Demonstration of a modelling-based multi-criteria decision analysis procedure for prioritisation of occupational risks from manufactured nanomaterials

Abstract Several tools to facilitate the risk assessment and management of manufactured nanomaterials (MN) have been developed. Most of them require input data on physicochemical properties, toxicity and scenario-specific exposure information. However, such data are yet not readily available, and tools that can handle data gaps in a structured way to ensure transparent risk analysis for industrial and regulatory decision making are needed. This paper proposes such a quantitative risk prioritisation tool, based on a multi-criteria decision analysis algorithm, which combines advanced exposure and dose-response modelling to calculate margins of exposure (MoE) for a number of MN in order to rank their occupational risks. We demonstrated the tool in a number of workplace exposure scenarios (ES) involving the production and handling of nanoscale titanium dioxide, zinc oxide (ZnO), silver and multi-walled carbon nanotubes. The results of this application demonstrated that bag/bin filling, manual un/loading and dumping of large amounts of dry powders led to high emissions, which resulted in high risk associated with these ES. The ZnO MN revealed considerable hazard potential in vivo, which significantly influenced the risk prioritisation results. In order to study how variations in the input data affect our results, we performed probabilistic Monte Carlo sensitivity/uncertainty analysis, which demonstrated that the performance of the proposed model is stable against changes in the exposure and hazard input variables.

[1]  Igor Linkov,et al.  A weight of evidence approach for hazard screening of engineered nanomaterials , 2014, Nanotoxicology.

[2]  Wout Slob,et al.  Dose-response modeling of continuous endpoints. , 2002, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[3]  Reinhard Kreiling,et al.  A decision-making framework for the grouping and testing of nanomaterials (DF4nanoGrouping). , 2015, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[4]  Kurt Straif,et al.  Carcinogenicity of fluoro-edenite, silicon carbide fibres and whiskers, and carbon nanotubes. , 2014, The Lancet. Oncology.

[5]  L Edler,et al.  Risk assessment of substances that are both genotoxic and carcinogenic report of an International Conference organized by EFSA and WHO with support of ILSI Europe. , 2006, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[6]  Antonio Marcomini,et al.  Review of decision analytic tools for sustainable nanotechnology , 2015, Environment Systems and Decisions.

[7]  Keld Alstrup Jensen,et al.  NanoSafer vs. 1.1 Nanomaterial risk assessment using first order modeling , 2013 .

[8]  Nicklas Raun Jacobsen,et al.  Transcriptional profiling identifies physicochemical properties of nanomaterials that are determinants of the in vivo pulmonary response , 2015, Environmental and molecular mutagenesis.

[9]  F. O. Hoffman,et al.  Propagation of uncertainty in risk assessments: the need to distinguish between uncertainty due to lack of knowledge and uncertainty due to variability. , 1994, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[10]  I. Linkov,et al.  Risk-based classification system of nanomaterials , 2009 .

[11]  Li Bin,et al.  クリノアタカマイトCu2(OH)3ClとテノライトCuOナノ粒子のpH制御選択合成 , 2014 .

[12]  D. Bard,et al.  The effect of surface coatings on the dustiness of a calcium carbonate nanopowder , 2012, Journal of Nanoparticle Research.

[13]  Khara Grieger,et al.  A relative ranking approach for nano-enabled applications to improve risk-based decision making: a case study of Army materiel , 2014, Environment Systems and Decisions.

[14]  Steffen Foss Hansen,et al.  Specific Advice on Fulfilling Information Requirements for Nanomaterials under REACH (RIP-oN 2) – Final Project Report , 2011 .

[15]  F. Palmgren,et al.  Prediction of indoor concentration of 0.5–4 μm particles of outdoor origin in an uninhabited apartment , 2004 .

[16]  Keld Alstrup Jensen,et al.  Relevance of aerosol dynamics and dustiness for personal exposure to manufactured nanoparticles , 2009 .

[17]  E. Hubal,et al.  Exposure-based prioritization of chemicals for risk assessment , 2011 .

[18]  Jan Van Bruggen,et al.  Conceptual model for assessment , 2006 .

[19]  Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment , 2008 .

[20]  Igor Linkov,et al.  Nanotechnology: promoting innovation through analysis and governance , 2015, Environment Systems and Decisions.

[21]  Jerry M. Mendel,et al.  Ordered fuzzy weighted averages and ordered linguistic weighted averages , 2010, International Conference on Fuzzy Systems.

[22]  Antonio Marcomini,et al.  Application of a quantitative weight of evidence approach for ranking and prioritising occupational exposure scenarios for titanium dioxide and carbon nanomaterials , 2014, Nanotoxicology.

[23]  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.

[24]  R. Setzer,et al.  Application of the margin-of-exposure (MoE) approach to substances in food that are genotoxic and carcinogenic e.g.: benzo[a]pyrene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. , 2010, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[25]  Wouter Fransman,et al.  Revisiting the effect of room size and general ventilation on the relationship between near- and far-field air concentrations. , 2011, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

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

[27]  Zachary A. Collier,et al.  A Decision Analytic Approach to Exposure-Based Chemical Prioritization , 2013, PloS one.

[28]  P. Swuste,et al.  Application of a pilot control banding tool for risk level assessment and control of nanoparticle exposures. , 2008, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[29]  Yoshitake Masuda,et al.  α-Fe2O3ナノ構造体の形状制御合成:改良した光触媒分解効率のための表面特性の加工 , 2013 .

[30]  J. Cherrie.  The effect of room size and general ventilation on the relationship between near and far-field concentrations. , 1999, Applied occupational and environmental hygiene.

[31]  Thomas Schneider,et al.  Combined single-drop and rotating drum dustiness test of fine to nanosize powders using a small drum. , 2008, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[32]  Igor Linkov,et al.  Classifying Nanomaterial Risks Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis , 2009 .

[33]  Igor Linkov,et al.  Environmental risk analysis for nanomaterials: Review and evaluation of frameworks , 2012, Nanotoxicology.

[34]  Per Axel Clausen,et al.  Dustiness behaviour of loose and compacted Bentonite and organoclay powders: What is the difference in exposure risk? , 2009 .

[35]  Christine Ogilvie Robichaud,et al.  Estimates of upper bounds and trends in nano-TiO2 production as a basis for exposure assessment. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[36]  Lang Tran,et al.  ITS-NANO - Prioritising nanosafety research to develop a stakeholder driven intelligent testing strategy , 2014, Particle and Fibre Toxicology.

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

[38]  Nicklas Raun Jacobsen,et al.  Comparative Hazard Identification by a Single Dose Lung Exposure of Zinc Oxide and Silver Nanomaterials in Mice , 2015, PloS one.

[39]  M Levin,et al.  Testing the near field/far field model performance for prediction of particulate matter emissions in a paint factory. , 2015, Environmental science. Processes & impacts.

[40]  Antonio Marcomini,et al.  Risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials: a review of available data and approaches from a regulatory perspective , 2012, Nanotoxicology.

[41]  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.

[42]  Wouter Fransman,et al.  Conceptual model for assessment of inhalation exposure to manufactured nanoparticles , 2011, Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology.