Skip to main content
Log in

Sustainable nanotechnology decision support system: bridging risk management, sustainable innovation and risk governance

  • Perspectives
  • Published:
Journal of Nanoparticle Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The significant uncertainties associated with the (eco)toxicological risks of engineered nanomaterials pose challenges to the development of nano-enabled products toward greatest possible societal benefit. This paper argues for the use of risk governance approaches to manage nanotechnology risks and sustainability, and considers the links between these concepts. Further, seven risk assessment and management criteria relevant to risk governance are defined: (a) life cycle thinking, (b) triple bottom line, (c) inclusion of stakeholders, (d) risk management, (e) benefit–risk assessment, (f) consideration of uncertainty, and (g) adaptive response. These criteria are used to compare five well-developed nanotechnology frameworks: International Risk Governance Council framework, Comprehensive Environmental Assessment, Streaming Life Cycle Risk Assessment, Certifiable Nanospecific Risk Management and Monitoring System and LICARA NanoSCAN. A Sustainable Nanotechnology Decision Support System (SUNDS) is proposed to better address current nanotechnology risk assessment and management needs, and makes. Stakeholder needs were solicited for further SUNDS enhancement through a stakeholder workshop that included representatives from regulatory, industry and insurance sectors. Workshop participants expressed the need for the wider adoption of sustainability assessment methods and tools for designing greener nanomaterials.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The authors found explicit reference in Renn (2008), which informed deeper understanding of links between risk governance and sustainability in other risk governance frameworks.

References

  • Althaus H-J, Pablo A, Bouamrane M et al (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. In: Benoît C, Mazijn B (eds). UNEP-DTIE, Paris

  • Barberio G, Scalbi S, Buttol P, Masoni P, Righi S (2014) Combining life cycle assessment and qualitative risk assessment: the case study of alumina nanofluid production. Sci Total Environ 496:122–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baublyte L, Mullins M, Murphy F, Tofail SA (2014) Insurance market perception of nanotechnology and nanomaterials risks. The Geneva Association Issue 54

  • Blaunstein R, Linkov I (2010) Nanotechnology risk management: an insurance industry perspective. In: Hull M, Bowman D (eds) Nanotechnology environmental health and safety. William Andrew Publishing Boston, Boston, pp 143–179

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Breggin LK, Pendergrass J (2010) Regulation of nanoscale materials under media-specific environmental laws. In: Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (eds) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar Publishers, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Conti JA, Killpack K, Gerritzen G, Huang L, Mircheva M, Delmas M, Harthorn BH, Appelbaum RP, Holden PA (2008) Health and safety practices in the nanomaterials workplace: results from an international survey. Environ Sci Technol 42:3155–3162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Bruyn S, Korteland M, Davidson M, Bles M (2010) Shadow Prices Handbook Valuation and weighting of emissions and environmental impacts. March 1–140

  • ECHA (2011) Guidance on the preparation of an application for authorization. Available via https://www.echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13637/authorisation_application_en.pdf

  • ECHA (2011) Guidance on socio-economic analysis—authorisation. Available at http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13643/sea_authorisation_en.pdf

  • ECHA (2012) Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment. Available via http://echa.europa.eu/guidance-documents/guidance-on-information-requirements-and-chemical-safety-assessment

  • Engeman CD, Baumgartner L, Carr BM, Fish AM, Meyerhofer JD, Satterfield TA, Holden PA, Harthorn BH (2012) Governance implications of nanomaterials companies’ inconsistent risk perceptions and safety practices. J Nanopart Res 14:1–12

  • Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008. A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Available at http://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/publications/recipe_characterisation.pdf

  • Gottschalk F, Kost E, Nowack B (2013) Engineered nanomaterials in water and soils: a risk quantification based on probabilistic exposure and effect modeling. Environ Toxicol and Chem 32:1278–1287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottschalk F, Lassen C, Kjoelholt J, Christensen F, Nowack B (2015) Modeling flows and concentrations of nine engineered nanomaterials in the Danish environment. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12:5581–5602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grieger KD, Linkov I, Hansen SF, Baun A (2012a) Environmental risk analysis for nanomaterials: review and evaluation of frameworks. Nanotoxicology 6:196–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grieger KD, Laurent A et al (2012b) Analysis of current research addressing complementary use of life-cycle assessment and risk assessment for engineered nanomaterials: have lessons been learned from previous experience with chemicals? J Nanopart Res 14(7):1–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunderson LH (2001) Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen SF, Baun A, Alstrup-Jensen K (2011) NanoRiskCat: a conceptual decision support tool for nanomaterials, Danish Ministry of the Environment

  • Höck J et al (2013) Guidelines on the precautionary matrix for synthetic nanomaterials. Version 3.0. Federal Office of Public Health and Federal Office for the Environment, Berne 2013, Version 3.0, Berne

