Needs and challenges for assessing the environmental impacts of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs)

Abstract

The potential environmental impact of nanomaterials is a critical concern and the ability to assess these potential impacts is top priority for the progress of sustainable nanotechnology. Risk assessment tools are needed to enable decision makers to rapidly assess the potential risks that may be imposed by engineered nanomaterials (ENMs), particularly when confronted by the reality of limited hazard or exposure data. In this review, we examine a range of available risk assessment frameworks considering the contexts in which different stakeholders may need to assess the potential environmental impacts of ENMs. Assessment frameworks and tools that are suitable for the different decision analysis scenarios are then identified. In addition, we identify the gaps that currently exist between the needs of decision makers, for a range of decision scenarios, and the abilities of present frameworks and tools to meet those needs.

Toward the Development and Application of an Environmental Risk Assessment Framework for Microplastic

“…It is widely anticipated that research in these areas would benefit our ability to address recent concerns while also helping to educate the public about the benefits of reducing plastic waste and strengthen future innovation associated with "safer-by-design" strategies (Science Advice for Policy by European Academies 2019). The current scenario, characterized by minimal quantitative and mechanistic understanding, limits our capability to apply toxicity test data to risk assessments and hinders implementing risk-mitigation strategies (Petersen et al 2014;Romero-Franco et al 2017 Hypothetically, if standardized methods appropriate for assessing OAEs of microplastic particles could be developed, risk-assessment frameworks could support risk screening and prioritization, as well as risk-based tool development. Figure 1 illustrates the key elements associated with risk assessment, as defined in the Red Book (European Commission 2018b) and adopted from Romero-Franco et al (2017) in their summary of challenges associated with risk-assessment frameworks that have been proposed for nanomaterials.…”

Introduction to Bioinspired Nanomaterials

“…Such methodologies involve self-assemblies, nano-bio interactions and template mediated designing with biomolecules. Such methods can effectively control the sizes and shapes of the NMs [15,18,19]. This new method acquires high selectivity with the molecular building blocks assembly at different scales of NMs synthesis.…”

Evaluating environmental risk assessment models for nanomaterials according to requirements along the product innovation Stage-Gate process

“…[10][11][12][13][14] Several reviews of decision support tools or environmental assessment models available for nanomaterials are published. [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] In 2012, Brouwer 16 discussed similarities and differences between six control banding approaches proposed for nanomaterials, Grieger et al 15 evaluated eight alternative tools proposed for environmental risk assessment of nanomaterials against ten criteria cited as important by various sources, including transparency, precaution and life cycle perspective, and Hristozov et al 18 discussed the value of tools for risk assessment and management of nanomaterials considering limitations and uncertainties in key areas such as data availability. Later in 2016, Hristozov et al 17 extended their analysis to 48 tools, assessing potential utility for different aspects of risk assessment against 15 published stakeholder needs including nano-specific requirements, life cycle approach, preassessment phase, and exposure-driven approach.…”

“…Romero-Franco et al 20 in 2017 evaluated the applicability of 18 existing models for assessing the potential environmental and health impacts of nanomaterials based on six decision scenarios, describing common situations of different stakeholders from manufacturers to regulatory bodies who need to make decisions in matters concerning environmental health and safety of nanomaterials. For all decision scenarios, at least one existing tool was identified as capable of partly meeting the needs.…”