The applicability of chemical alternatives assessment for engineered nanomaterials

The use of alternatives assessment to substitute hazardous chemicals with inherently safer options is gaining momentum worldwide as a legislative and corporate strategy to minimize consumer, occupational, and environmental risks. Engineered nanomaterials represent an interesting case for alternatives assessment approaches, because they can be considered both emerging "chemicals" of concern, as well as potentially safer alternatives to hazardous chemicals. However, comparing the hazards of nanomaterials to traditional chemicals or to other nanomaterials is challenging, and critical elements in chemical hazard and exposure assessment may have to be fundamentally altered to sufficiently address nanomaterials. The aim of this paper is to assess the overall applicability of alternatives assessment methods for nanomaterials and to outline recommendations to enhance their use in this context. The present paper focuses on the adaptability of existing hazard and exposure assessment approaches to engineered nanomaterials as well as strategies to design inherently safer nanomaterials. We argue that alternatives assessment for nanomaterials is complicated by the sheer number of nanomaterials possible. As a result, the inclusion of new data tools that can efficiently and effectively evaluate nanomaterials as substitutes is needed to strengthen the alternatives assessment process. However, we conclude that with additional tools to enhance traditional hazard and exposure assessment modules of alternatives assessment, such as the use of mechanistic toxicity screens and control banding tools, alternatives assessment can be adapted to evaluate engineered nanomaterials as potential substitutes for chemicals of concern and to ensure safer nanomaterials are incorporated in the design of new products. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2017;13:177-187. © 2016 SETAC.

[1]  Nanna B. Hartmann,et al.  Ecotoxicity of engineered nanoparticles to freshwater organisms , 2011 .

[2]  Division on Earth,et al.  A Framework to Guide Selection of Chemical Alternatives , 2014 .

[3]  Colin R. Janssen,et al.  Fate and effects of CeO2 nanoparticles in aquatic ecotoxicity tests. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[4]  Katre Juganson,et al.  Mechanisms of toxic action of Ag, ZnO and CuO nanoparticles to selected ecotoxicological test organisms and mammalian cells in vitro: A comparative review , 2014, Nanotoxicology.

[5]  Dik van de Meent,et al.  Multimedia Modeling of Engineered Nanoparticles with SimpleBox4nano: Model Definition and Evaluation , 2014, Environmental science & technology.

[6]  Igor Linkov,et al.  Nano Risk Governance: Current Developments and Future Perspectives , 2009 .

[7]  Timothy F. Malloy,et al.  Alternatives Assessment Frameworks: Research Needs for the Informed Substitution of Hazardous Chemicals , 2015, Environmental health perspectives.

[8]  Steffen Foss Hansen,et al.  NanoRiskCat: a conceptual tool for categorization and communication of exposure potentials and hazards of nanomaterials in consumer products , 2013, Journal of Nanoparticle Research.

[9]  Gareth Wakefield,et al.  The effects of manganese doping on UVA absorption and free radical generation of micronised titanium dioxide and its consequences for the photostability of UVA absorbing organic sunscreen components , 2004, Photochemical & photobiological sciences : Official journal of the European Photochemistry Association and the European Society for Photobiology.

[10]  D. Maysinger,et al.  Quantum dot cytotoxicity and ways to reduce it. , 2013, Accounts of chemical research.

[11]  Philip Demokritou,et al.  A Safer Formulation Concept for Flame-Generated Engineered Nanomaterials. , 2012, ACS sustainable chemistry & engineering.

[12]  Andrew P Worth,et al.  A theoretical framework for predicting the oxidative stress potential of oxide nanoparticles , 2011, Nanotoxicology.

[13]  Igor Linkov,et al.  The challenges of nanotechnology risk management , 2015 .

[14]  Dennis J. Paustenbach,et al.  Evaluation of the California Safer Consumer Products Regulation and the impact on consumers and product manufacturers. , 2014, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[15]  Catherine Rudisill,et al.  Advancing safer alternatives through functional substitution. , 2015, Environmental science & technology.

