 Peralta-Videa, Jose R., Zhao, Lijuan, Lopez-Moreno, Martha L. et al., “Nanomaterials and the Environment: A Review for the Biennium 2008-2010”, 186 Journal of Hazardous Materials (2011), pp. 1–15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), Opinion on The Appropriateness of Existing Methodologies to Assess the Potential Risks Associated with Engineered and Adventitious Products of Nanotechnology (Brussels: European Commission, 2006)Google Scholar.

41 Hassellöv, Martin, Readman, James W., Ranville, James F. et al., “Nanoparticle Analysis and Characterisation Methodologies in Environmental Risk Assessment of Engineered Nanoparticles”, 17 Ecotoxicology (2008), pp. 344–361 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Lead, Jamie R. and Wilkinson, Kevin J., “Aquatic Colloids and Nanoparticles: Current Knowledge and Future Trends”, 3 Environmental Chemistry (2006), pp. 159–171 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 Crane, Mark, Handy, Richard D., Garrod, John et al., “Ecotoxicity Test Methods and Environmental Hazard Assessment for Engineered Nanoparticles”, 17 Ecotoxicology (2008), pp. 421–437 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

44 O’Brien, Niall and Cummins, Enda, “Development of a Three- Level Risk Assessment Strategy for Nanomaterials”, in Linkov, Igor and Steevens, Jeffery (eds.), Nanomaterials: Risks and Benefits, (Dordrecht: Springer, 2009), pp. 161–178 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Hristozov, Danail R., Gottardo, Stefania, Critto, Andrea et al., “Risk Assessment of Engineered Nanomaterials: a Review of Available Data and Approaches from a Regulatory Perspective”, 6 Nanotoxicology (2012), pp. 880-98CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 Environmental Defense-DuPont Nano Partnership, Nano Risk Framework (Wilmington: DuPont, Washington DC: Environmental Defense, 2007)Google Scholar.

47 Walsh, Scott and Medley, Terry, “A Framework for Responsible Nanotechnology”, in Fisher, Erik, Selin, Cynthia and Wetmore, Jameson M. (eds.), Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Vol. 1 (Dordrecht: Springer, 2008), pp. 207–213 Google Scholar.

48 Höck, Jürgen, Epprecht, Thomas, Hofmann, Heinrich et al., Guidelines on the Precautionary Matrix for Synthetic Nanomaterials (Berne: Federal Office of Public Health and Federal Office for the Environment, 2010)Google Scholar.