Advertisement

Sustainable nanotechnology decision support system: bridging risk management, sustainable innovation and risk governance

  • Vrishali Subramanian
  • Elena Semenzin
  • Danail Hristozov
  • Alex Zabeo
  • Ineke Malsch
  • Eamonn McAlea
  • Finbarr Murphy
  • Martin Mullins
  • Toon van Harmelen
  • Tom Ligthart
  • Igor Linkov
  • Antonio Marcomini
Perspectives

Abstract

The significant uncertainties associated with the (eco)toxicological risks of engineered nanomaterials pose challenges to the development of nano-enabled products toward greatest possible societal benefit. This paper argues for the use of risk governance approaches to manage nanotechnology risks and sustainability, and considers the links between these concepts. Further, seven risk assessment and management criteria relevant to risk governance are defined: (a) life cycle thinking, (b) triple bottom line, (c) inclusion of stakeholders, (d) risk management, (e) benefit–risk assessment, (f) consideration of uncertainty, and (g) adaptive response. These criteria are used to compare five well-developed nanotechnology frameworks: International Risk Governance Council framework, Comprehensive Environmental Assessment, Streaming Life Cycle Risk Assessment, Certifiable Nanospecific Risk Management and Monitoring System and LICARA NanoSCAN. A Sustainable Nanotechnology Decision Support System (SUNDS) is proposed to better address current nanotechnology risk assessment and management needs, and makes. Stakeholder needs were solicited for further SUNDS enhancement through a stakeholder workshop that included representatives from regulatory, industry and insurance sectors. Workshop participants expressed the need for the wider adoption of sustainability assessment methods and tools for designing greener nanomaterials.

Keywords

Decision support system Sustainable nanotechnology Risk governance Risk management Engineered nanomaterials 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was funded in part by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme [FP7/2007-2013] under ECGA No. 604305 ‘‘SUN’’. This publication reflects the views only of the authors, and the European Commission and other sponsors cannot be held responsible for any use, which may be made of the information contained therein.