[16]  Feng Zhao,et al.  Low-toxic and safe nanomaterials by surface-chemical design, carbon nanotubes, fullerenes, metallofullerenes, and graphenes. , 2011, Nanoscale.

[17]  Steffen Foss Hansen,et al.  Operationalization and application of "early warning signs" to screen nanomaterials for harmful properties. , 2013, Environmental science. Processes & impacts.

[18]  Christian Micheletti,et al.  Engineered nanoparticles: Review of health and environmental safety (ENRHES). Project Final Report , 2010 .

[19]  Andrew P. Worth,et al.  A rule for designing safer nanomaterials: do not interfere with the cellular redox equilibrium , 2015, Nanotoxicology.

[20]  Steffen Foss Hansen,et al.  Occupational Exposure Assessment of Nanomaterials using Control Banding Tools , 2016 .

[21]  Igor Linkov,et al.  Use of multi‐criteria decision analysis in regulatory alternatives analysis: A case study of lead free solder , 2013, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[22]  Stacey L. Harper,et al.  Systematic Evaluation of Nanomaterial Toxicity: Utility of Standardized Materials and Rapid Assays , 2011, ACS nano.

[23]  Thomas A. J. Kuhlbusch,et al.  From Source to Dose: Emission, Transport, Aerosol Dynamics and Dose Assessment for Workplace Aerosol Exposure , 2014 .

[24]  Steffen Foss Hansen,et al.  Multicriteria mapping of stakeholder preferences in regulating nanotechnology , 2010, Journal of nanoparticle research : an interdisciplinary forum for nanoscale science and technology.

[25]  Igor Linkov,et al.  Multi-criteria decision analysis and environmental risk assessment for nanomaterials , 2007 .

[26]  Arnold Schwarzenegger,et al.  Department of Toxic Substances Control , 2006 .

[27]  Valentín.  Chapter 4. , 1998, Annals of the ICRP.

[28]  Anders Baun,et al.  How to assess exposure of aquatic organisms to manufactured nanoparticles? , 2011, Environment international.

[29]  Fadri Gottschalk,et al.  Environmental fate and behaviour of nanomaterials: New knowledge on important transfomation processes , 2014 .

[30]  Gregory Morose,et al.  The 5 principles of “Design for Safer Nanotechnology” , 2010 .

[31]  Vicki Stone,et al.  Toxicology of nanoparticles: A historical perspective , 2007 .

[32]  Fadri Gottschalk,et al.  Environmental concentrations of engineered nanomaterials: review of modeling and analytical studies. , 2013, Environmental pollution.

[33]  Fiona Murphy,et al.  Identifying the pulmonary hazard of high aspect ratio nanoparticles to enable their safety-by-design. , 2011, Nanomedicine.

[34]  Eleonore Fröhlich,et al.  The role of surface charge in cellular uptake and cytotoxicity of medical nanoparticles , 2012, International journal of nanomedicine.

[35]  R. E. Lee,et al.  Chemical alternatives assessment: enabling substitution to safer chemicals. , 2010, Environmental science & technology.

[36]  Wouter Fransman,et al.  Stoffenmanager Nano version 1.0: a web-based tool for risk prioritization of airborne manufactured nano objects. , 2012, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[37]  Benjamin Gilbert,et al.  Use of a rapid cytotoxicity screening approach to engineer a safer zinc oxide nanoparticle through iron doping. , 2010, ACS nano.

[38]  Steffen Foss Hansen,et al.  Specific Advice on Exposure Assessment and Hazard/Risk Characterisation for Nanomaterials under REACH (RIP-oN 3) - Final Project Report , 2011 .

[39]  Lutz Mädler,et al.  Use of metal oxide nanoparticle band gap to develop a predictive paradigm for oxidative stress and acute pulmonary inflammation. , 2012, ACS nano.

[40]  Igor Linkov,et al.  Benefits and risks of emerging technologies: integrating life cycle assessment and decision analysis to assess lumber treatment alternatives. , 2014, Environmental science & technology.