Abstract
Risk research for nanomaterials is currently prioritized by means of expert workshops and other deliberative processes. However, analytical techniques that quantify and compare alternative research investments are increasingly recommended. Here, we apply value of information and portfolio decision analysis—methods commonly applied in financial and operations management—to prioritize risk research for multiwalled carbon nanotubes and nanoparticulate silver and titanium dioxide. We modify the widely accepted CB Nanotool hazard evaluation framework, which combines nano- and bulk-material properties into a hazard score, to operate probabilistically with uncertain inputs. Literature is reviewed to develop uncertain estimates for each input parameter, and a Monte Carlo simulation is applied to assess how different research strategies can improve hazard classification. The relative cost of each research experiment is elicited from experts, which enables identification of efficient research portfolios—combinations of experiments that lead to the greatest improvement in hazard classification at the lowest cost. Nanoparticle shape, diameter, solubility and surface reactivity were most frequently identified within efficient portfolios in our results.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$259.00 per year
only $21.58 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Change history
04 February 2016
In the version of this Article originally published, the data in Figs 1b–e and 2 were incorrect because of a coding error in the Monte Carlo analysis; the figures have now been replaced. Supplementary Figs 1–3 and Tables 1–7 also relied on these calculations and have been replaced. Furthermore, in the caption to Fig. 1e inset and in the related sentence in the main text, the values discussed were incorrect and have now been amended. None of these changes affect our conclusions. These errors have been corrected in the online versions of the Article.
References
US National Nanotechnology Initiative. The National Nanotechnology Initiative 2011 Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Strategy (Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology, Committee on Technology, National Science and Technology Council, 2011); http://www.nano.gov/node/681.
US National Nanotechnology Initiative. Progress Review on the Coordinated Implementation of the National Nanotechnology Initiative 2011 Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Strategy (Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology, Committee on Technology, National Science and Technology Council, 2014); http://www.nano.gov/node/1157.
Fadel, T. R., Steevens, J. A., Thomas, T. A. & Linkov, I. The challenges of nanotechnology risk management. Nano Today 10, 6–10 (2015).
National Research Council. Review of Federal Strategy for Nanotechnology-Related Environmental, Health, and Safety Research (The National Academies Press, 2009); http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12559/review-of-federal-strategy-for-nanotechnology-related-environmental-health-and-safety-research.
National Research Council. A Research Strategy for Environmental, Health, and Safety Aspects of Engineered Nanomaterials (The National Academies Press, 2012); http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13347/a-research-strategy-for-environmental-health-and-safety-aspects-of-engineered-nanomaterials.
Linkov, I., Bates, M. E., Canis, L. J., Seager, T. P. & Keisler, J. M. A decision-directed approach for prioritizing research into the impact of nanomaterials on the environment and human health. Nature Nanotech. 6, 784–787 (2011).
Zalk, D. M. & Nelson, D. I. History and evolution of control banding: a review. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 5, 330–346 (2008).
Brouwer, D. H. Control banding approaches for nanomaterials. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 56, 506–514 (2012).
Zalk, D. M., Paik, S. Y. & Swuste, P. Evaluating the Control Banding Nanotool: a qualitative risk assessment method for controlling nanoparticle exposures. J. Nanopart. Res. 11, 1685–1704 (2009).
Control Banding for Nanotechnology Applications; http://www.controlbanding.net/Home.html. (2015).
Rejeski, D. Nanotechnology Consumer Product Inventory. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2009).
US EPA. Nanomaterial Case Studies: Nanoscale Titanium Dioxide in Water Treatment and in Topical Sunscreen (Final), Report No. EPA/600/R-09/057F (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2010); http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=230972.
US EPA. Nanomaterial Case Study: Nanoscale Silver in Disinfectant Spray (Final Report), Report No. EPA/600/R-10/081F (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2012), http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=241665.
US EPA. 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), Report No. EPA/600/R-12/043F (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2013); http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/nano/recordisplay.cfm?deid=253010.
Keisler, J. Value of information in portfolio decision analysis. Decis. Anal. 1, 177–189 (2004).
Keisler, J. M. The value of assessing weights in multi-criteria portfolio decision analysis. J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 15, 111–123 (2008).
Keisler, J., Collier, Z., Chu, E., Sinatra, N. & Linkov, I. Value of information analysis: state-of-the-application. Environ. Syst., Decis. 34, 3–23 (2014).
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the nanotechnology and emerging material risk research programmes of the US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, by the Environmental Protection Agency ‘Science to Achieve Results’ programme through grant no. FP917643, and the National Science Foundation through grants nos. ECCS-1140190 and SES-0937591. Publication of this material has been approved by the authority of the Chief of the US Army Corps of Engineers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
J.M.K., M.E.B. and I.L. conceived the approach. N.P.Z., B.A.W., M.E.B., J.M.K. and I.L. wrote the manuscript text and responded to reviewer comments. N.P.Z. performed the CB Nanotool literature review and material scoring. B.A.W., N.P.Z. and M.E.B. performed the cost-estimating interviews. M.E.B. and K.J.P. performed the VoI analysis. K.J.P. and M.E.B. generated the figures. N.P.Z., B.A.W., M.E.B. and K.J.P. compiled the Supplementary Information.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Supplementary information
Supplementary information
Supplementary information (PDF 829 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bates, M., Keisler, J., Zussblatt, N. et al. Balancing research and funding using value of information and portfolio tools for nanomaterial risk classification. Nature Nanotech 11, 198–203 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2015.249
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2015.249
This article is cited by
-
Value of information analysis for assessing risks and benefits of nanotechnology innovation
Environmental Sciences Europe (2019)
-
A Tractable Method for Measuring Nanomaterial Risk Using Bayesian Networks
Nanoscale Research Letters (2016)
-
Erratum: Corrigendum: Balancing research and funding using value of information and portfolio tools for nanomaterial risk classification
Nature Nanotechnology (2016)