  • Hristozov D, Gottardo S, Critto A, Marcomini A (2012) Risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials: a review of available data and approaches from a regulatory perspective. Nanotoxicology 6:880–898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hristozov D, Gottardo S, Semenzin S, Oomen A, Bos P, Peijnenberg W, Van Tongeren M, Nowack B, Hunt N, Brunelli A, Scott-Fordsman J, Marcomini A (2015) Frameworks and tools for risk assessment and management of manufactured nanomaterials. Submitted to Environmental International

  • IRGC (2005) Risk governance: towards an integrative approach. Available via http://www.irgc.org/publications/core-concepts-of-risk-governance/

  • IRGC (2007) Nanotechnology risk governance: recommendations for a global, coordinated approach to the governance of potential risks. Available at http://irgc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/PB_nanoFINAL2_2_.pdf

  • IRGC (2010) Risk governance deficits. Available via http://www.irgc.org/publications/core-concepts-of-risk-governance/

  • IRGC (2012) An introduction to the IRGC risk governance framework. Available via http://www.irgc.org/publications/core-concepts-of-risk-governance/

  • IRGC (2015) IRGC guidelines for emerging risk governance. Available via http://www.irgc.org/publications/core-concepts-of-risk-governance/

  • Isaacs JA, Alpert CL, Bates M, Bosso CJ, Eckelman MJ, Linkov I, Walker WC (2015) Engaging stakeholders in nano-EHS risk governance. Environ Syst Decis 35:24–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linkov I, Seager TP (2011) Coupling multi-criteria decision analysis, life-cycle assessment, and risk assessment for emerging threats. Environ Sci Technol 45:5068–5074

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linkov I, Satterstrom F, Kiker G, Batchelor C, Bridges T, Ferguson E (2006) From comparative risk assessment to multi-criteria decision analysis and adaptive management: recent developments and applications. Environ Int 32:1072–1093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linkov I, Satterstrom F, Monica JC Jr, Foss S (2009) Nano risk governance: current developments and future perspectives. Nanotechnol Law Bussiness 6:203

    Google Scholar 

  • Linkov I, Anklam E, Collier ZA, Dimase D, Renn O (2014) Risk-based standards: integrating top–down and bottom–up approaches. Environ Syst Decis 34:134–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lux Research (2014) State of market report on nanotechnology. Available at https://portal.luxresearchinc.com/research/report_excerpt/16215

  • Malsch I, Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Hristozov D, Marcomini A (2015a) Collective decision making on risk management and sustainable manufacturing of nanomaterials and the role of decision support tools. In: Proceedings 5th STS Italia conference “a matter of design”. Milan. 12–14 June 2014

  • Malsch I, Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Hristozov D, Marcomini A (2015b) Supporting decision-making for sustainable nanotechnology. Environ Syst Decis 35:54–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malsch I, Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Hristozov D, Marcomini A, Mullins M, Murphy F, Hester E, Mcalea A, Tofail SA (2015c) Empowering citizens in international governance of nanotechnologies. J Nanopart Res 17:1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard AD (2015) The (nano) entrepreneur's dilemma. Nat Nanotechnol 10(3):199–200

  • Meili C, Widmer M (2010) Voluntary measures in nanotechnology risk governance: the difficulty of holding the wolf by the ears. In: Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (eds) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar Publishers, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullins M, Murphy F, Baublyte L, Baublyte L, McAlea EM, Tofail SA (2013) The insurability of nanomaterial production risk. Nat Nanotechnol 8:222–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nanodatabase (2015) Inventory of nano-enabled products. Retrieved 07/07/2015, from http://nanodb.dk/

  • National Nanotechnology Initiative (2015) Stakeholder perspectives on perception, assessment, and management of the potential risks of nanotechnology. Report of the national nanotechnology initiative workshop, 10–11 Sept 2013, Washington, DC. http://www.nano.gov/node/1348. Accessed 03 Sept 2015

  • OECD, European Commission (2012) Series on the safety of manufactured nanomaterials No. 33: important issues on Risk Assessment of manufactured nanomaterials, Paris

  • Oksel C, Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Ma CY, Hristozov D, Wang X, Wilkins T, Hunt N, Costa A, Fransman W, Marcomini A (2015) Risk management along the lifecycle of nano-enabled products. Submitted to Environmental Science: Nano

  • Powers CM, Dana G, Gillespie P, Gwinn MR, Hendren CO, Long TC, Wang A, Davis MJ (2012) Comprehensive environmental assessment: a meta-assessment approach. Environ Sci Technol 46:9202–9208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powers CM, Grieger KD, Hendren CO, Meacham CA, Gurevich G, Lassiter MG, Money ES, Lloyd JM, Beaulieu SM (2014) A web-based tool to engage stakeholders in informing research planning for future decisions on emerging materials. Sci Total Environ 470–471:660–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (2015) Consumer products inventory. Retrieved 07/07/2015, from http://www.nanotechproject.org/cpi

  • Prosafe Project (2015) Promoting the implementation of safe by design. Retrieved 01/02/2016, from http://www.h2020-prosafe.eu/

  • Renn O (2008) Risk governance: coping with uncertainty in a complex world. Earthscan Publishers, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn O, Roco MC (2006) Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. J Nanopart Res 8:153–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SCENIHR (2009) Risk assessment of products of nanotechnologies. European Commission Scientific Committee on emerging and newly identified health risks, Brussels

  • Seear K, Peterson A, Bowman D (2009) The social and economic impacts of nanotechnologies: a literature review. Report prepared for the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. Monash University, Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

  • Semenzin E, Lanzellotto E, Hristozov D, Critto A, Zabeo A, Giubilato E, Marcomini A (2015) Species sensitivity weighted distribution for ecological risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials: the n-TiO2 case study. Environ Toxicol Chem 34:2644–2659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shatkin JA (2012) Nanotechnology: health and environmental risks. CRC Press, Boca raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Society of Risk Analysis Nanosafety Cluster (2016) Upcoming white paper on risk governance. Retrieved 01/02/2016, from http://www.sra.org/news/sra-nanosafety-cluster

  • Som C, Berges M, Chaudhry Q, Dusinska M, Fernandes TF, Olsen SI, Nowack B (2010) The importance of life-cycle concepts for the development of safe nanoproducts. Toxicolology 269:160–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Som C, Zondervan-van den Beuken E, Van Harmelen T, Güttinger J, Bodmer M, Brouwer D, Buist HE, Carroll R, Coll C, Fransman W, Hartmanis A, Hincapie I, Hischier R, Karachalios T, Kouravelou K, Kuijpers E, Ligthart T, Notter D, Nowack B, Seibold U, Schneider G (2014) LICARA guidelines for the sustainable competitiveness of nanoproducts. St. Gallen, Zeist, Dübendorf

    Google Scholar 

  • Subramanian V, Youtie J, Porter A, Shapira P (2010) Is there a shift to “active nanostructures”? J Nanopart Res 12:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Hristozov D, Marcomini A, Linkov I (2014) Sustainable nanotechnology: defining, measuring and teaching. Nano Today 9:6–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Zabeo A, Hristozov D,Malsch I, Saling P, Van Harmelen T, Ligthart T, Marcomini A (2016) Integrating the social impacts into risk governance of nanotechnology. In: Managing risk in nanotechnology: topics in governance, assurance and transfer, Springer series on Innovation, Technology and Knowledge Management

  • Sun TY, Gottschalk F, Hungerbühler K, Nowack B (2014) Comprehensive probabilistic modelling of environmental emissions of engineered nanomaterials. Environ Pollut 185:69–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweet L, Strohm B (2006) Nanotechnology—life-cycle risk management. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 12:528–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TÜV SÜD Industrie Service (2013) Certification Standard CENARIOS®. Available at http://www.tuevsued.de/uploads/images/1219824286015340810363/CENARIOS_Zertifiziergrundlage_e.pdf

  • Van Duuren-Stuurman B, Vink SR, Verbist KJM, Heussen HGA, Brouwer DH et al (2012) Stoffenmanager Nano Version 1.0: a web-based tool for risk prioritization of airborne manufactured nano objects. Ann Occup Hyg 56:525–541

    Google Scholar 

  • van Harmelen T, Korenromp R, van Deutekom C, Ligthart T, van Leeuwen S, van Gijlswijk R (2007) The price of toxicity: methodology for the assessment of shadow prices for human toxicity, ecotoxicity and abiotic depletion. In: Huppes G, Ishikawa M (eds) Quantified eco-efficiency, vol 2. Springer International Publishing, Berlin, pp 105–125

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • van Harmelen T, Zondervan-van den Beuken EK, Brouwer DH, Kuijpers E, Fransman W, Buist HB, Ligthart TN, Hincapié I, Hischier R, Linkov I, Nowack B, Studer J, Hilty L, Som C (2016) LICARA nanoSCAN: a tool for the self-assessment of benefits and risks of nanoproducts. Submitted to Environment International (in press)

  • Van Leeuwen CJ, Vermeire TG (2007) Risk assessment of chemicals: an introduction. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Widler T, Meili C, Semenzin E, Subramanian V, Zabeo A, Hristozov D, Marcomini A (2016) Organisational risk management of nanomaterials using SUNDS: the contribution of CENARIOS®. In: Managing risk in nanotechnology: topics in governance, assurance and transfer. Springer series on Innovation, Technology and Knowledge Management (in press)

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was funded in part by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme [FP7/2007-2013] under ECGA No. 604305 ‘‘SUN’’. This publication reflects the views only of the authors, and the European Commission and other sponsors cannot be held responsible for any use, which may be made of the information contained therein.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonio Marcomini.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Subramanian, V., Semenzin, E., Hristozov, D. et al. Sustainable nanotechnology decision support system: bridging risk management, sustainable innovation and risk governance. J Nanopart Res 18, 89 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-016-3375-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-016-3375-4

Keywords

Navigation