A model sensitivity analysis to determine the most important physicochemical properties driving environmental fate and exposure of engineered nanoparticles

Sensitivity analyses indicate attachment efficiency and transformation rate constant are most important in modeling environmental fate of engineered nanoparticles.

[1]  Flemming R Cassee,et al.  Considerations for Safe Innovation: The Case of Graphene. , 2017, ACS nano.

[2]  Arturo A. Keller,et al.  Assessing the Risk of Engineered Nanomaterials in the Environment: Development and Application of the nanoFate Model. , 2017, Environmental science & technology.

[3]  Roland W. Scholz,et al.  Probabilistic material flow modeling for assessing the environmental exposure to compounds: Methodology and an application to engineered nano-TiO2 particles , 2010, Environ. Model. Softw..

[4]  G. Schaumann,et al.  Nanoparticles in the environment: where do we come from, where do we go to? , 2018, Environmental Sciences Europe.

[5]  Albert A Koelmans,et al.  Simplifying modeling of nanoparticle aggregation-sedimentation behavior in environmental systems: a theoretical analysis. , 2014, Water research.

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

[7]  B. Nowack,et al.  Exposure modeling of engineered nanoparticles in the environment. , 2008, Environmental science & technology.

[8]  D. Mackay,et al.  Environmental Persistence of Chemicals , 2006, Environmental science and pollution research international.

[9]  Peter Kearns,et al.  Physico-chemical properties of manufactured nanomaterials - Characterisation and relevant methods. An outlook based on the OECD Testing Programme , 2018, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[10]  Thomas A. J. Kuhlbusch,et al.  A Review of the Properties and Processes Determining the Fate of Engineered Nanomaterials in the Aquatic Environment , 2015 .

[11]  R. Scholz,et al.  Modeled environmental concentrations of engineered nanomaterials (TiO(2), ZnO, Ag, CNT, Fullerenes) for different regions. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[12]  Michala E Pettitt,et al.  Minimum physicochemical characterisation requirements for nanomaterial regulation. , 2013, Environment international.

[13]  Maria Dusinska,et al.  The importance of life cycle concepts for the development of safe nanoproducts. , 2010, Toxicology.

[14]  J. Hamilton-Taylor,et al.  Characterizing Colloidal Material in Natural Waters , 1997 .

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

[16]  Damià Barceló,et al.  Considerations of Environmentally Relevant Test Conditions for Improved Evaluation of Ecological Hazards of Engineered Nanomaterials. , 2016, Environmental science & technology.

[17]  Linsey C Marr,et al.  The role of atmospheric transformations in determining environmental impacts of carbonaceous nanoparticles. , 2010, Journal of environmental quality.

[18]  Albert A Koelmans,et al.  Rapid settling of nanoparticles due to heteroaggregation with suspended sediment , 2014, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[19]  Albert A Koelmans,et al.  Spatially explicit fate modelling of nanomaterials in natural waters. , 2015, Water research.

[20]  K. Hungerbühler,et al.  Comprehensive probabilistic modelling of environmental emissions of engineered nanomaterials. , 2014, Environmental pollution.

[21]  Yoram Cohen,et al.  Multimedia environmental distribution of engineered nanomaterials. , 2014, Environmental science & technology.

[22]  Elizabeth A. Casman,et al.  Much ado about α: reframing the debate over appropriate fate descriptors in nanoparticle environmental risk modeling , 2015 .

[23]  Maureen R. Gwinn,et al.  Comprehensive Environmental Assessment: A Meta-Assessment Approach , 2012, Environmental science & technology.

[24]  Jamie R Lead,et al.  Nanomaterials in the environment: Behavior, fate, bioavailability, and effects , 2008, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[25]  Richard J. Williams,et al.  Models for assessing engineered nanomaterial fate and behaviour in the aquatic environment , 2019, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability.

[26]  S. Trapp,et al.  A multimedia activity model for ionizable compounds: Validation study with 2,4‐dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, aniline, and trimethoprim , 2010, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[27]  Bernd Nowack,et al.  Evaluation of environmental exposure models for engineered nanomaterials in a regulatory context , 2017 .

