Governance implications of nanomaterials companies’ inconsistent risk perceptions and safety practices

  • Cassandra D. Engeman
  • Lynn Baumgartner
  • Benjamin M. Carr
  • Allison M. Fish
  • John D. Meyerhofer
  • Terre A. Satterfield
  • Patricia A. Holden
  • Barbara Herr HarthornEmail author


Current research on the nanotechnology industry indicates its downstream expansion at a rapid pace, while toxicological research and best practices for environmental health and safety are still being developed. Companies that use and/or produce engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) have enormous potential to influence safe-handling practices for ENMs across the product life cycle. Knowledge of both industry practices and leaders’ perceptions of risk is vital for understanding how companies will act to control potential environmental and health risks. This article reports results from a new international survey of nanomaterials companies in 14 countries. In this survey, company participants reported relatively high levels of uncertainty and/or perceived risk with regard to ENMs. However, these perspectives were not accompanied by expected risk-avoidant practices or preferences for regulatory oversight. A majority of companies indicated “lack of information” as a significant impediment to implementing nano-specific safety practices, but they also reported practices that were inconsistent with widely available guidance. Additionally, in the absence of safe-handling regulations, companies reported nano-specific health and safety programs that were narrow in scope. Taken together, these findings indicate that health and safety guidance is not reaching industry. While industry leaders’ reluctance toward regulation might be expected, their own reported unsafe practices and recognition of possible risks suggest a more top-down approach from regulators is needed to protect workers and the environment.


Environmental health and safety (EH&S) practices Risk perception Regulation Government guidance Worker safety 



This work was supported by Coop. Agreement DBI-0830117 from the US National Science Foundation (NSF) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the University of California Center for Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology; and by Coop. Agreements SES 0531184 and SES 093809 from the NSF to the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in the material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF or the EPA. This work has not been subjected to EPA review and no official endorsement should be inferred. The authors thank the anonymous survey participants who made this study possible. The authors also thank S. Anderson, R. Appelbaum, J. Conti, M. Delmas, S. Frederick, Y. Motoyama, and J. Youtie for their contributions to this study. Representatives from government and industry also provided helpful feedback on the survey instrument and references for participation: M. Ata, C. Geraci, M. Hull, F. Klaessig, K. Kulinowski, K.W. Lee, and M. Sekiya. Y. Ge, S. Werth, and Q. Yang provided translation services. The authors also acknowledge the thoughtful and excellent advice of two anonymous reviewers.

Supplementary material

11051_2012_749_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (254 kb)
The table in Online Resource 1 displays results from an exploratory factor analysis of scaled responses to seven statements in the survey to determine underlying factors that influence participants’ responses. One underlying factor is participants’ preference for autonomy from regulatory agencies. (PDF 253 kb)
11051_2012_749_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (284 kb)
The table in Online Resource 2 demonstrates a significant relationship between use of a nano-specific health and safety program and a general health and safety program but little difference in responses (PDF 284 kb)
11051_2012_749_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (301 kb)
Table 1 in Online Resource 3 shows the significant relationship between reported use of nano-specific EH&S programs and reported use of two practices: 1) monitoring the workplace for nanoparticles, and 2) using respirators. Table 2 in Online Resource 3 shows the significant relationship between reported use of nano-specific waste programs and reported use of a nano-specific health and safety programs. Table 3 in Online Resource 3 shows the significant relationship between reports of three types of waste-handling practices and the use of nano-specific health and safety programs. (PDF 300 kb)


