Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Best practices from nano-risk analysis relevant for other emerging technologies

Nature Nanotechnology volume 14, pages 998–1001 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

The experiences gained from the past 15 years of nanomaterial risk analysis may be useful for the risk analysis efforts of other emerging technologies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Nanotechnologies: A Preliminary Risk Analysis on the Basis of a Workshop Organized in Brussels on 1–2 March 2004 by the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General of the European Commission (European Commission, 2004).

  2. 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 (Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly-Identified Health Risks, 2007).

  3. Oomen, A. G. et al. NanoImpact 9, 1–13 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Investigating the Different Types of Risk Assessments of Manufactured Nanomaterials: Identifying Tools Available for Risk Management Measures and Uncertainties Driving Nano-Specific Data Needs (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2018).

  5. National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan (National Science and Technology Council Committee on Technology, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology, 2016).

  6. White Paper: Towards a more effective and efficient governance and regulation of nanomaterials (Prosafe, 2017).

  7. Jantunen, P., Mech, A. & Rasmussen, K. Workshop on Regulatory Preparedness for Innovation in Nanotechnology (Joint Research Centre, 2018)

  8. Linkov, I., Anklam, E., Collier, Z. A., Dimase, D. & Renn, O. Environ. Syst. Decis. 34, 134–137 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wickson, F. et al. Nat. Nanotechnol. 9, 870 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Miller, G. & Wickson, F. Rev. Policy Res. 32, 485–512 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hjorth, R. Nat. Nanotechnol. 12, 1109–1110 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Marchant G. E. The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight, Vol. 7 (eds. Marchant, G., Allenby, B. & Herkert, J.) 199–205 (Springer, 2011).

  13. National Nanotechnology Initiative Supplement to the President's 2019 Budget (Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering & Committee on Technology of the National Science and Technology Council, 2018).

  14. National Nanotechnology Initiative. Environmental, health, and safety issues. Nano.gov https://www.nano.gov/you/environmental-health-safety (2019).

  15. Syberg, K. & Hansen, S. F. Sci. Total Environ. 541, 784–794 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Dennis, S. D., Buchanan, R. L. & Miller, A. J. Microbial risk assessment: achievements and future challenges. Food Safety Magazine https://www.foodsafetymagazine.com/magazine-archive1/december-2001january-2002/microbial-risk-assessment-achievements-and-future-challenges/ (2001)

  17. Aven, T. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 253, 1–13 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Choi, J. Y., Ramachandran, G. & Kandlikar, M. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 3030–3034 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Guidance on Uncertainty in EFSA Scientific Assessment - DRAFT (European Food Safety Authority, 2015).

  20. Aven, T. et al. Risk Analysis: Fundamental Principles (Society for Risk Analysis, 2018).

  21. Grieger, K. D., Hansen, S. F. & Baun, A. Nanotoxicology 3, 1–U17 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hock, J. Proceedings of the Workshop on Research Projects on the Safety of Nanomaterials: Reviewing the Knowledge Gaps (European Commission, 2008).

  23. US Environmental Protection Agency Nanotechnology White Paper (Nanotechnology Working Group, Science Policy Council, US Environmental Protection Agency, 2007).

  24. Jantunen, A. P. K., Gottardo, S., Rasmussen, K. & Crutzen, H. P. NanoImpact 12, 18–28 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Subramanian, V. et al. J. Nanopart. Res. 18, 1–13 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Grieger, K. D., Baun, A. & Owen, R. J. J. Nanopart. Res. 12, 383–392 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hardy, A. et al. EFSA J. 16, 5123 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ramachandran, G. et al. J. Nanopart. Res. 13, 1345–1371 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kuzma, J. Regul. Gov. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12245 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Karcher, S. et al. NanoImpact 9, 85–101 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kuzma, J. & Kuzhabekova, A. J. Nanopart. Res. 13, 1499–1512 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lai, R. W. S. et al. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 25, 3060–3077 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Bowman, D. M. & Hodge, G. A. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 27, 118–132 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kuzma, J. & Roberts, J. P. J. Nanopart. Res. 18, 1–18 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Linkov, I. et al. Environ. Syst. Decis. 38, 170–176 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Trump, B. D., Hristozov, D., Malloy, T. & Linkov, I. Nano Today 21, 9–12 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Maynard, A. D. Nat. Nanotechnol. 10, 730 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge support for this work through diverse funding mechanisms. In particular, K.G. and J.L.J. acknowledges the Game-Changing Research Incentive Program funded through the NC State Office of Research, Innovation, and Economic Development, RTI International and the Kenan Institute for Engineering, Science and Technology. K.G. and J.K. gratefully acknowledge the partial support of the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at NC State (https://go.ncsu.edu/ges). J.L.J also acknowledges National Science Foundation (NSF) award ECCS-1542015 and the Research Triangle Nanotechnology Network, a site in the National Nanotechnology Coordinated Infrastructure. A.B. and K.A.J. acknowledge the Horizon 2020 project, caLIBRAte, for support (Grant agreement no. 686239). S.F.H. wishes to acknowledge the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research (Mistra) project Environmental Nanosafety Phase II. Finally, C.O.H. acknowledges support from the NSF and the Environmental Protection Agency under NSF Cooperative Agreement DBI‐1266252 and EF‐0830093, the Center for the Environmental Implications of NanoTechnology.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Genetic Engineering and Society Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA

    Khara Grieger & Jennifer Kuzma

  2. Department of Materials Science and Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA

    Jacob L. Jones

  3. Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark

    Steffen Foss Hansen & Anders Baun

  4. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    Christine Ogilvie Hendren

  5. Center for the Environmental Implications of NanoTechnology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    Christine Ogilvie Hendren

  6. National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Keld Alstrup Jensen

Authors
  1. Khara Grieger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jacob L. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Steffen Foss Hansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christine Ogilvie Hendren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Keld Alstrup Jensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jennifer Kuzma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Anders Baun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Khara Grieger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Grieger, K., Jones, J.L., Hansen, S.F. et al. Best practices from nano-risk analysis relevant for other emerging technologies. Nat. Nanotechnol. 14, 998–1001 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-019-0572-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-019-0572-1

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing