Nanomaterial Risk Assessment and Risk Management

Review of Regulatory Frameworks
Part of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security book series (NAPSC)


Managing emerging risks, such as those posed by nanotechnology, is a challenge that requires carefully balancing largely unknown benefits and risks. Here we review current nanomaterial risk management frameworks and related documents, with a focus on identifying and assessing gaps in their coverage. We do so using a regulatory pyramid, with self-regulation at the pyramid base and prescriptive legislation at its apex. We find that appropriate regulatory tools, especially at the bottom of the regulatory pyramid, are largely lacking. In addition, we recommend that regulatory agencies employ an adaptive, tiered framework to manage nanotechnology risk. The framework should utilize multiple tools at different levels of the pyramid, with specific tools chosen on a case-by-case basis.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Ayres, I., Braithwaite, J., 1992. Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Biswas, P., Wu, C.-Y., 2005. Nanoparticles and the environment. Journal of the Air& Waste Management Association 55, 708–746.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borm, P., Müller-Schulte, D., 2006. Nanoparticles in drug delivery and environmental exposure: same size, same risks? Nanomedicine 1 (2), 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Borm, P., Robbins, D., Haubold, S., Kuhlbusch, T., Fissan, H., Donaldson, K., Schins, R., Stone, V., Kreyling, W., Lademann, J., Krutmann, J., Warheit, D., Oberdorster, E., 2006. The potential risks of nanomaterials: a review carried out for ECETOC. Particle and Fibre Toxicology 3, 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bowman, D.M., Hodge, G.A., 2007. A small matter of regulation: an international review of nanotechnology regulation. The Columbia Science and Technology Law Review VIII, 1–36. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bridges, T.S., Suedel, B.C., Kim, J., Kiker, G., Schultz, M., Banks C., Payne, B.S., Harper, B., Linkov, I., 2008 (in preparation). Risk-Informed Decision Making Applied to Coastal Systems: Sustainable Management of Flood Risks and the Environment.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brunner, T., Wick, P., Manser, P., Spohn, P., Grass, R., Limbach, L., Bruinink, A., Stark, W., 2006. In vitro cytotoxicity of oxide nanoparticles: comparison to asbestos, silica, and the effect of particle solubility. Environmental Science & Technology 40 (14), 4374–4381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (CA OEHHA), 2007. OEHHA Proposition 65.
  10. 10.
    Canadian Workshop, Edmonton, 2008. Break-out Group Members: Drs. I. Linkov (US Army Corps of Engineers), T.A. Davis (Environment Canada), G. Goss (University of Alberta), J. Illes (University of BC), T. Medley (DuPont) and others.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davies, J. Clarence, 2006. Managing the Effects of Nanotechnology. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. Washington, DC 20004-3027. Available at: Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Davies, J. Clarence, 2007. EPA and Nanotechnology: Oversight for the 21st Century. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. Washington, DC 20004-3027. Available at: Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    European Commission (EC), 2005. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee: Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies: An Action Plan for Europe 2005–2009. B-1050, Brussels. Available at:
  14. 14.
    EC Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly-Identified Health Risks (EC SCENIHR), 2007. Opinion on the Appropriateness of the Risk Assessment Methodology in Accordance with the Technical Guidance Documents for New and Existing Substances for Assessing the Risks of Nanomaterials. B-1049 Brussels, Belgium. Available at:
  15. 15.
    Environmental Defense-DuPont Nano Partnership (ED - DuPont), 2007. Nano Risk Framework. Available at:
  16. 16.
    Figueira, J., Greco, S., Ehrgott, M. (Eds.), 2005. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. Springer Science+Business Media, New York.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gunningham, N., Grabosky, P., 1998. Smart Regulation: Designing Environmental Regulation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gwinn, M., Vallyathan, V., 2006. Nanoparticles: health effects — pros and cons. Environmental Health Perspectives 114 (2), 1818–1825.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    International Risk Governance Council (IRGC), 2005. White Paper on Risk Governance: Towards an Integrative Approach. By Ortwin Renn with Annexes by Peter Graham. CH-1219 Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: WP No_l_Risk_Governance__reprinted_version_.pdf.
  20. 20.
    International Risk Governance Council (IRGC), 2006. White Paper on Nanotechnology Risk Governance. By Ortwin Renn and Mike Roco with Annexes by Mike Roco and Emily Litten. CH-1219 Geneva, Switzerland. Available at:
  21. 21.
    International Risk Governance Council (IRGC), 2007. Policy Brief: Nanotechnology Risk Governance: Recommendations for a Global, Coordinated Approach to the Governance of Potential Risks. CH-1219 Geneva, Switzerland. Available at:
  22. 22.
    Kreyling, W., Semmler-Behnke, M., Möller, W., 2006. Health implications of nanoparticles. Journal of Nanomaterial Research 8, 543–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lahdelma, R., Miettinen, K., Salminen, P., 2003. Ordinal criteria in stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA). European Journal of Operational Research 147 (1), 117–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Linkov, I., Satterstrom, F.K., Kiker, G., Seager, T.P., Bridges, T., Gardner, K.H., Rogers, S.H., Belluck, D.A., Meyer, A., 2006. Multicriteria decision analysis: a comprehensive decision approach for management of contaminated sediments. Risk Analysis 26 (1), 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Linkov, I., Satterstrom, K., Kiker, Batchelor, C., G., Bridges, T., 2006. From comparative risk assessment to multi-criteria decision analysis and adaptive management: recent developments and applications. Environment International 32, 1072–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Linkov, I., Satterstrom, F.K., Steevens, J., Ferguson, E., Pleus, R.C., 2007. Multi-criteria decision analysis and environmental risk assessment for nanomaterials. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 9 (4), 543–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lux Research, 2006. Taking Action on Nanotech Environmental, Health, and Safety Risks. Lux Research, New York.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Macoubrie, J., 2005. Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. Washington, DC 20004-3027. Available at: Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Marchant, G.E., Sylvester, D.J., Abbott, K.W., 2008. A New Approach to Risk Management for Nanotechnology. Nanoethics 2, 43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Medina, C., Santos-Martinez, M., Radomski, A., Corrigan, O., Radomski, M., 2007. Nanoparticles: pharmacological and toxicological significance. British Journal of Pharmacology 150, 552–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Moghimi, S.M., Hunter, A.C., Murray, J.C., 2005. Nanomedicine: current status and future prospects. FASEB J 19, 311–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nel, A., Xia, T, Mädler, L., Li, N., 2006. Toxic potential of materials at the nanolevel. Science 311, 622–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), 2006. Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Needs for Engineered Nanoscale Materials. National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Technology, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology. Available at:
  34. 34.
    Oberdörster, G., Oberdörster, E., Oberdörster, J., 2005. Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environmental Health Perspectives 113, 823–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Québec Commission de l’éthique de la science et de la technologie (QC), 2006. Position Statement: Ethics and Nanotechnology: A Basis for Action. Québec GlV 4Z2. Available at:
  36. 36.
    Responsible NanoCode (RNC), 2006. Workshop report: How Can Business Respond to the Technical, Social and Commercial Uncertainties of Nanotechnology? Available at:
  37. 37.
    Roco, M.C., 2008. Possibilities for global governance of converging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 10, 11–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (RS & RAE), 2004. Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties. Science Policy Section, The Royal Society, London SW1Y 5AG Available at: Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Seaton, A., Donaldson, K., 2005. Nanoscience, nanotoxicology, and the need to think small. Lancet 365, 923–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Shvedova, A.A., Kisin, E.R., Mercer, R., Murray, A.R., Johnson, V.J., Potapovich, A.I., et al., 2005. Unusual inflammatory and fibrogenic pulmonary responses to single-walled carbon nanotubes in mice. American Journal of Physiology. Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology 289, L698–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tervonen, T., Lahdelma, R., 2007. Implementing stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 178 (2), 500–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tervonen, T., Figueira, J., Steevens, J., Kim, J., Linkov, I., 2008 (in preparation). Risk-based Classification System of Nanomaterials. Journal of Nanoparticle Research.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Thomas, K., Sayre, P., 2005. Research strategies for safety evaluation of nanomaterials, part i: evaluating the human health implications of exposure to nanoscale materials. Toxicological Sciences 87 (2), 316–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (UK DEFRA), 2006. UK Voluntary Reporting Scheme for Engineered Nanoscale Materials. London SW1P 3JR. Available at:
  45. 45.
    UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (UK DEFRA), 2007. The UK Voluntary Reporting Scheme for Engineered Nanoscale Materials: Fifth Quarterly Report. London SW1P 3JR. Available at:
  46. 46.
    US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, December, 1989. EPA/540/1–89/002.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. US EPA, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC, EPA/630/R095/002F. Available at: Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2007. Nanotechnology White Paper. Prepared for the US EPA by Members of the Nanotechnology Workgroup, a Group of EPA’s Science Policy Council, Washington, DC 20460. Available at:
  49. 49.
    US Food and Drug Administration (US FDA), 2007. Nanotechnology: A Report of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Nanotechnology Task Force, July 25, 2007. Available at:
  50. 50.
    US National Academy of Sciences (US NAS), 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    US National Science and Technology Council (US NSTC), 2007. Prioritization of Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Needs for Engineered Nanoscale Materials. NSTC Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee. Available at:
  52. 52.
    Peters, K., Unger, R.E., Kirkpatrick, C.J., Gatti, A.M., Monari, E., 2004. Effects of nano-scaled particles on endothelial cell function in vitro: studies on viability, proliferation and inflammation: selected papers from the 18th European Conference on Biomaterials (ESB2003), Stuttgart, Germany, 2003 (guest editors: Michael Doser and Heinrich Planck). Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine, 15 (4), 321–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.U. S. Army Engineer Research and Development CenterBrooklineUSA
  2. 2.Harvard University School of Engineering and Applied SciencesCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations