Article

Risk characterization for nanotechnology.

Risk Analysis (Impact Factor: 2.28). 10/2010; 30(11):1671-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01513.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Nanotechnology is a broad term that encompasses materials, structures, or processes that utilize engineered nanomaterials, which can be defined as materials intentionally designed to have one or more dimensions between 1 and 100 nm. Historically, risk characterization has been viewed as the final phase of a risk assessment process that integrates hazard identification, dose-response assessment, and exposure assessment. The novelty and diversity of materials, structures, and tools that are covered by above-defined "nanotechnology" raise substantial methodological issues and pose significant challenges for each of these phases of risk assessment. These issues and challenges culminate in the risk characterization phase of the risk assessment process, and this article discusses several of these key issues and approaches to developing risk characterization results and their implications for risk management decision making that are specific to nanotechnology.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
88 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although researchers have intentionally produced and used nanomaterials for more than a century, nanotechnology has made its mark in most areas of daily life in the past 20 years. Now thousands of products contain nanoparticles, nanofibers, or nanostructured parts. Because some chemical products have caused severe problems to human health and to the environment, we should consider the overall biological and toxicological effects of nanomaterials as we decide whether to use them in various products. We should also reflect on the mechanisms for making these decisions, which may greatly influence the development, production, and use of such products. The preselection of appropriate materials during the early product design state should allow industry and applied researchers to mitigate the risks of these new materials. However, currently the human and ecological risks of the applied nanomaterials during their life cycle are unknown. A large set of physicochemical characteristics can determine the potential human and environmental exposure to and hazards from nanomaterials. Thus, researchers will need many years to gather and analyze all the data to perform a comprehensive risk assessment for engineered nanomaterials and to develop a sound decision making process. The ideal risk assessment approach would include cost-effective screening processes to target resources toward the risks of greatest concern. The outcome of the risk assessment is only as good as the quality of the data used. Unfortunately, the actual review process of most journals that publish on nanotoxicology focuses on "mechanistic studies and results" rather than a toxicologically relevant outcome. For example, journals often do not include studies that show no effect as worthy of publication ("no-effect-studies" dilemma), which can lead to misleading interpretations of toxicological data for hazard identification. However, even with insufficient data sets, researchers can produce a preliminary comparable risk assessment ("approximate" risk assessment). Researchers have already performed risk-based evaluations of nanomaterials grounded on the comparison of exposure concentrations with no-effect levels (as required for chemical risk assessment), examining generic nanomaterials such as "nano-TiO(2)" but not specific forms or modifications. Even though these data sets on hazard and exposure are incomplete, they already provide the basis to illustrate the current state of knowledge and uncertainties. Therefore industry and applied researchers can calculate the probability that an adverse effect might occur and begin to balance the benefits and potential risks of an innovation. Based on the increasing numbers of nanotoxicology publications and funding programs, this Account reviews the decision support approaches that already exist to safely implement engineered nanomaterials during an early phase of innovation.
    Accounts of Chemical Research 10/2012; · 20.83 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The increasing applications of different nanomaterials in the myriad of nano-enabled products and their potential for leaching have raised considerable environmental, health and safety (EHS) concerns. As systematic studies investigating potential anomalies in the morphology and anatomy of crop plants are scarce, herein we report on the developmental responses of two agriculturally significant crop plants, maize (Zea mays L.) and cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata L.), upon in vitro exposure to nanoparticles of citrate-coated silver (Citrate-nAg) and zinc oxide (nZnO). Analyses involve histology of the primary root morphology and anatomy using light microscopy, metal biouptake, moisture content, rate of germination, and root elongation. Comparative toxicity profiles of the ionic salts (AgNO3 and ZnSO4) are developed. Notably, we uncover structural changes in maize primary root cells upon exposure to Citrate-nAg, nZnO, AgNO3, and ZnSO4, possibly due to metal biouptake, suggesting potential for functional impairments in the plant growth and development. Citrate-nAg exposure results in lower Ag biouptake compared to AgNO3 treatment in maize. Microscopic evidence reveals 'tunneling-like effect' with nZnO treatment, while exposure to AgNO3 leads to cell erosion in maize root apical meristem. In maize, a significant change in metaxylem count is evident with Citrate-nAg, AgNO3, and ZnSO4 treatment, but not with nZnO treatment (p>0.1). In both maize and cabbage, measures of germination and root elongation reveal lower nanoparticle toxicity compared to free ions. As moisture data do not support osmotically-induced water stress hypothesis for explaining toxicity, we discuss other proximate mechanisms including the potential role of growth hormones and transcription factors. These findings highlight previously overlooked, anatomically significant effects of metal nanoparticles, and recommend considering detailed anatomical investigations in tandem with the standard developmental phytotoxicity assays (germination and root elongation) as the latter ones appear less sensitive for screening plant responses to nanomaterial insults.
    Science of The Total Environment 03/2013; 452-453C:321-332. · 3.26 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
19 Downloads
Available from
Jun 3, 2014