Environment Systems and Decisions

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 76–87 | Cite as

Data dialogues: critical connections for designing and implementing future nanomaterial research

  • Christina M. Powers
  • Khara D. Grieger
  • Christian Beaudrie
  • Christine Ogilvie Hendren
  • J. Michael Davis
  • Amy Wang
  • Christie M. Sayes
  • Margaret MacDonell
  • Jeffrey S. GiftEmail author


Individuals and organizations in the engineered nanomaterial (ENM) community have increasingly recognized two related but distinct concerns: (1) Discordant data due to differences in experimental design (e.g., material characteristics, experimental model, and exposure concentration) or reporting (e.g., dose metric and material characterization details), and (2) a lack of data to inform decisions about ENM environmental, health, and safety (EHS). As one way to help address these issues, this Commentary discusses the important role of “data dialogues” or structured discussions between ENM researchers in EHS fields (e.g., toxicology, exposure science, and industrial hygiene) and decision makers who use the data researchers’ collect. The importance of these structured discussions is examined here in the context of barriers, solutions, and incentives: barriers to developing research relevant for human and ecological risk assessments; potential solutions to overcome such barriers; and incentives to help implement these or other solutions. These barriers, solutions, and incentives were identified by a group of expert stakeholders and ENM community members at the December 2013 Society for Risk Analysis panel discussion on research needed to support decision making for multiwalled carbon nanotubes. Key topics discussed by experts and ENM community members include: (1) The value of researchers collaborating with EHS decision makers (e.g., risk analysts, product developers, and regulators) to design research that can inform ENM EHS-related decisions (e.g., occupational exposure limits and product safety determinations), (2) the importance of funding incentives for such collaborative research, (3) the need to improve mechanisms for data sharing within and between sectors (e.g., academia, government, and industry), and (4) the critical need to educate the “next generation” of nanotechnology researchers in EHS topics (e.g., risk assessment, risk management). In presenting these outcomes, this Commentary is not intended to conclude the conversation that took place in December 2013 but rather to support a broader dialogue that helps ensure important risk assessment questions are answered for ENMs.


Engineered nanomaterials Research planning Health and environmental risk assessment Risk management Communication 



We thank the December 2013 Symposium panelists, Jim Alwood (U.S. EPA), Tim Fennell (RTI International) in conjunction with Sri Nadadur (NIEHS), Chuck Geraci (NIOSH), and Christie Sayes (RTI International) (also an author), for their insightful presentations. We are also grateful to symposium participants for the engaging discussion that provided a foundation for this article. Additionally, we appreciate insightful suggestions from Geniece Lehmann and Neal Fann (both U.S. EPA) for their valuable comments in reviewing previous drafts of this article.

Supplementary material

10669_2014_9518_MOESM1_ESM.doc (108 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 108 kb)
10669_2014_9518_MOESM2_ESM.tif (1.5 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (TIFF 1580 kb)


  1. Anastas PT (2012) Fundamental changes to EPA’s research enterprise: the path forward. Environ Sci Technol 46:580–586. doi: 10.1021/es203881e CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Back PE, Rosen L, Norberg T (2007) Value of information analysis in remedial investigations. Ambio 36:486–493. doi: 10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[486:VOIAIR];2
  3. Bauer C, Buchgeister J, Hischier R, Poganietz W, Schebek L, Warsen J (2008) Towards a framework for life cycle thinking in the assessment of nanotechnology J Clean. Prod 16:910–926. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.04.022 Google Scholar
  4. Bonner JC et al (2013) Interlaboratory evaluation of rodent pulmonary responses to engineered nanomaterials: the NIEHS Nano GO Consortium. Environ Health Perspect 6:676–682. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1205693 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Canis L, Linkov I, Seager TP (2010) Application of stochastic multiattribute analysis to assessment of single walled carbon nanotube synthesis processes. Environ Sci Technol 44:8704–8711. doi: 10.1021/es102117k CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis JM (2013) A comprehensive environmental assessment approach to engineered nanomaterials. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 5:139–149. doi: 10.1002/wnan.1203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. EC (2013) Call for nanotechnology, advanced materials and production: assessment of environmental fate of nanomaterials, NMP-28-2014.
  8. El Kazzouli S, El Brahmi N, Mignani S, Bousmina M, Zablocka M, Majoral JP (2012) From metallodrugs to metallodendrimers for nanotherapy in oncology: a concise overview. Curr Med Chem 19:4995–5010. doi: 10.2174/0929867311209024995 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Europarl (2014) Nanofoods: MEPs object to new labelling rules. Accessed 17 March 2014
  10. Fukumori Y, Ichikawa H (2006) Nanoparticles for cancer therapy and diagnosis. Adv Powder Tech 17:1–28. doi: 10.1163/156855206775123494 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gregory R, Failing L, Harstone M, Long G, McDaniels T, Ohlson D (2012) Structured decision making. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ. doi: 10.1002/9781444398557
  12. Grieger KD, Linkov I, Hansen SF, Baun A (2012) Environmental risk analysis for nanomaterials: review and evaluation of frameworks. Nanotoxicology 6:196–212. doi: 10.3109/17435390.2011.569095 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grieger K, Sayes C, Hendren CO, Rothrock G, Mansfield C, Jayanty RKM, Ensor D (2013) Finding the key to responsible nanomaterial development: Multi-stakeholder collaboration needed. EHS Today.
  14. Hankin S, Boraschi D, Duschi A, Lehr C-M, Lichtenbeld H (2011) Towards nanotechnology regulation. Publish the unpublishable. Nano Today 6:228–231. doi: 10.1016/j.nantod.2011.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harris JK, Provan KG, Johnson KJ, Leischow SJ (2012) Drawbacks and benefits associated with inter-organizational collaboration along the discovery-development-delivery continuum: a cancer research network case study. Implement Sci 7:69. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-69 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hendren CO, Mesnard X, Dröge J, Wiesner MR (2011) Estimating production data for five engineered nanomaterials as a basis for exposure assessment. Environ Sci Technol 45:2562–2569. doi: 10.1021/es103300g CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ICF (2011) Nanomaterial case study workshop: Developing a comprehensive environmental assessment research strategy for nanoscale silver - Workshop report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NCGoogle Scholar
  18. ILSI (2013) ILSI: risk science innovation and application.
  19. Linkov I, Bates ME, Canis LJ, Seager TP, Keisler JM (2011a) A decision-directed approach for prioritizing research into the impact of nanomaterials on the environment and human health. Nat Nanotechnol 6:784–787. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2011.163 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Linkov I, Welle P, Loney D, Tkachuk A, Canis L, Kim JB, Bridges T (2011b) Use of multicriteria decision analysis to support weight of evidence evaluation. Risk Anal 31:1211–1225. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01585.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Liu Y, Zhao Y, Sun B, Chen C (2013) Understanding the toxicity of carbon nanotubes. Acc Chem Res 46:702–713. doi: 10.1021/ar300028m CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Masinter A, Small M, Casman E (2014) Research prioritization using hypothesis maps. Environ Syst Decis 34:49–59. doi: 10.1007/s10669-014-9489-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nanotechnology (2013) It’s all about data. Nat Nanotechnol 8:691. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2013.216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nanowerk (2014) Nanowerk: nanomaterial database.
  25. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine (2004) Facilitating interdisciplinary research. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  26. NIOSH (2013a) Current strategies for engineering controls in nanomaterial production and downstream handling processes. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cincinnati, OHGoogle Scholar
  27. NIOSH (2013b) Occupational exposure to carbon nanotubes and nanofibers vol 65. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cincinnati, OHGoogle Scholar
  28. NNCO (2012) Regional, state, and local initiatives in nanotechnology. Report of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Workshop, May 1–2, 2012, Portland, Oregon. Arlington, VAGoogle Scholar
  29. NNI (2011) Environmental Health and Safety Research Strategy. National Science and Technology Council, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  30. Nowack B et al (2012) Potential scenarios for nanomaterial release and subsequent alteration in the environment. Environ Toxicol Chem 31:5059. doi: 10.1002/etc.726 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. NRC (2012) A research strategy for environmental, health, and safety aspects of engineered nanomaterials. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  32. NRC (2013) Research progress on environmental, health, and safety aspects of engineered nanomaterials. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. NSF (2014a) EPA/NSF Networks for sustainable molecular design and synthesis (NSMDS)Google Scholar
  34. NSF (2014b) SusChEM: IUPAC: Green and sustainable catalysts for synthesis of organic building blocks.
  35. OECD (2012) Important issues on risk assessment of manufactured nanomaterials. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  36. Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J (2014) A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res 14:2. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Painter K, McConnell ER, Sahasrabudhe S, Burgoon L, Powers CM (2014) What do the data show? Knowledge map development for comprehensive environmental assessment. Integr Environ Assess Manag 10:37–47. doi: 10.1002/ieam.1486 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. PCAST (2012) Report to the president and congress on the fourth assessment of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Executive office of the President of the United States, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  39. Powers CM et al (2012) Comprehensive environmental assessment: a meta-assessment approach. Environ Sci Technol 46:9202–9208. doi: 10.1021/es3023072 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Powers CM et al (2014) A web-based tool to engage stakeholders in informing research planning for future decisions on emerging materials. Sci Total Environ 470–471:660–668. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.10.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (2014) The project on emerging nanotechnologies: inventories.
  42. Rapport DJ (1997) Transdisciplinarity: transcending the disciplines. Trends Ecol Evol 12:289. doi: 10.1016/s0169-5347(97)81031-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. RTI International (2012) Nanomaterial case study workshop process: Identifying and prioritizing research for multiwalled carbon nanotubes: summary report-final. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle ParkGoogle Scholar
  44. SCCS (2013) Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety: WG on ‘Nanomaterials in cosmetic products’. European Commission.
  45. Schrurs F, Lison D (2012) Focusing the research efforts. Nat Nanotechnol 7:546–548. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2012.148 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schug TT et al (2013) ONE Nano: NIEHS’s strategic initiative on the health and safety effects of engineered nanomaterials. Environ Health Perspect 121:410–414. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1206091 Google Scholar
  47. Sooresh A, Zeng Z, Chandrasekharan J, Pillai SD, Sayes CM (2012) A physiologically relevant approach to characterize the microbial response to colloidal particles in food matrices within a simulated gastrointestinal tract. Food Chem Toxicol 50:2971–2977. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2012.05.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Hristozov D, Marcomini A, Linkov I (2014) Sustainable nanotechnology: defining, measuring and teaching. Nano Today. doi: 10.1016/j.nantod.2014.01.001 Google Scholar
  49. ter Riet G et al (2012) Publication bias in laboratory animal research: a survey on magnitude, drivers, consequences and potential solutions. PLoS ONE 7:e43404. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043404 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tervonen T, Linkov I, Figueira JR, Steevens J, Chappell M, Merad M (2009) Risk-based classification system of nanomaterials. J Nanopart Res 11:757–766. doi: 10.1007/s11051-008-9546-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tolaymat TM, El Badawy AM, Genaidy A, Scheckel KG, Luxton TP, Suidan M (2010) An evidence-based environmental perspective of manufactured silver nanoparticle in syntheses and applications: a systematic review and critical appraisal of peer-reviewed scientific papers. Sci Total Environ 408:999–1006. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. U.S. EPA (2010a) Nanomaterial case studies workshop: developing a comprehensive environmental assessment research strategy for nanoscale titanium dioxide. U.S. EPA, Research Triangle ParkGoogle Scholar
  53. U.S. EPA (2010b) Nanomaterial case studies: nanoscale titanium dioxide in water treatment and in topical sunscreen (final) vol GRA and I. U.S. EPA, Research Triangle ParkGoogle Scholar
  54. U.S. EPA (2012) Nanomaterial case study: nanoscale silver in disinfectant spray (final report). U.S. EPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  55. U.S. EPA (2013) Comprehensive environmental assessment applied to multiwalled carbon nanotube flame-retardant coatings in upholstery textiles: a case study presenting priority research gaps for future risk assessments (final report). Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  56. U.S. GAO (2012) Nanotechnology: improved performance information needed for environmental, health, and safety research. United States Government Accountability Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  57. Walser T, Demou E, Lang DJ, Hellweg S (2011) Prospective environmental life cycle assessment of nanosilver T-shirts. Environ Sci Technol 45:4570–4578. doi: 10.1021/es2001248 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wardak A, Gorman ME, Swami N, Deshpande S (2008) Identification of risks in the life cycle of nanotechnology-based products. J Ind Ecol 12:435–448. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00029.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wohlleben W, Meier MW, Vogel S, Landsiedel R, Cox G, Hirth S, Tomović Ž (2013) Elastic CNT-polyurethane nanocomposite: synthesis, performance and assessment of fragments released during use. Nanoscale 5:369–380. doi: 10.1039/c2nr32711b CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christina M. Powers
    • 1
  • Khara D. Grieger
    • 2
  • Christian Beaudrie
    • 3
  • Christine Ogilvie Hendren
    • 4
  • J. Michael Davis
    • 5
  • Amy Wang
    • 6
    • 8
  • Christie M. Sayes
    • 2
  • Margaret MacDonell
    • 7
  • Jeffrey S. Gift
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and DevelopmentU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  2. 2.RTI InternationalResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  3. 3.Compass Resource Management LtdVancouverCanada
  4. 4.Center for the Environmental Implications of NanoTechnology (CEINT)Duke UniversityDurhamUSA
  5. 5.National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and DevelopmentU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyPittsboroUSA
  6. 6.National Center for Computational Toxicology, Office of Research and DevelopmentU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  7. 7.Argonne National LaboratoryArgonneUSA
  8. 8.Syngenta Crop ProtectionGreensboroUSA

Personalised recommendations