Call for the Development of an Adaptative Tool for Assessing Human Health Posed by Engineered Nanoparticle Risk

Call for the Development of an Adaptative Tool for Assessing Human Health Posed by Engineered Nanoparticle Risk

S. Nadeau S. Hallé C. Viau Y. Cloutier 

Department of Mechanical Engineering, École de technologie supérieure, Canada

Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, and Public Health Research Institute, Université de Montréal, Canada

Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail, Canada

30 March 2012
| Citation



Assessing the risks associated with engineered nanoparticles (particles having at least one dimension in the 1–100 nm range) faces three major challenges: (1) lack of standard methodological approaches; (2) uncertainty surrounding the risk factors and their relative significance; and (3) lack of control strategies. Among the approaches that have been proposed are (1) adapting risk evaluation tools used in industrial hygiene; (2) use of evaluation concepts borrowed from the insurance industry; (3) determining the consensus among experts; (4) rating risk control measures; (5) construction of influence diagrams; and (6) use of techniques drawn from multi-criteria decision-making. Knowledge has advanced rapidly in the field of engineered nanoparticles, but comparison of studies is difficult and major gaps remain in the characterization of these materials and the risks they represent. Since they are already being introduced into commercial products and processes, the need is urgent for a flexible and dynamic tool for compiling and sharing detailed knowledge of the associated risks. Uncertainties need to be expressed and reduced. This tool must aid the decision-making of business managers, scientists, and other stakeholders. To the best of our knowledge, no approach suggested in the literature meets these criteria. Thus, the authors call to develop an adaptive, multidimensional decision support tool that indicates influence relationships among risk factors and fosters the gathering and sharing of knowledge, including uncertainties.


Decision-making processes, decision supports, engineered nanoparticles, risk assessment, risk management


[1] Hansen, S.F., Regulation and Risk Assessment of Nanomaterials. too Little, too Late? Ph.D. Thesis. Department of environmental engineering. Technical University of Denmark, 2009.

[2] Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies., 2009.

[3] Lux Research. Nanomaterials State of the Market Q3 2008: Stealth Success, Board Impact, Lux Research Inc.: New York, NY, 2008.

[4] Sinclair-Desgagné, B., Les nanotechnologies : bénéfices et risques potentiels, Rapport bourgogne, 2006RB–02, Cirano, 2006.

[5] Kandlikar, M., Ramachandran, G., Maynard, A.D., Murdock, B. & Toscano, W.A., Health risk assessment for nanoparticles: a case for using expert judgment. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 9, pp.137–156, 2007. doi:

[6] Framing Nano. Mapping study on regulation and governance of nanotechnologies. Report prepared by: AIRI/Nanotec IT, The Innovation Society, January 2009.

[7] European Commission. 1st Annual Nano Safety for Success Dialogue. Community Health and Consumer Protection. Brussels, October 25 and 26, 2007.

[8] Von Gleich, A., Steinfeldt, M. & Petschow, U., A suggested three-tiered approach to assessing the implications of nanotechnology and influencing its development. J. Clean-er Prod, 16, pp. 899–909, 2008. doi:

[9] Ostiguy, C., Roberge, B., Woods, C. & Soucy, B., Engineered Nanoparticles – Current Knowledge about OHS Risks and Prevention Measures, Second edition, IRSST Report R-656, July, 2010.

[10] European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee-Regulatory aspects of nanomaterials, COM/2008/0366 final. European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2008.

[11] Scenihr. The Appropriateness Of Existing Methodologies To Assess The Potential Risks Associated With Engineered And Adventitious Products Of Nanotechnologies, SCENIR Report/002/05, March 10, 2006.

[12] Privy Council Office. A Framework for the Application of Precaution in Science-Based Decision Making about Risk, Government of Canada, Report CP22–70/2003, 2003.

[13] Davis, J.M., How to assess the risks of nanotechnology: learning from past experience. Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, 7, pp. 402–409, 2007. doi: http://dx.doi. org/10.1166/jnn.2007.152

[14] Council of Canadian Academies. Small is Different: A Science Perspective on the Regulatory Challenges of the Nanoscale. Report of the Expert Panel on Nanotechnology, September, 2008.

[15] Kuzma, J., Paradise, J., Ramachandran, G., Kim, J.A., Kokotovich, A. & Wolf, S.M., An integrated approach to oversight assessment for emerging technologies. Risk Analysis, 28(5), pp. 1197–1219, 2008. doi:

[16] Institute of Occupational Medicine. Nanoparticles: An Occupational Hygiene Review. Health and Safety Executive, Research report 274, 2004.

[17] Balbus, J.M., Maynard, A.D., Colvin, V.L., Castranova, V., Daston, G.P., Denison, R.A., Dreher, K.L., Goering, P.L., Goldberg, A.M., Kulinowski, K.M., Monteiro-Riviere, N.A., Oberdörster, G., Omenn, G.S., Pinkerton, K.E., Ramos, K.S., Rest, K.M., Sass, J.B., Silbergeld, E.K. & Wong, B.A., Meeting Report: Hazard Assessment

for Nanoparticles – Report from an Interdisciplinary Workshop. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(11), pp. 1654–1659, 2007. doi:

[18] Gamo, M. & Kishimoto, A., Current Practices of Risk Management for Nanomaterials by Companies in Japan. Report of Findings: Research Project on Facilitation of Public Acceptance of Nanotechnology, 2006.

[19] Byron, K.W., Szaro R.C. & Shapiro C.D., Adaptive Management: The US Department of the Interior Technical Guide. US Department of the Interior, 2007.

[20] European Commission. Risk Assessment of Products of Nanotechnologies. Scientifica Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks. Directorate-General for Health & Consumers, January 19, 2009.

[21] Anses. Développement d’un Outil De Gestion Graduée Des Risques Spécifique Au Cas Des Nanomatériaux. Rapport d’appui scientifique et technique, 2008–SA–0407, January, 2011.

[22] NanoKomission. Responsible Use of nanotechnologies: Report and Recommendations of the German Federal Government’s NanoKomission for 2008. NanoKomission of the German Federal Government: Bonn, Berlin, November, 2008.

[23] AFNOR. Qualité en expertise. Prescriptions générales de compétence pour une expertise. NF X50–110, 2003.

[24] Warheit, D., Sayes, C.M., Reed, K.L. & Swain, K.A., Health Effects Related to Nanoparticle Exposures: Environmental, Health and Safety Considerations for Assessing Hazards and Risks. Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 120, pp. 35–42, 2008. doi: http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.pharmthera.2008.07.001

[25] Sweet, L. & Strohm, B., Nanotechnology-Life Cycle Risk Management. Human Ecotox Risk Assess, 12, pp. 528–551, 2006. doi:

[26] US Environmental Protection Agency. Nanotechnology White Paper. Science Policy Council. DC 20460, Report EPA 100/B–07/001, February 2007.

[27] Wetzel, M.D., Environmental, Health and Safety Issues and Approaches for the Processing of Polymer Nanocomposites. 66th Annual Technical Conference of the Society of Plastics Engineers, pp. 247–251, 2008.

[28] Environmental Defense-DuPont. Projet cadre sur les risques nano. June 21, 2007.

[29] National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology: An Information Exchange with NIOSH. Washington, D.C., Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, July, 2006.

[30] ORC Worldwide. Qualitative Exposure Assessment Tool. Nanotechnology Consensus Workplace Safety Guidelines. Risk Assessment Tools., 2009.

[31] Robichaud, C.O., Tanzil, D., Weilenmann, U. & Wiesner, M.R., Relative Risk Analysis of Several Manufactured Nanomaterials: an insurance industry context. Environmental Science and Technology, 39(22), pp. 8985–8994, 2005. doi: es0506509

[32] CDC Workplace Safety and Health. Progress Safe Nanotechnology in the Workplace. NIOSH Nanotechnology Center Report, June, 2007.

