Nano Today
News and opinionsSustainable nanotechnology: Defining, measuring and teaching
Graphical abstract
Decision Model for selecting nanomanufacturing alternatives. The Triple Bottom Line approach is used to prioritize Baseline, Low-end and High-end manufacturing technologies based on typical weighting schemes for Manufacturers and Regulators. High-end alternative is preferred for Manufacturers, while Low-end alternative ranks higher for Regulators. Sensitivity analysis shows that small increase in Societal Values for regulators can change their preferences from Low to High technology alternatives. DECERNS software package (9) was used for modeling.
Section snippets
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to Giulia Pesce, Angela Arcoleo and Sara Stemberger and other students participating in the course “Assessment and management of environmental sustainability” at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice in the Fall 2013.
Vrishali Subramanian is a PhD student in Environmental Sciences at the Department of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice (Venice, Italy). She has masters’ degrees in Environmental Toxicology and Public Policy. Her research interests lie in the intersection of risk assessment and decision analytics applied to nanotechnology.
References (11)
- et al.
Human and Ecological Risk Assessment
(2008) REACH implementation project substance identification of nanomaterials (RIP-oN 1)
(2011)- et al.
Journal of Nanoparticle Research
(2010) Our Common Future
(1987)Cannibals with forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st century business
(2008)
Cited by (38)
Decision support for selection of new materials considering socio-economic and broader environmental aspects
2023, Sustainable Production and ConsumptionMultifunctional maca extract coated CuO nanoparticles with antimicrobial and dopamine sensing activities: A dual electrochemical – Smartphone colorimetric detection system
2022, Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: ChemistryCitation Excerpt :Recently, scientists have focused on studies that are related to the latest developments of multifunctional nanomaterials in various industrial applications [1–6]. The strategy of green and sustainable manufacturing has drawn great attention towards the synthesis of smart nanostructures by integrating bottom-up and top-down routes [7,8]. The green fabrication of nanomaterials is based on eliminating the usage and generation of hazardous substances and reducing the hazard of these chemicals [9,10].
Safe(r) by design guidelines for the nanotechnology industry
2022, NanoImpactDevelopment of a multi criteria decision analysis framework for the assessment of integrated waste management options for irradiated graphite
2021, Nuclear Engineering and TechnologyCitation Excerpt :Seven criteria were defined (Table 2), based on the three high-level objectives: environment and safety, economic and social [26]. This “triple-bottom line” approach to sustainability has influenced EU legislation [27,28] and has been used for sustainability assessment of energy systems [29,30] including nuclear energy [31] and waste disposal [32,33] as well as more broadly [34–36]. A series of audit checks against relevant international legislation, principles and guidelines [37–39] were performed to ensure that the criteria were comprehensive.
Comparison of tools for the sustainability assessment of nanomaterials
2018, Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable ChemistryCitation Excerpt :In order to give a complete consideration of both risks and impacts in the rapidly developing area of nanomaterials, there is a pressing need to combine current decision-making strategies with current assessment tools [11]. Investment in time, detail, a lack of data and no widely acknowledged definition of sustainability regarding nanomaterials means that, despite their presence in several sectors, nanomaterial-integrated products are marketed without full regulation [1–3,11–13]. The aim of this review is to provide an overview to the current methods used to assess risk and sustainability in nanomaterial life cycle and support comprehensive assessments.
Vrishali Subramanian is a PhD student in Environmental Sciences at the Department of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice (Venice, Italy). She has masters’ degrees in Environmental Toxicology and Public Policy. Her research interests lie in the intersection of risk assessment and decision analytics applied to nanotechnology.
Elena Semenzin is research assistant at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice (Venice, Italy). PhD in Environmental Sciences. Her research interests are in Environmental Risk Assessment for contaminated sites (i.e. both terrestrial and aquatic systems; traditional and emerging pollutants) focusing on the development of integrated risk indexes based on the Weight of Evidence (WoE) approach and decision support systems (DSS). She has experiences in development and application of bioaccumulation models and in the species sensitivity distribution (SSD) concept. She has experience in coordination of multidisciplinary research groups and is involved in international/national project proposals and development. She is currently co-leading WP8 “Decision support” of the EU FP7 SUN project “Sustainable Nanotechnology”.
Danail Hristozov is a research scientist at the Department of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics of University Ca’ Foscari Venice, and Venice Research Consortium in Italy. He is currently performing integrative research across the fields of decision analysis, risk assessment and governance of engineered nanomaterials. Prior to his current positions, Danail worked at Malsch Techno Valuation, a consultancy firm in the Netherlands, where he specialized in Technological Assessment of emerging nanotechnologies. He completed with excellence his M.Sc. degree across both the Schools of Chemistry and Environmental Science and Management at the Brandenburg University of Technology (BTU) in Germany, where he focused on studying the benefits and risks of engineered nanomaterials for the environment and the human health.
Antonio Marcomini is Professor of Environmental Chemistry at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, and leader of the Environmental chemistry and risk assessment unit at the Department of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics. He was a Post-doctoral fellow at the University of Toronto (Canada), and then research associate at the Polytechnic of Zurich, ETH-EAWAG (Switzerland). Coordinator/partner of several international and national research projects, he is author/coauthor of over 200 papers, editor and coauthor of two books; H-index of 38. His web site is located at http://www.unive.it/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=138224.
Igor Linkov is the Risk and Decision Science Focus Area Lead with the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, and an Adjunct Professor of Engineering and Public Policy with Carnegie Mellon University and Visiting Professor at Ca Foscari University in Venice. He is working on integrating decision-analytical and risk analysis tools to assess risk of emerging technologies and threats. He has published widely on environmental modeling, policy and risk analysis, including 14 books and over 200 peer-reviewed papers and book chapters. He is the recipient of two Army medals for outstanding civilian service. He is the recipient of the 2005 SRA Chauncey Starr Award for exceptional contribution to Risk Analysis, SRA Fellow award and was an elected SRA Councilor (2009-2013).