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

[29]  Sverker Molander,et al.  Facing complexity through informed simplifications: a research agenda for aquatic exposure assessment of nanoparticles. , 2013, Environmental science. Processes & impacts.

[30]  Elizabeth A. Casman,et al.  Modeling nanosilver transformations in freshwater sediments. , 2013, Environmental science & technology.

[31]  Richard Zepp,et al.  Modeling framework for simulating concentrations of solute chemicals, nanoparticles, and solids in surface waters and sediments: WASP8 Advanced Toxicant Module , 2019, Environ. Model. Softw..

[32]  Liping Pang,et al.  Transport of silver nanoparticles in saturated columns of natural soils. , 2013, The Science of the total environment.

[33]  C. Knightes,et al.  Simulating graphene oxide nanomaterial phototransformation and transport in surface water. , 2019, Environmental science. Nano.

[34]  M. Hassellöv,et al.  Measurements of nanoparticle number concentrations and size distributions in contrasting aquatic environments using nanoparticle tracking analysis , 2010 .

[35]  D van de Meent,et al.  Guidance for the prognostic risk assessment of nanomaterials in aquatic ecosystems. , 2015, The Science of the total environment.

[36]  Konrad Hungerbühler,et al.  Addressing the complexity of water chemistry in environmental fate modeling for engineered nanoparticles. , 2015, The Science of the total environment.

[37]  Peter V. Hobbs,et al.  Aerosol-Cloud-Climate Interactions , 1993 .

[38]  R. Laane,et al.  Modelling the Release, Transport and Fate of Engineered Nanoparticles in the Aquatic Environment - A Review. , 2016, Reviews of environmental contamination and toxicology.

[39]  Jeffrey J. Clark,et al.  Pore water flow due to near‐bed turbulence and associated solute transfer in a stream or lake sediment bed , 2009 .

[40]  M R Wiesner,et al.  Comparison of manufactured and black carbon nanoparticle concentrations in aquatic sediments. , 2009, Environmental pollution.

[41]  Rong Liu,et al.  Bayesian network as a support tool for rapid query of the environmental multimedia distribution of nanomaterials. , 2017, Nanoscale.

[42]  Elizabeth A. Casman,et al.  Modeling nanomaterial environmental fate in aquatic systems. , 2015, Environmental science & technology.

[43]  Jean-Luc Loizeau,et al.  Use of single particle counters for the determination of the number and size distribution of colloids in natural surface waters , 2003 .

[44]  Björn A. Sandén,et al.  Challenges in Exposure Modeling of Nanoparticles in Aquatic Environments , 2011 .

[45]  Robert C. Schwartz,et al.  Estimating parameters for a dual-porosity model to describe non-equilibrium, reactive transport in a fine-textured soil , 2000 .

[46]  Arnim Wiek,et al.  Risks and nanotechnology: the public is more concerned than experts and industry. , 2007, Nature nanotechnology.

[47]  J. Keskinen,et al.  Mode resolved density of atmospheric aerosol particles , 2008 .

[48]  Phil Sayre,et al.  Regulatory relevant and reliable methods and data for determining the environmental fate of manufactured nanomaterials , 2017 .

[49]  Steffen Foss Hansen,et al.  Revising REACH guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment for engineered nanomaterials for aquatic ecotoxicity endpoints: recommendations from the EnvNano project , 2017, Environmental Sciences Europe.

[50]  Lennart Bergström,et al.  Hamaker constants of inorganic materials , 1997 .

[51]  Andreas R. Köhler,et al.  Environmental and Health Implications of Nanotechnology—Have Innovators Learned the Lessons from Past Experiences? , 2008 .

[52]  Anders Baun,et al.  Regulatory adequacy of aquatic ecotoxicity testing of nanomaterials , 2017 .

[53]  C. Knightes,et al.  Environmental fate of multiwalled carbon nanotubes and graphene oxide across different aquatic ecosystems. , 2019, NanoImpact.

[54]  B. Nowack,et al.  Occurrence, behavior and effects of nanoparticles in the environment. , 2007, Environmental pollution.

