Multi-criteria decision analysis and environmental risk assessment for nanomaterials

Linkov, Igor; Satterstrom, F. Kyle; Steevens, Jeffery A.; Ferguson, Elizabeth; Pleus, Richard C.

doi:10.1007/s11051-007-9211-0

Cited by 153 publications

(93 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Exposure control decisions are typically based on exposure frequency, amount used, and dustiness of material as well as the hazardous properties of the material. Benchmark particles could also provide risk estimates for calibration and validation of other nanomaterials' risk analysis frameworks such as those based on multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods (Linkov et al 2007Grieger et al 2012). …”

Section: Discussion and Next Stepsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These include: relative hazard and risk ranking frameworks for nanomaterials (Linkov et al 2007Tervonen et al 2009;Grieger et al 2012), nanomaterial-specific control banding schemes (Zalk et al 2009;ANSES 2010), and the United Nations' globally harmonized system of classification and labelling of chemicals which was recently adopted in the U.S. (77 FR 17574, March 26, 2012). However, absolute risk estimates or risk-based OELs for reference or benchmark materials within these categories are needed to link the hazard and relative risk information to the level of exposure control needed to protect workers (e.g., at a minimum, order of magnitude bands, Naumann et al 1996;Ader et al 2005).…”

Section: Categorical Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Development of risk-based nanomaterial groups for occupational exposure control

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the almost limitless variety of nanomaterials, it will be virtually impossible to assess the possible occupational health hazard of each nanomaterial individually. The development of science-based hazard and risk categories for nanomaterials is needed for decision-making about exposure control practices in the workplace. A possible strategy would be to select representative (benchmark) materials from various mode of action (MOA) classes, evaluate the hazard and develop risk estimates, and then apply a systematic comparison of new nanomaterials with the benchmark materials in the same MOA class. Poorly soluble particles are used here as an example to illustrate quantitative risk assessment methods for possible benchmark particles and occupational exposure control groups, given mode of action and relative toxicity. Linking such benchmark particles to specific exposure control bands would facilitate the translation of health hazard and quantitative risk information to the development of effective exposure control practices in the workplace. A key challenge is obtaining sufficient dose-response data, based on standard testing, to systematically evaluate the nanomaterials' physical-chemical factors influencing their biological activity. Categorization processes involve both science-based analyses and default assumptions in the absence of substance-specific information. Utilizing data and information from related materials may facilitate initial determinations of exposure control systems for nanomaterials.

show abstract

Section: Discussion and Next Stepsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Categorical Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of risk-based nanomaterial groups for occupational exposure control

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By the end of the 1980-ies, number of researchers started development of special procedures and new contents for environmental impact assessment such as ecological framework and social impact assessment [15,16,17]. Meanwhile, numerous researches developed methodology of environmental impact assessment, for example, synthesis Weight [18] Artificial Aggregate Systems [19,20] MCDM and MCDA approaches [21][22][23][24][25][26][27] Risk Assessment [28,29,30] AHP, ANP and fuzzy logic [7,31,32,33,34,35].…”

Section: Use Of Mcdm Models In Environmental Impact Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[27] used Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process to prioritize criteria in the assessment of various wind power plants and with using the weights of the selection criteria according to results of FAHP, they evaluated the wind-energy production alternatives located in Marmara region of Turkey [27]. [28] combined state-of-the-art research in MCDA methods applicable to nanotechnology with a hypothetical case study for nanomaterial management then illustrated MCDA application effects on balancing societal benefits against unintended side effects and risks. To manage the dependences among environmental factors [38] proposed a hybrid approach FANP (fuzzy analytic network process) as an integrated decision-support framework.…”

Section: Use Of Mcdm Models In Environmental Impact Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building a New Urban Highway or Elevating an Old One? Finding Optimum Solution Based on Environmental Impacts

Farhani¹,

Moghadam²,

Zangir³

2017

AJCEA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For a sustainable urban expressway development, it is necessary to conduct an EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) study. Expressway development and operation should, therefore, be planned with careful consideration of the environmental impacts. An assessment of an expressway project may include consideration of different routes as distinct alternatives. Thus, evaluating alternatives is an important step of environmental impact assessment. In this paper, some MCDM (Multi Criteria Decision Making) models, were used for assessing alternatives in EIA in earlier studies, reviewed and a hybrid MCDM model proposed to tackle the dependency relations of evaluation criteria with aid of the fuzzy DEMATEL (decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory) method. In next step, the fuzzy DEMATEL method combined with ANP (Analytic Network Process) method to weighting criteria for assessment of alternatives with aid of the fuzzy VIKOR (VIseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje) method. Empirical study results illustrate the proposed model is a workable and reliable tool for evaluating alternatives of environmental impact assessment of urban expressway in order to make results much closer to reality.

show abstract

“…Develop an integrated, validated scientific platform for hazard, exposure, and risk assessment at a scale commensurate with technology growth Sustain and expand the NSF's Nanotechnology in Society Network and create additional infrastructure within other NNI lead agencies Develop new methods, such as multicriteria decision analysis (e.g., Linkov et al 2007;Tervonnen et al 2009) Investigate nanotechnology for the poor (Barker et al 2005) Institutionalize coordination of regulatory agencies and research organizations Use social science, history, philosophy, and ethics knowledge-base to research nano-ELSI rather than support actions subsidiary to outreach goals, e.g., draw on available theories & analysis of ongoing innovation trajectories…”

Section: Develop New Systemic Knowledge For a Life-cycle Approach To mentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovative and Responsible Governance of Nanotechnology for Societal Development

Roco

Harthorn

Guston

et al. 2011

Nanotechnology Research Directions for Societal Needs in 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Governance of nanotechnology is essential for realizing economic growth and other societal benefits of the new technology, protecting public health and environment, and supporting global collaboration and progress. The article outlines governance principles and methods specific for this emerging field. Advances in the last 10 years, the current status and a vision for the next decade are presented based on an international study with input from over 35 countries.Keywords Nanoscale science and engineering Á Nanotechnology innovation and commercialization Á Responsible development, Global governance, Emerging technologies Á Societal implications Á Ethical and legal aspects Á Nanotechnology market Á Public participation Á International perspective Vision for the next decadeChanges in the vision over the last 10 years Nanotechnology has been defined as ''a multidisciplinary field in support of a broad-based technology to reach mass use by 2020, offering a new approach for education, innovation, learning, and governance' ' (Roco et al. 1999). The governance of nanotechnology development for societal benefit is a challenge with many facets ranging from fostering research and innovation to addressing ethical concerns and long-term human development aspects. The U.S. nanotechnology governance approach has aimed to be ''transformational, responsible, and inclusive, and [to] allow visionary development'' (Roco 2008). Both domestically and globally, the approach to nanotechnology governance has evolved considerably in the last 10 years:• The viability and societal importance of nanotechnology applications has been confirmed, while extreme predictions, both pro and con, have receded.

show abstract

Multi-criteria decision analysis and environmental risk assessment for nanomaterials

Cited by 153 publications

References 11 publications

Development of risk-based nanomaterial groups for occupational exposure control

Development of risk-based nanomaterial groups for occupational exposure control

Building a New Urban Highway or Elevating an Old One? Finding Optimum Solution Based on Environmental Impacts

Innovative and Responsible Governance of Nanotechnology for Societal Development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About