References

  1. Althaus H-J, Pablo A, Bouamrane M et al (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. In: Benoît C, Mazijn B (eds). UNEP-DTIE, ParisGoogle Scholar
  2. Barberio G, Scalbi S, Buttol P, Masoni P, Righi S (2014) Combining life cycle assessment and qualitative risk assessment: the case study of alumina nanofluid production. Sci Total Environ 496:122–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baublyte L, Mullins M, Murphy F, Tofail SA (2014) Insurance market perception of nanotechnology and nanomaterials risks. The Geneva Association Issue 54Google Scholar
  4. Blaunstein R, Linkov I (2010) Nanotechnology risk management: an insurance industry perspective. In: Hull M, Bowman D (eds) Nanotechnology environmental health and safety. William Andrew Publishing Boston, Boston, pp 143–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Breggin LK, Pendergrass J (2010) Regulation of nanoscale materials under media-specific environmental laws. In: Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (eds) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar Publishers, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  6. Conti JA, 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
  7. De Bruyn S, Korteland M, Davidson M, Bles M (2010) Shadow Prices Handbook Valuation and weighting of emissions and environmental impacts. March 1–140Google Scholar
  8. ECHA (2011) Guidance on the preparation of an application for authorization. Available via https://www.echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13637/authorisation_application_en.pdf
  9. ECHA (2011) Guidance on socio-economic analysis—authorisation. Available at http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13643/sea_authorisation_en.pdf
  10. ECHA (2012) Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment. Available via http://echa.europa.eu/guidance-documents/guidance-on-information-requirements-and-chemical-safety-assessment
  11. Engeman CD, Baumgartner L, Carr BM, Fish AM, Meyerhofer JD, Satterfield TA, Holden PA, Harthorn BH (2012) Governance implications of nanomaterials companies’ inconsistent risk perceptions and safety practices. J Nanopart Res 14:1–12Google Scholar
  12. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008. A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Available at http://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/publications/recipe_characterisation.pdf
  13. Gottschalk F, Kost E, Nowack B (2013) Engineered nanomaterials in water and soils: a risk quantification based on probabilistic exposure and effect modeling. Environ Toxicol and Chem 32:1278–1287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gottschalk F, Lassen C, Kjoelholt J, Christensen F, Nowack B (2015) Modeling flows and concentrations of nine engineered nanomaterials in the Danish environment. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12:5581–5602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grieger KD, Linkov I, Hansen SF, Baun A (2012a) Environmental risk analysis for nanomaterials: review and evaluation of frameworks. Nanotoxicology 6:196–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grieger KD, Laurent A et al (2012b) Analysis of current research addressing complementary use of life-cycle assessment and risk assessment for engineered nanomaterials: have lessons been learned from previous experience with chemicals? J Nanopart Res 14(7):1–23Google Scholar
  17. Gunderson LH (2001) Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  18. Hansen SF, Baun A, Alstrup-Jensen K (2011) NanoRiskCat: a conceptual decision support tool for nanomaterials, Danish Ministry of the EnvironmentGoogle Scholar
  19. Höck J et al (2013) Guidelines on the precautionary matrix for synthetic nanomaterials. Version 3.0. Federal Office of Public Health and Federal Office for the Environment, Berne 2013, Version 3.0, BerneGoogle Scholar
  20. Hristozov D, Gottardo S, Critto A, Marcomini A (2012) Risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials: a review of available data and approaches from a regulatory perspective. Nanotoxicology 6:880–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hristozov D, Gottardo S, Semenzin S, Oomen A, Bos P, Peijnenberg W, Van Tongeren M, Nowack B, Hunt N, Brunelli A, Scott-Fordsman J, Marcomini A (2015) Frameworks and tools for risk assessment and management of manufactured nanomaterials. Submitted to Environmental International Google Scholar
  22. IRGC (2005) Risk governance: towards an integrative approach. Available via http://www.irgc.org/publications/core-concepts-of-risk-governance/
  23. IRGC (2007) Nanotechnology risk governance: recommendations for a global, coordinated approach to the governance of potential risks. Available at http://irgc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/PB_nanoFINAL2_2_.pdf
  24. IRGC (2010) Risk governance deficits. Available via http://www.irgc.org/publications/core-concepts-of-risk-governance/
  25. IRGC (2012) An introduction to the IRGC risk governance framework. Available via http://www.irgc.org/publications/core-concepts-of-risk-governance/
  26. IRGC (2015) IRGC guidelines for emerging risk governance. Available via http://www.irgc.org/publications/core-concepts-of-risk-governance/
  27. Isaacs JA, Alpert CL, Bates M, Bosso CJ, Eckelman MJ, Linkov I, Walker WC (2015) Engaging stakeholders in nano-EHS risk governance. Environ Syst Decis 35:24–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Linkov I, Seager TP (2011) Coupling multi-criteria decision analysis, life-cycle assessment, and risk assessment for emerging threats. Environ Sci Technol 45:5068–5074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Linkov I, Satterstrom F, Kiker G, Batchelor C, Bridges T, Ferguson E (2006) From comparative risk assessment to multi-criteria decision analysis and adaptive management: recent developments and applications. Environ Int 32:1072–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Linkov I, Satterstrom F, Monica JC Jr, Foss S (2009) Nano risk governance: current developments and future perspectives. Nanotechnol Law Bussiness 6:203Google Scholar
  31. Linkov I, Anklam E, Collier ZA, Dimase D, Renn O (2014) Risk-based standards: integrating top–down and bottom–up approaches. Environ Syst Decis 34:134–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lux Research (2014) State of market report on nanotechnology. Available at https://portal.luxresearchinc.com/research/report_excerpt/16215
  33. Malsch I, Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Hristozov D, Marcomini A (2015a) Collective decision making on risk management and sustainable manufacturing of nanomaterials and the role of decision support tools. In: Proceedings 5th STS Italia conference “a matter of design”. Milan. 12–14 June 2014Google Scholar
  34. Malsch I, Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Hristozov D, Marcomini A (2015b) Supporting decision-making for sustainable nanotechnology. Environ Syst Decis 35:54–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Malsch I, Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Hristozov D, Marcomini A, Mullins M, Murphy F, Hester E, Mcalea A, Tofail SA (2015c) Empowering citizens in international governance of nanotechnologies. J Nanopart Res 17:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Maynard AD (2015) The (nano) entrepreneur's dilemma. Nat Nanotechnol 10(3):199–200Google Scholar
  37. Meili C, Widmer M (2010) Voluntary measures in nanotechnology risk governance: the difficulty of holding the wolf by the ears. In: Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (eds) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar Publishers, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  38. Mullins M, Murphy F, Baublyte L, Baublyte L, McAlea EM, Tofail SA (2013) The insurability of nanomaterial production risk. Nat Nanotechnol 8:222–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nanodatabase (2015) Inventory of nano-enabled products. Retrieved 07/07/2015, from http://nanodb.dk/
  40. National Nanotechnology Initiative (2015) Stakeholder perspectives on perception, assessment, and management of the potential risks of nanotechnology. Report of the national nanotechnology initiative workshop, 10–11 Sept 2013, Washington, DC. http://www.nano.gov/node/1348. Accessed 03 Sept 2015
  41. OECD, European Commission (2012) Series on the safety of manufactured nanomaterials No. 33: important issues on Risk Assessment of manufactured nanomaterials, ParisGoogle Scholar
  42. Oksel C, Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Ma CY, Hristozov D, Wang X, Wilkins T, Hunt N, Costa A, Fransman W, Marcomini A (2015) Risk management along the lifecycle of nano-enabled products. Submitted to Environmental Science: NanoGoogle Scholar
  43. Powers CM, Dana G, Gillespie P, Gwinn MR, Hendren CO, Long TC, Wang A, Davis MJ (2012) Comprehensive environmental assessment: a meta-assessment approach. Environ Sci Technol 46:9202–9208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Powers CM, Grieger KD, Hendren CO, Meacham CA, Gurevich G, Lassiter MG, Money ES, Lloyd JM, Beaulieu SM (2014) A web-based tool to engage stakeholders in informing research planning for future decisions on emerging materials. Sci Total Environ 470–471:660–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (2015) Consumer products inventory. Retrieved 07/07/2015, from http://www.nanotechproject.org/cpi
  46. Prosafe Project (2015) Promoting the implementation of safe by design. Retrieved 01/02/2016, from http://www.h2020-prosafe.eu/
