Strategic Approaches for the Management of Environmental Risk Uncertainties Posed by Nanomaterials

  • R. Owen
  • M. Crane
  • K. Grieger
  • R. Handy
  • I. Linkov
  • M. Depledge
Part of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security book series (NAPSC)


Central to the responsible development of nanotechnologies is an understanding of the risks they pose to the environment. As with any novel material or emerging technology, a scarcity of data introduces potentially high uncertainty in to the characterisation of risk. Early priorities are the identification of key areas of risk uncertainty and the strategic approach for managing and reducing these. This is important as the information subsequently gathered supports decision making and policy development. We identify one important source of uncertainty for the quantification of both hazard and exposure for nanomaterials, the complexity of their behaviour in natural systems. We then outline two approaches for managing this uncertainty, based on experiences with chemicals: one that primarily focuses on hazard and one that initially focuses on exposure. While each approach places emphasis on different information requirements a common feature is the considerable time lag between information gathering and subsequent decision making based on the evidence gathered. Complementary environmental surveillance approaches can act as a safety net, although it is not as yet clear how fit for purpose current monitoring programmes are in this regard.1


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Baun, A., Sørensen, S.N., Rasmussen, R.F., Hartmann, N.B., and Koch, C.B. (2007) Toxicity and bioaccumulation of xenobiotic organic compounds in the presence of aqueous suspensions of aggregates of nano-C60, Aquatic Toxicology 86, 379–387.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baun, A., Hartmann, N.B., Grieger, K., and Kusk, K.O. (2008) Ecotoxicity of engineered nanoparticles to aquatic invertebrates: a brief review and recommendations for future toxicity testing, Ecotoxicology 17, 387–395.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blaser, S.A., Scheringer, M., Macloed, M., and Hungerbuhler, K. (2008) Estimation of cumulative aquatic exposure and risk due to silver: contribution of nano-functionalized plastics and textiles, Science of the Total Environment 390, 396–409.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cheung, V.V., Owen, R., Depledge, M.H., and Galloway, T.S. (2006) Development of the in vivo chromosome aberration assay in oyster (Crassostrea gigas) embryo-larvae for genotoxicity assessment, Marine Environmental Research 62, S278.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Collingridge, D. (1980) The Social Control of Technology. Francis Pinter Ltd, London, pp 200.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Crane, M., Handy, R.D., Garrod, J., and Owen, R. (2008) Ecotoxicity test methods and environmental hazard assessment for engineered nanoparticles, Ecotoxicology 17, 421– 437.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    DETR (2000) U.K. Guidelines for Environmental Risk Assessment and Management. Available online at, last accessed 23 July 2008.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hagger, J.A., Jones, M.B., Lowe, D., Leonard, D.R.P., Owen, R., and Galloway, T.S. (2008) Application of biomarkers for improving risk assessments of chemicals under the Water Framework Directive: a case study, Marine Pollution Bulletin 56, 1111– 1118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Handy R.D., van der Kammer, F., Lead, J.R., Hassellöv, M., Owen, R., and Crane, M. (2008) The ecotoxicology and chemistry of manufactured nanoparticles, Ecotoxicology 17(4), 287–314.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hassellöv, M., Readman, J.R., Ranville, J.F., and Tiede, K. (2008) Nanoparticle analysis and characterisation methodologies in environmental risk assessment of engineered nanoparticles, Ecotoxicology 17, 344–361.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    HM Government (2005) Characterising the Potential Risks Posed by Engineered Nanoparticles: A First UK Government Research Report. Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, HM Government, pp 57. PB 11485. Available online at, last accessed 23 July 2008.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kohler, A.R., Som, C., Helland, A., and Gottschalk, F. (2008) Studying the potential release of carbon nanotubes throughout the application lifecycle, Journal of Cleaner Production 16, 927–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Linkov, I., and Satterstrom, K. (2008). Nanomaterial risk assessment and risk management: Review of regulatory frameworks. In: Linkov, I., Ferguson, E., Magar, V. (eds), Real Time and Deliberative Decision Making: Application to Risk Assessment for Non-chemical Stressors. Springer, Amsterdam 129–158.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Neal, A., (2008) What can be inferred from bacterium — nanoparticle interactions about the potential consequences of environmental exposure to nanoparticles. Ecotoxicology 17, 362–371.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    OECD Environment Directorate (2008) OECD Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships [(Q)SARs] Project. Available online at 0,3343,en_2649_34379_33957015_1_1_1_1,00.html, last accessed 23 July 2008.
  16. 16.
    Owen, R., and Depledge, M.H. (2005) Nanotechnology and the environment: risks and rewards, Marine Pollution Bulletin 50, 609.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Owen, R., and Handy, R. (2007) Formulating the problems for environmental risk assessment of nanomaterials, Environmental Science and Technology 41(16), 5582– 5588.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Paquin, P.R., Gorsuch, J.W., Apte, S., Batley, G.E., Bowles, K.C., Campbell, P.G.C., Delos, C.G., Di Toro, D.M., Dwyer, R.L., Galvez, F., Gensemer, R.W., Goss, G.G., Hogstrand, C., Janssen, C.R., McGeer, J.C., Naddy, R.B., Playle, R.C., Santore, R.C., Schneider, U., Stubblefield, W.A., Wood, C.M., and Wu, K. (2002) The biotic ligand model for metals — current research, future directions, regulatory implications, Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part C, 133, 3–35.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Poland, C.A., Duffin, R., Kinloch, I., Maynard, A., Wallace, W.A.H., Seaton, A., Stone, V., Brown, S., MacNee, W., and Donaldson, K. (2008) Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos — like pathogenicity in a pilot study, Nature Nanotechnology 3, 423–428.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pollard, S.J.T. (2006) Risk Management for the Environmental Practitioner, IEMA Practitioner No. 7, Best practice series, Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment, Lincoln, UK.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2008) Novel Materials Study, expected publication date November 2008 ( htm), last accessed August 4, 2008 (in press).
  22. 22.
    Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties. Available online at http://www.nanotec., last accessed 23 July 2008.
  23. 23.
    Linkov, I., Satterstrom, K., Steevens, J., Ferguson, E., and Pleus, R. 2007. Multi-criteria decision analysis and environmental risk assessment for nanomaterials, Journal of Nanoparticle Research 9, 543–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Owen
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. Crane
    • 3
  • K. Grieger
    • 4
  • R. Handy
    • 5
  • I. Linkov
    • 6
  • M. Depledge
    • 7
  1. 1.School of BiosciencesUniversity of WestminsterUK
  2. 2.UK Environment AgencyBristolUK
  3. 3.WCA Environment LimitedOxfordshireUK
  4. 4.Institute of Environment & ResourcesTechnical University of Denmark LyngbyDenmark
  5. 5.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of PlymouthPlymouthUK
  6. 6.U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development CenterBrooklineUSA
  7. 7.Peninsula Medical SchoolUK

Personalised recommendations