[33] Thomas, T., Bahadori, T., Savage, N. & Thomas, K., Moving Toward Exposure and Risk Evaluation of Nanomaterials: Challenges and Future Directions. Wiley Interscience, pp. 426–433, 2009.

[34] Wardak, A., Gorman, M.E., Swami, N. & Deshpande, S., Identification of risks in the life cycle of nanotechnology-based products. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 12(3),

pp. 435–448, 2008. doi:

[35] ISO. Nanotechnologies – Health and safety practices in occupational settings relevant to nanotechnologies. ISO/TR 12885, 2008.

[36] Swiss Federal Office of Public Health. Guidelines on the Precautionary Matrix of Synthetic Nanomaterials, Version 1.1, Berne, Swiss, December 2008.

[37] Truchon, G. & Cloutier, Y., Control banding et nanotechnologies. Travail et Sante, March, pp. 15–16, 2009.

[38] National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Qualitative Risk Characteriza-tion And Management Of Occupational Hazards: Control Banding (CB). Department of Health and Human Services. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Report DHHS 2009–152, August 2009.

[39] Maynard, A.D., Nanotechnology: the next big thing, or much ado about nothing? Ann Occup Hyg, 51(1), pp. 1–12, 2007. doi:

[40] Paik, S.Y., Zalk, D.M. & Swuste, P., Application of a pilot control banding tool for risk level assessment and control of nanoparticle exposures. Ann Occup Hyg, 52(6), pp. 419–428, 2008. doi:

[41] Schulte, P., Geraci, C. & Zumwalde, R., Hoover M, Kuempel E. Occupational risk management of engineered nanoparticles. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 5, pp. 239–249, 2008. doi:

[42] Schulte, P.A., Trout, D., Zumwalde, R.D., Kuempel, E., Geraci, C., Castranova, V., Mundt, D.J., Mundt, K.A. & Halperin, W.E., Options for Occupational Health Surveillance of Workers Potentially Exposed to Engineered Nanoparticles : State of Science. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 50(5), pp. 517–526, 2008. doi:

[43] Friedrichs, S. & Schulte, J., Environmental, health and safety aspects of nanotechnology-implications for the R&D in (small) companies. Science and Technology of Advanced Materials, 8, pp. 12–18, 2007. doi:

[44] Sullivan, R.A., Capturing invisible dust. Environmental Protection, 12, pp. 51–53, 2001.

[45] Safe Work Australia. Engineered Nanomaterials: evidence on the Effectiveness of Work-place Controls to Prevent Exposure. Commonwealth of Australia, November 23 2009.

[46] Morgan, K., Development of a preliminary framework for informing the risk analysis and risk management of nanoparticles. Risk Analysis, 25(6), pp. 1621–1635, 2005. doi:

[47] O’Hagan, A., Buck, C.E., Daneshkhah A., Eiser J.R., Garthwaite P.H., Jenkinson D.J., Oakley J.E. & Rakow T., Uncertain judgments. Eliciting experts’ probabilities. Wiley, USA, 2006.

[48] Linkov, I., Satterstrom, F.K., Steevens, J., Ferguson, E. & Pleus, R.C., Multi-criteria decision analysis and environmental risk assessment for nanomaterials. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 9, pp. 543–554, 2007. doi:

[49] Scher, C., Caputo, D., Forensic Environmental Analysis of Nanotechnology Regulation. NSTI-Nanotech, 2, pp. 628–630, 2007.

[50] Flari, V., Chaudhry, C., Neslo, R. & Cooke, R., Expert judgment based multi-crite-ria decision model to address uncertainties in risk assessment of nanotechnology-enabled food products. J. Nanopart Res, 13, pp. 1813–1831, 2011. doi: http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/s11051-011-0335-x

[51] Saaty, T.L., Fundamentals Of Decision Making And Priority Theory: With The Analytic Hierarchy Process. RWS Publications: Pittsburg, USA, 1996.

[52] Roy, B., Multicriteria Methodology For Decision Aiding. Kluwer Academic: Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1996.

[53] Priest, S., Greenhalgh T, Kramer V. Risk perceptions starting to shift? US citizens are forming opinions about nanotechnology. J. Nanopart Res, 12, pp. 11–20, 2010. doi:

[54] Cox, P., Niewöhner J., Pidgeon N., Gerrard S., Fischhoff B. & Riley D., The use of mental models in chemical risk protection: developing a generic workplace methodology. Risk Analysis, 23(2), pp. 311–324, 2003. doi:

[55] Johnson-Laird, P.N., Deductive Reasoning and the Brain, http://www.cogsci.bme. hu/~babarczy/Orak/BMEpostgrad/semantics/2005spring/Johnson-Lairdmental_ models.pdf.

[56] Haut Conseil de la Sante Publique. Avis relatif à la sécurité des travailleurs lors de l’exposition aux nanotubes de carbone. Ministère de la santé, de la jeunesse, des sports et de la vie associative, France, 2009.

[57] Rickerby, D.G., Nanotechnological Medical Devices and Nanopharmaceuticals: the European regulatory framework and research needs. Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, 7, pp. 4618–4625, 2007.

[58] Walker, N.J. & Bucher, J.R., Forum Series, part V., A 21st Century paradigm for evalu-ating the health hazards of nanoscale materials? Toxicological Sciences, 110(2):251– 254, 2009. doi:

[59] Romieu, I., Meneses F., Ruiz, S., Sienra, J.J., Huerta, J., White, M.C. & Etzel, R.A., Effects of air pollution on the respiratory health of asthmatic children living in Mexico city. Am. Journal Respir. Crit. Care Med., 154(2), pp. 300–307, 1996.

[60] Oberdörster, G., Oberdörster, E. & Oberdörster, J., Nanotoxicology: an Emerging Discipline Evolving from Studies of Ultrafine Particles. Environ Health Perspect, 113(7), 823–839, 2005. doi:

[61] Maynard, A.D. & Kuempel, E.D., Airborne Nanostructured Particles and Occupational Health. Journal of Nanoparticles Research, 7, pp. 587–614, 2005. doi: http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/s11051-005-6770-9

[62] Kunreuther, H., A Conceptual Framework for Managing Low-probability Events. In Krimskey S. & Golding D. Social Theories of Risk, Praeger: New-York USA, pp. 301–317, 1992.

[63] Ford, D.N. & Sterman, J.D., Expert Knowledge Elicitation to Improve Formal and Mental Models. Syst. Dyn. Rev., 14, pp. 309–340, 1998. doi: (SICI)1099-1727(199824)14:4<309::AID-SDR154>3.0.CO;2-5

[64] US Environmental Protection Agency. Expert Elicitation Task Force. Draft White Paper. Washington, DC: U.S. 20460, U.S., January 6, 2009.

[65] Beauchamp, A., Gérer le risque, vaincre la peur. Bellamin : Québec, Canada, 1996.

[66] Mays,  N.,  Pope,  C.  &  Popay,  J.,  Systematically  Reviewing  Qualitative  and Quantitative Evidence to Inform Management and Policy-making in the Health Field. Journal Health Serv Res Policy, 10(1), pp. S1–S20, 2005. doi: http://dx.doi. org/10.1258/1355819054308576

[67] Gottschalk, F., & Nowack, B., The Release of engineered nanomaterials to the envi-ronment. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 13, pp. 1145–1155, 2011. doi: http://

[68] Fransman, W., Cherrie, J., van Tongeren, M., Schneider, T., Tischer, M., Schinkel, J., Marquart, H., Warren, N., Kromhout, H. & Tielemans, E., Development of a Mechanistic Model for the Advanced REACH Tool (ART). TNO Report V9009, Version 1.0, June 2010.

[69] Linkov, I., Tervonen, T., Steevens, J., Chappell, M. & Figuiera, J.R., Use of a Multi-criteria Decision Analysis for Classification of Nanomaterials. Proceedings of International Perspectives on Environmental Nanotechnology. Applications and Implications, EPA905R09032, October 7–9, Chicago, USA, pp. 63–76, 2008.