  1. Balas F, Arruebo M, Urrutia J, Santamaria J (2010) Reported nanosafety practices in research laboratories worldwide. Nat Nanotechnol 5:93–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Behra R, Krug H (2008) Nanoparticles at large. Nat Nanotechnol 3:253–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernard HR (ed) (1998) Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology. AltaMira Press, Walnut CreekGoogle Scholar
  4. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) (2008) Chemical information call-in. Accessed June 1, 2011
  5. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) (2010) Chemical information call-in: nano metals, nano metal oxides, and quantum dots. Accessed June 1, 2011
  6. City of Berkeley (2007) Amending Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 15.12.040 to add Subsection I and amending BMC Section 15.12.050 to add Subsection C.7, regarding manufactured nanoparticle health and safety disclosure, January 11, 2007. Ordinance No. 6,960-N.S. Accessed June 1, 2011
  7. Conti J, Killpack K, Gerritzen G, Huang L, Mircheva M, Delmas M, Harthorn BH, Appelbaum RP, Holden PA (2008) Health and safety practices in the nanomaterials workplace: results from an international survey. Environ Sci Technol 42:3155–3162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Conti J, Satterfield T, Harthorn BH (2011) Vulnerability and social justice as factors in emergent US nanotechnology risk perceptions. Risk Anal. doi:  10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01608.x
  9. Dietz T, Stern P (eds) (2008) Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. National Academic Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. Federal Council (2008) Action plan: synthetic nanomaterials, April 2008. Accessed June 1, 2009
  11. Helland A, Kastenholz H, Thidell A, Arnfalk P, Deppert K (2006) Nanoparticulate materials and regulatory policy in Europe: an analysis of stakeholder perspectives. J Nanopart Res 8:709–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Helland A, Kastenholz H, Siegrist M (2008a) Precaution in practice: perceptions, procedures, and performance in the nanotech industry. J Ind Ecol 12:449–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Helland A, Scheringer M, Siegrist M, Kastenholz HG, Wiek A, Scholz RW (2008b) Risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials: a survey of industrial approaches. Environ Sci Technol 42:640–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kahan DM (2009) The evolution of risk perceptions. Nat Nanotechnol 4:705–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kahan DM, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G (2009) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 4:87–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lux Research, Inc. (2007) The nanotech report: investment overview and market research for nanotechnology, vol 1, 5th edn. Lux Research, Inc, BostonGoogle Scholar
  17. Lux Research, Inc. (2009) The recession’s ripple effect on nanotech. Lux Research, Inc., BostonGoogle Scholar
  18. Maynard AD (2007) Nanotechnology: the next big thing, or much ado about nothing? Ann Occup Hyg 51:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Maynard AD et al (2006) Safe handling of nanotechnology. Nature 444:267–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (JNIOSH) (2009) Notification on precautionary measures for prevention of exposure etc. to nanomaterials (NMs), March 2009. Accessed June 1, 2009
  21. Morris J, Willis J, De Martinis D, Hansen B, Laursen H, Sintes JR, Kearns P, Gonzalez M (2011) Science policy considerations for responsible nanotechnology decisions. Nat Nanotechnol 6:73–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (2009) Approaches to safe nanotechnology: managing the health and safety concerns associated with engineered nanomaterials, DHHS, Publication Number 2009-125, March 2009. Accessed June 1, 2009
  23. Nel A, Xia T, Madler L, Li N (2006) Toxic potential of materials at the nanolevel. Science 311:622–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Oberdorster G, Oberdorster E, Oberdorster J (2005) Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environ Health Perspect 113:823–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ostrowski A, Martin T, Conti J, Hurt I, Harthorn BH (2009) Nanotoxicology: characterizing the scientific literature, 2000–2007. J Nanopart Res 11:251–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pagell M, Gobeli D (2009) How plant managers’ experiences and attitudes toward sustainability relate to operational performance. Prod Oper Manag 18:278–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pidgeon N, Kasperson R, Slovic P (eds) (2003) The social amplification of risk. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Pidgeon NF, Poortinga W, Rowe G, Horlick-Jones T, Walls J, O’Riordan T (2005) Using surveys in public participation processes for risk decision-making: the case of the 2003 British GM nation public debate. Risk Anal 25:467–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Richman EK, Hutchison JE (2009) The nanomaterial characterization bottleneck. ACS Nano 3:2441–2446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Safe Work Australia (2009) Engineered nanomaterials: evidence on the effectiveness of workplace controls to prevent exposure, November 2009. Accessed December 1, 2009
  31. Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie CEH, Conti J, Harthorn BH (2009) Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nat Nanotechnol 4:752–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Scheringer M (2008) Environmental risks of nanomaterials. Nat Nanotechnol 3:322–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Dunwoody S, Shih T, Hillback E, Guston DH (2007) Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nat Nanotechnol 2:732–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schmid K, Reidiker M (2008) Use of nanoparticles in Swiss industry: a targeted survey. Environ Sci Technol 42:2253–2260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schmid K, Danuser B, Riediker M (2010) Nanoparticle usage and protection measures in the manufacturing industry—a representative survey. J Occup Environ Hyg 7:224–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shapira P, Youtie J, Kay L (2011) National innovation systems and the globalization of nanotechnology innovation. J Technol Transfer. doi: 10.1007/s10961-011-9212-0 Google Scholar
  37. Slovic P (2000) The perception of risk. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. Stern P, Fineberg H (eds) (1996) Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society. National Academic Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  39. The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International (2007) Standard guide for handling unbound engineered nanoscale particles in occupational settings. ASTM. doi: 10.1520/E2535-07
  40. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (EC) (2007) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, May 29, 2007. Official Journal of the European Union L 136, 3-17. Accessed June 1, 2011
  41. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (EC) (2009) Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, November 30, 2009. Official Journal of the European Union L 342, 59-209; Accessed June 1, 2011
  42. The Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA) (2007) Guidance for handling and use of nanomaterials at the workplace, August 2007. Accessed June 1, 2009
  43. The International Standards Organization (ISO) (2008) Nanotechnologies—health and safety practices in occupational setting relevant to nanotechnologies. ISO/TR 12885:2008Google Scholar
  44. The International Standards Organization (ISO) (2011) Nanotechnologies—Nanomaterial risk evaluation. ISO/TR 13121:2011Google Scholar
  45. UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2008) UK voluntary reporting scheme for engineered nanoscale materials. Accessed June 1, 2011
  46. UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) (2009) Risk management of carbon nanotubes, March 2009. Accessed June 1, 2009
  47. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2006) Toxic Substance Control Act inventory status of carbon nanotubes. Accessed June 1, 2011
  48. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2008) TSCA inventory status of nanoscale substances—general approach. Accessed June 1, 2011
  49. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2011) Multi-walled carbon nanotubes; Significant New Use Rule, May 6, 2011. Fed Regist 76(88):26186–26192. Accessed June 1, 2011
  50. Woskie S (2010) Workplace practices for engineered nanomaterial manufacturers. WIREs Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 2:685–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cassandra D. Engeman
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Lynn Baumgartner
    • 3
    • 4
  • Benjamin M. Carr
    • 3
    • 4
  • Allison M. Fish
    • 3
    • 4
  • John D. Meyerhofer
    • 3
    • 4
  • Terre A. Satterfield
    • 2
    • 3
    • 5
  • Patricia A. Holden
    • 3
    • 4
  • Barbara Herr Harthorn
    • 2
    • 3
    • 6
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of California, Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraUSA
  2. 2.NSF Center for Nanotechnology and SocietyUniversity of California, Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraUSA
  3. 3.UC Center for the Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology (UC CEIN), University of California, Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraUSA
  4. 4.Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and ManagementUniversity of California, Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraUSA
  5. 5.Institute for Resources, the Environment, and SustainabilityUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  6. 6.Departments of Feminist Studies, Anthropology and SociologyUniversity of California, Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations