Journal of Nanoparticle Research

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 543–554 | Cite as

Multi-criteria decision analysis and environmental risk assessment for nanomaterials

  • Igor Linkov
  • F. Kyle Satterstrom
  • Jeffery Steevens
  • Elizabeth Ferguson
  • Richard C. Pleus


Nanotechnology is a broad and complex discipline that holds great promise for innovations that can benefit mankind. Yet, one must not overlook the wide array of factors involved in managing nanomaterial development, ranging from the technical specifications of the material to possible adverse effects in humans. Other opportunities to evaluate benefits and risks are inherent in environmental health and safety (EHS) issues related to nanotechnology. However, there is currently no structured approach for making justifiable and transparent decisions with explicit trade-offs between the many factors that need to be taken into account. While many possible decision-making approaches exist, we believe that multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a powerful and scientifically sound decision analytical framework for nanomaterial risk assessment and management. This paper combines state-of-the-art research in MCDA methods applicable to nanotechnology with a hypothetical case study for nanomaterial management. The example shows how MCDA application can balance societal benefits against unintended side effects and risks, and how it can also bring together multiple lines of evidence to estimate the likely toxicity and risk of nanomaterials given limited information on physical and chemical properties. The essential contribution of MCDA is to link this performance information with decision criteria and weightings elicited from scientists and managers, allowing visualization and quantification of the trade-offs involved in the decision-making process.


decision analysis nanotechnology prioritization weight of evidence risk assessment science and technology governance 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



This paper was inspired by the first author’s participation in the EPA Nanotechnology White Paper Peer Review Panel. The authors are grateful to EPA and other Panel members for their comments and discussions during the Panel meeting in April, 2006. Our special thanks to Drs. A. Maynard, Sass, and Morgan for stimulating discussions and paper review. Permission has been granted by the US Army Corps Chief of Engineers to publish this material.


  1. Belton V., Stewart T.J. (2002) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Boston: Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
  2. BFR, 2006. Exercise Caution when Using “Nano-Sealing Sprays” Containing a Propellant! Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung.
  3. ETC Group, 2006. EPA’s Nanotech Regs: Ironic Parameters, Clean-up – Clam-up – Screw-up? October 18.
  4. Figueira J., Greco S., Ehrgott M. (2005) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. New York: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  5. Friends of the Earth Europe, 2006. Potentially toxic nanomaterials found on our bathroom shelves: Friends of the Earth calls for ban until proper safety checks take place. May 17. index.htm
  6. Kiker, G.A., T.S. Bridges, A. Varghese, P.T. Seager & I. Linkov, 2005. Application of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manage. 1(2), 95–108. Google Scholar
  7. Linkov, I., A. Bakr Ramadan & North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Scientific Affairs Division, 2004. Comparative Risk Assessment and Environmental Decision Making, NATO Science Series. Series IV, Earth and Environmental Sciences; vol. 38, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, BostonGoogle Scholar
  8. Linkov, I., F.K. Satterstrom, G. Kiker, C. Batchelor, T. Bridges & E. Ferguson, 2006a. From comparative risk assessment to multi-criteria decision analysis and adaptive management: Recent developments and applications. Environ. In. 32(8), 1072–1093.Google Scholar
  9. Linkov, I., F.K. Satterstrom, G. Kiker, T.P. Seager, T. Bridges, K.H. Gardner, S.H. Rogers, D.A. Belluck & A. Meyer, 2006b. Multicriteria decision analysis: A comprehensive decision approach for management of contaminated sediments. Risk Anal. 26(1), 61–78.Google Scholar
  10. Linkov, I., F.K. Satterstrom, G.A. Kiker, T.S. Bridges, S.L. Benjamin & D.A. Belluck, 2006c. From optimization to adaptation: Shifting paradigms in environmental management and their application to remedial decisions. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manage. 2(1), 92–98Google Scholar
  11. Linkov, I., K. Satterstrom, S. Zemba & J. Steevens, 2006d. Use of multi-criteria decision analysis tools to facilitate weight-of-evidence evaluation in nanotechnology risk assessment. NSTI Nanotechnology Conference and Trade Show, Boston, MA. 2006/showabstract.html:absno=1611Google Scholar
  12. Morgan, K., 2005. Development of a preliminary framework for informing the risk analysis and risk management of nanoparticles. Risk Anal. 25(6), 1621–1635.Google Scholar
  13. NRDC, 2005. Nanotechnologies: Tiny particles promise much, but could pose big risk. Natural Resources Defense Council, March 20.
  14. ODPM, 2004. DLTR Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Manual. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
  15. Renn, O. & M.C. Roco, 2006. Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. J. Nanoparticle Res. 8(3–4), 153–191Google Scholar
  16. Saaty, T.L., 1994. Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 1st edn. Analytic Hierarchy Process Series; vol. 6. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PAGoogle Scholar
  17. Schulte, P.A. & F. Salamanca-Buentello, 2006. Ethical and scientific issues of nanotechnology in the workplace. Environ. Health Perspect.
  18. US EPA, 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments – Interim Final.
  19. US EPA, 2005a. Nanotechnology White Paper, External Review Draft. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Nanotechnology Workgroup.
  20. US EPA, 2005b. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. EPA/630/P-03/001F: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum. Scholar
  21. Weiss, R., 2006. Nanotech raises worker-safety questions. Washington Post, April 8.
  22. Yatsalo, B., G. Kiker, J. Kim, T. Bridges, T. Seager, K. Gardner, F.K. Satterstrom & I. Linkov, 2007. Application of multi-criteria decision analysis tools for management of contaminated sediments. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manage. [In press]Google Scholar
  23. Yoe, C., 2002. Trade-Off Analysis Planning and Procedures Guidebook. Prepared for Institute for Water Resources. U.S. Army Corps of EngineersGoogle Scholar
  24. Yokota, F. & K.M. Thompson, 2004. Value of information analysis in environmental health risk management decisions: Past, present, and future. Risk Anal. 24(3), 635–650Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Igor Linkov
    • 1
    • 2
  • F. Kyle Satterstrom
    • 1
  • Jeffery Steevens
    • 3
  • Elizabeth Ferguson
    • 3
  • Richard C. Pleus
    • 2
  1. 1.Intertox Inc.BrooklineUSA
  2. 2.Intertox Inc.SeattleUSA
  3. 3.US Army Corps of EngineersEngineer Research & Development CenterVicksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations