Risk characterization for nanotechnology.

Risk Analysis (Impact Factor: 1.97). 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.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Funded by the National Science Foundation and the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN), this study asks qualitatively analyzes interviews with 48 nanoscientist users at four NNIN facilities. The main research questions were: (1) Do nanotechnologies pose unique social and ethical concerns?; (2) how are the risks associated with nanotechnology distributed among different human populations?; (3) what are specific policy steps that can be used to manage such risks? This study purposefully oversampled female scientists to correct for the historical underrepresentation of women in the nanotechnology workforce. By amplifying the voice of this science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce minority, the policy discussion contained herein better reflects the concerns of the general population. The results, analyzed with the aid of qualitative data analysis software, yield interesting differences in risk characterization among the scientists and innovative policy suggestions for the nanoscience community and regulators alike.
    Review of Policy Research 09/2013; 30(5). DOI:10.1111/ropr.12031 · 0.65 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. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.02.059 · 3.16 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introducing new technologies into society raises considerable public concern. We determine the public concern about nanoparticles, and compare this concern to other environmental health issues such as wind farms and coal seam gas production. A repeat cross sectional survey examining views on environmental health issues, risk, chemicals and trust was undertaken in more than 1,300 Australian residents in 2000 and 2013. Logistic regression and principal component analysis was used to investigate predictors of nanoparticle concern and identify a component structure for environmental health issues that could explain a trend of future nanoparticle concern. Australians have a relatively low level of concern about the risks of nanoparticles to health when compared to their concerns about other environmental health issues. Items associated with concern included gender, a general wish to avoid chemicals and possibly trust in politicians. Concern over nanoparticles clustered with similar views on technological risks. Current public concern over the risks of nanoparticles is low. However, a reframing of the issue towards 'chemicals' is likely to have a negative effect on risk perceptions. This paper raises questions about appropriate channels for the effective communication of risk. © 2015 Public Health Association of Australia.
    Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 02/2015; 39(1):56-62. DOI:10.1111/1753-6405.12349 · 1.90 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jun 3, 2014