Developing an Ecological Risk Framework to Assess Environmental Safety of Nanoscale Products

Ecological Risk Framework
Part of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security book series (NAPSC)

Abstract

The nanotechnology industry is developing rapidly and promises to spawn many exciting products in the field of medicine, manufacturing, and various environmental fields, such as bio-control agents, and remediation catalysts. However, as legitimate questions of environmental safety go unanswered, opposition to the industry is accelerating just as rapidly. Unique physico-chemical properties of compounds within the nano-range present unknown toxicities relative to similar substances of larger dimensions. There is a critical need for a framework to assess risk of nanoscale particles that both the public and industry can accept.

Keywords

Toxicity Europe Microbe Arena Toxicology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Siegrist, M., Kelle, C., Kastenholz, H., Frey, S., and Wiek, A. (2007) Laypeople's and experts' perception of nanotechnology hazards,Risk Analysis27, 59–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    The Royal Society. (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. ISBN 0 85403 604 0. Available online athttp://www.nanotec.org.uk/ finalReport.htmlast accessed on 15 July 2008.
  3. 3.
    Frewer, L.J., Lassen, J., Kettlitz, B., Scholderer, J., Beekman, V., and Berdahl, K.J. (2004) Societal aspects of genetically modified foods,Food and Chemical Toxicology42, 1181–1193.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Warner, M. (2001) Nuclear Power. The News Hour with Jim Lehrer. Transcript 22 May 2001. Available athttp://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-june01/nuclear_ 5-22. htmllast accessed on 15 July 2008.
  5. 5.
    Begtrup, G., and Kessler, B. (2006) Preparing for the Backlash: Pre-emptive Policy for the Nanomaterials Revolution. Published by the authors online athttp://socrates. berkeley.edu/~bkessler/STEP_WP.pdflast accessed on 15 July 2008.
  6. 6.
    Mittelstaedt, M. (2008) Micro Materials Could Pose Major Health Risks,Globe and Mail, 10 July 2008. Available online at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080710.wnano0710/EmailBNStory/Science, last accessed 15 July 2008.
  7. 7.
    Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Available online athttp://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer/last accessed 15 July 2008.
  8. 8.
    Council of Canadian Academies. (2008) Small is Different: A Science Perspective on the Regulatory Challenges of the Nanoscale. Report in Focus July. Available online athttp://www.scienceadvice.ca/documents/(2008_07_10)_Nano_Report_in_Focus.pdflast accessed on 15 July 2008.
  9. 9.
    Dale, V.H. et al. (2008) Enhancing the ecological risk assessment process,Integrated Environmental Assessment Management4, 306–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Suter, G.W. (2008) Ecological risk assessment in the United States environmental protection agency: A historical overview,Integrated Environmental Assessment Management4, 285–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barnthouse L. (2008) The strengths of the ecological risk assessment process: Linking science to decision making,Integrated Environmental Assessment Management4, 299– 305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kapustka L. (2008) Limitations of the current practices used to perform ecological risk assessment, IntegratedEnvironmental Assessment Management4, 290–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 19 June–22 July 1946; signed on 22 July 1946 by the representatives of 61 States (Official Records of the World Health Organization, no. 2, p. 100) and entered into force on 7 April 1948. The definition has not been amended since 1948. Available online athttp://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdflast accessed 15 July 2008.
  14. 14.
    ASTM-I (2006) E 2348-06 Standard Guide for Framework for a Consensus-based Environmental Decision-making Process. InASTM-I Annual Book of Standards, American Society for Testing and Materials-International, West Conshohocken, PA.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kapustka, L.A. (2006) Current Developments in Ecotoxicology and Ecological Risk Assessment. In Arapis, G., and Goncharova, N. (eds.),Ecotoxicology, Ecological Risk Assessment, and Multiple Stressors, pp 3–24, Kluwer, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Curran, M.A., Frankl, P., Heijungs, R., Kohler, A., and Olsen, S.I. (2007)Nanotechnology and Life Cycle assessment: A Systems Approach to Nanotechnology and the Environment, European Commission and Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Available online at ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/nanotechnology/ docs/lca_nanotechnology_workshopoct2006_proceedings_en.pdf, last accessed 15 July 2008.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    European Commission, SCENHIR. (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. Available on line athttp://cordis.europa.eu/nanotechnologylast accessed 15 July 2008.
  18. 18.
    United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2007) Nanotechnology White Paper, 100/B-07/001. Available on line athttp://es.epa.gov/ncer/nano/publications/index.html, last accessed 15 July 2008.
  19. 19.
    Environmental Defense and Dupont. (2007)NANO Risk Framework, E.I. duPont de Namours and Company, Wilmington, DE, and Environmental Defense, Washington, DC. Available online athttp://www.edf.org/documents/6496_Nano%20Risk%20 Framework.pdf last accessed 15 July 2008.
  20. 20.
    Environment Canada & Health Canada. (2007) Proposed regulatory framework for nanomaterials under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. Available online athttp://nanotech.lawbc.com/2007/09/articles/legalregulatory-issues/canada-publishes-proposed-regulatory-framework-for-nanomaterials-under-cepa/last accessed 15 July 2008.
  21. 21.
    Linkov, I., and Satterstrom, F.K. (2008) Nanomaterial Risk Assessment and Risk Management: Review of Regulatory Frameworks. In Linkov, I., Ferguson, E., and Magar, V.S. (eds.),Real-Time and Deliberative Decision Making, Springer, The Netherlands, at 1–1.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Handy, R.D., Owen, R., and Valsami-Jones, E. (2008) The ecotoxicology of nanoparticles and nanomaterials: Current status, knowledge gaps, challenges, and future needs,Ecotoxicology17, 315–325.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kapustka, L.A., and Landis, W.G. (1998) Ecology: The science versus the myth,Human and Ecological Risk Assessment4, 829–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lackey, R.T. (2001) Values, policy, and ecosystem health,BioScience51, 437–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lackey, R.T. (2007) Science, scientists, and policy advocacy,Conservation Biology21, 12–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kapustka, L.A., and Mitton, J. (2007) Risk-based Environmental Approval Management System. Technical Report prepared by Golder Associates for the Alberta Environment, Environmental Management Division, Spruce Grove, AB.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Linkov, I., Varghese, A., Jamil, S., Seager, T.P., Kiker, G., and Bridges, T. (2004) Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Framework for Applications in Remedial Planning for Contaminated Sites. In Linkov, I., and Ramadan, A. (eds.),Comparative Risk Assessment and Environmental Decision Making, Kluwer, Dordrecht/Boston/London.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kiker, G.A., Bridges, T.S., Varghese, A., Seager, T.P., and Linkov, I. (2005) Application of Multicriteria Decision analysis in Environmental Decision Making,Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management1, 95–108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Linkov, I., Satterstrom, F.K., Kiker, G.A., Bridges, T.S., Benjamin, S.L., and Belluck, D.A. (2006) From optimization to adaptation: Shifting paradigms in environmental management and their application to remedial decisions,Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management2, 92–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
  31. 31.
  32. 32.
    Holtz, S. (2008)Update on a Framework for Canadian Nanotechnology Policy: A Second Discussion Paper. Canadian Institute of Environmental Law and Policy (CIELAP). Available online athttp://www.cielap.org/pdf/2008NanoUpdate.pdflast accessed 15 July 2008.

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LK Consultancy 8 Coach Gate Place SW CalgaryCanada
  2. 2.HydroQual Laboratory Ltd. CalgaryAlbertaCanada

Personalised recommendations