[55]  F. Elsass,et al.  Investigation of physico-chemical features of soil colloidal suspensions , 2006 .

[56]  Steffen Foss Hansen,et al.  Development of Comparative Toxicity Potentials of TiO2 Nanoparticles for Use in Life Cycle Assessment. , 2017, Environmental science & technology.

[57]  Nathalie Tufenkji,et al.  Aggregation and deposition of engineered nanomaterials in aquatic environments: role of physicochemical interactions. , 2010, Environmental science & technology.

[58]  F. Christensen,et al.  Modeling Flows and Concentrations of Nine Engineered Nanomaterials in the Danish Environment , 2015, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[59]  Willie J.G.M. Peijnenburg,et al.  Modeling nanomaterial fate and uptake in the environment: current knowledge and future trends , 2016 .

[60]  Hilko van der Voet,et al.  Combining exposure and effect modeling into an integrated probabilistic environmental risk assessment for nanoparticles , 2016, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[61]  Mark R. Wiesner,et al.  Estimating production data for five engineered nanomaterials as a basis for exposure assessment. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[62]  Konrad Hungerbühler,et al.  Development of environmental fate models for engineered nanoparticles--a case study of TiO2 nanoparticles in the Rhine River. , 2012, Environmental science & technology.

[63]  P. Sasidhar,et al.  Stability assessment and characterization of colloids in coastal groundwater aquifer system at Kalpakkam , 2011 .

[64]  Dik van de Meent,et al.  Considerations on the EU definition of a nanomaterial: science to support policy making. , 2013, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[65]  Nathalie Tufenkji,et al.  Correlation equation for predicting single-collector efficiency in physicochemical filtration in saturated porous media. , 2004, Environmental science & technology.

[66]  Dik van de Meent,et al.  Natural colloids are the dominant factor in the sedimentation of nanoparticles , 2012, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[67]  Mark R. Wiesner,et al.  Modeling approaches for characterizing and evaluating environmental exposure to engineered nanomaterials in support of risk-based decision making. , 2013, Environmental science & technology.

[68]  Antonio Marcomini,et al.  Frameworks and tools for risk assessment of manufactured nanomaterials. , 2016, Environment international.

[69]  Albert A Koelmans,et al.  Potential scenarios for nanomaterial release and subsequent alteration in the environment , 2012, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[70]  C. Knightes,et al.  Simulating Multiwalled Carbon Nanotube Transport in Surface Water Systems Using the Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program (WASP). , 2017, Environmental science & technology.

[71]  Vincent-Henri Peuch,et al.  Parameterization of size-dependent particle dry deposition velocities for global modeling , 2004 .

[72]  Arturo A. Keller,et al.  Global life cycle releases of engineered nanomaterials , 2013, Journal of Nanoparticle Research.

[73]  Phil Sayre,et al.  Review of achievements of the OECD Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials' Testing and Assessment Programme. From exploratory testing to test guidelines. , 2016, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[74]  Joris T.K. Quik,et al.  Multimedia environmental fate and speciation of engineered nanoparticles: a probabilistic modeling approach , 2016 .

[75]  Nathalie Tufenkji,et al.  The road to nowhere: equilibrium partition coefficients for nanoparticles , 2014 .

[76]  Andrew D Maynard,et al.  Exposure Assessment Approaches for Engineered Nanomaterials , 2010, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[77]  Elizabeth A. Casman,et al.  Stream dynamics and chemical transformations control the environmental fate of silver and zinc oxide nanoparticles in a watershed-scale model. , 2015, Environmental science & technology.

[78]  H. Lenihan,et al.  Common strategies and technologies for the ecosafety assessment and design of nanomaterials entering the marine environment. , 2014, ACS nano.

[79]  Arturo A. Keller,et al.  Emerging patterns for engineered nanomaterials in the environment: a review of fate and toxicity studies , 2014, Journal of Nanoparticle Research.

[80]  Yoram Cohen,et al.  Simulation tool for assessing the release and environmental distribution of nanomaterials , 2015, Beilstein journal of nanotechnology.