  47. Renn O (2008) Risk governance: coping with uncertainty in a complex world. Earthscan Publishers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. Renn O, Roco MC (2006) Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. J Nanopart Res 8:153–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. SCENIHR (2009) Risk assessment of products of nanotechnologies. European Commission Scientific Committee on emerging and newly identified health risks, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  50. Seear K, Peterson A, Bowman D (2009) The social and economic impacts of nanotechnologies: a literature review. Report prepared for the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. Monash University, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  51. Semenzin E, Lanzellotto E, Hristozov D, Critto A, Zabeo A, Giubilato E, Marcomini A (2015) Species sensitivity weighted distribution for ecological risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials: the n-TiO2 case study. Environ Toxicol Chem 34:2644–2659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shatkin JA (2012) Nanotechnology: health and environmental risks. CRC Press, Boca ratonGoogle Scholar
  53. Society of Risk Analysis Nanosafety Cluster (2016) Upcoming white paper on risk governance. Retrieved 01/02/2016, from http://www.sra.org/news/sra-nanosafety-cluster
  54. Som C, Berges M, Chaudhry Q, Dusinska M, Fernandes TF, Olsen SI, Nowack B (2010) The importance of life-cycle concepts for the development of safe nanoproducts. Toxicolology 269:160–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Som C, Zondervan-van den Beuken E, Van Harmelen T, Güttinger J, Bodmer M, Brouwer D, Buist HE, Carroll R, Coll C, Fransman W, Hartmanis A, Hincapie I, Hischier R, Karachalios T, Kouravelou K, Kuijpers E, Ligthart T, Notter D, Nowack B, Seibold U, Schneider G (2014) LICARA guidelines for the sustainable competitiveness of nanoproducts. St. Gallen, Zeist, DübendorfGoogle Scholar
  56. Subramanian V, Youtie J, Porter A, Shapira P (2010) Is there a shift to “active nanostructures”? J Nanopart Res 12:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Hristozov D, Marcomini A, Linkov I (2014) Sustainable nanotechnology: defining, measuring and teaching. Nano Today 9:6–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Zabeo A, Hristozov D,Malsch I, Saling P, Van Harmelen T, Ligthart T, Marcomini A (2016) Integrating the social impacts into risk governance of nanotechnology. In: Managing risk in nanotechnology: topics in governance, assurance and transfer, Springer series on Innovation, Technology and Knowledge ManagementGoogle Scholar
  59. Sun TY, Gottschalk F, Hungerbühler K, Nowack B (2014) Comprehensive probabilistic modelling of environmental emissions of engineered nanomaterials. Environ Pollut 185:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sweet L, Strohm B (2006) Nanotechnology—life-cycle risk management. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 12:528–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. TÜV SÜD Industrie Service (2013) Certification Standard CENARIOS®. Available at http://www.tuevsued.de/uploads/images/1219824286015340810363/CENARIOS_Zertifiziergrundlage_e.pdf
  62. Van Duuren-Stuurman B, Vink SR, Verbist KJM, Heussen HGA, Brouwer DH et al (2012) Stoffenmanager Nano Version 1.0: a web-based tool for risk prioritization of airborne manufactured nano objects. Ann Occup Hyg 56:525–541Google Scholar
  63. van Harmelen T, Korenromp R, van Deutekom C, Ligthart T, van Leeuwen S, van Gijlswijk R (2007) The price of toxicity: methodology for the assessment of shadow prices for human toxicity, ecotoxicity and abiotic depletion. In: Huppes G, Ishikawa M (eds) Quantified eco-efficiency, vol 2. Springer International Publishing, Berlin, pp 105–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. van Harmelen T, Zondervan-van den Beuken EK, Brouwer DH, Kuijpers E, Fransman W, Buist HB, Ligthart TN, Hincapié I, Hischier R, Linkov I, Nowack B, Studer J, Hilty L, Som C (2016) LICARA nanoSCAN: a tool for the self-assessment of benefits and risks of nanoproducts. Submitted to Environment International (in press)Google Scholar
  65. Van Leeuwen CJ, Vermeire TG (2007) Risk assessment of chemicals: an introduction. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Widler T, Meili C, Semenzin E, Subramanian V, Zabeo A, Hristozov D, Marcomini A (2016) Organisational risk management of nanomaterials using SUNDS: the contribution of CENARIOS®. In: Managing risk in nanotechnology: topics in governance, assurance and transfer. Springer series on Innovation, Technology and Knowledge Management (in press)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vrishali Subramanian
    • 1
  • Elena Semenzin
    • 1
  • Danail Hristozov
    • 1
  • Alex Zabeo
    • 1
  • Ineke Malsch
    • 2
  • Eamonn McAlea
    • 3
  • Finbarr Murphy
    • 3
  • Martin Mullins
    • 3
  • Toon van Harmelen
    • 4
  • Tom Ligthart
    • 4
  • Igor Linkov
    • 1
    • 5
  • Antonio Marcomini
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and StatisticsUniversity Ca’ Foscari of VeniceVeniceItaly
  2. 2.Malsch TechnoValuationUtrechtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Kemmy Business SchoolUniversity of LimerickLimerickIreland
  4. 4.TNOUtrechtThe Netherlands
  5. 5.US Army Engineer Research and Development CenterConcordUSA

Personalised recommendations