A web-based tool to engage stakeholders in informing research planning for future decisions on emerging materials

Abstract

Prioritizing and assessing risks associated with chemicals, industrial materials, or emerging technologies is a complex problem that benefits from the involvement of multiple stakeholder groups. For example, in the case of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs), scientific uncertainties exist that hamper environmental, health, and safety (EHS) assessments. Therefore, alternative approaches to standard EHS assessment methods have gained increased attention. The objective of this paper is to describe the application of a web-based, interactive decision support tool developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) in a pilot study on ENMs. The piloted tool implements U.S. EPA's comprehensive environmental assessment (CEA) approach to prioritize research gaps. When pursued, such research priorities can result in data that subsequently improve the scientific robustness of risk assessments and inform future risk management decisions. Pilot results suggest that the tool was useful in facilitating multi-stakeholder prioritization of research gaps. Results also provide potential improvements for subsequent applications. The outcomes of future CEAWeb applications with larger stakeholder groups may inform the development of funding opportunities for emerging materials across the scientific community (e.g., National Science Foundation Science to Achieve Results [STAR] grants, National Institutes of Health Requests for Proposals).

Needs and challenges for assessing the environmental impacts of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs)

“…The evaluated hazard identification frameworks were the Swiss Precautionary Matrix (SPM) [31], Risk Classification System based on Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA risk classification) [32–34], NanoRiskCat [35], the Decision-making framework for the grouping and testing of nanomaterials (DF4Nano grouping) [36], and the modified GreenScreen [37]. The evaluated frameworks for environmental risk/impact characterization were Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) [38–40], DuPont’s NanoRisk [41], US EPA’s Comprehensive Environmental Assessment (CEA) [42–43], NanoHAZ [44], Nanomaterial risk screening tool (NRST) [45], Engineered Nanoparticles – Review of Health and Environmental Safety: Human health and Ecological Risk Assessment (ENRHES RA) [46], Risk Quantification based on Probabilistic Mass Flow Modeling Analysis (PMFA Risk Assessment) [47], Forecasting of the Impacts of Nanomaterials in the Environment (FINE) based on Bayesian Networks (BN) [48], and Life Cycle Risk Analysis for nanomaterials (Nano LCRA) [49–50]. The assessed frameworks for occupational risk characterization were Risk based classification for occupational exposure control (Risk based OEL) [51], Risk Classification based on an Industry Insurance Protocol (RCIP) [52], CB Nanotool [53] and the Web-Based Tool for Risk Prioritization of Airborne Manufactured Nano Objects (Stoffenmanager Nano) [54].…”

“…CEA recommends the construction of an information system that considers both an expert domain knowledge (including via meta-analysis) and utilization of various LCA methods, cost-benefit analysis, and decision science methods, while engaging stakeholders in the CEA process. CEA was evaluated via a case study [43] in which stakeholder engagement (expert elicitation) served to collect information about the risk potential of using multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) in flame-retardant coatings in upholstery textiles. Expert opinions were elicited, via a web-based tool (“CEAWeb”) [43] to prioritize the range of needed studies on MWCNT release across the product life cycle and human exposure or health impacts, which included, for example, defining/quantifying exposure scenarios, effects of MWCNT functionalization, developing techniques to quantify MWCNTs in air and other media, and estimation of safety thresholds [43].…”

“…CEA was evaluated via a case study [43] in which stakeholder engagement (expert elicitation) served to collect information about the risk potential of using multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) in flame-retardant coatings in upholstery textiles. Expert opinions were elicited, via a web-based tool (“CEAWeb”) [43] to prioritize the range of needed studies on MWCNT release across the product life cycle and human exposure or health impacts, which included, for example, defining/quantifying exposure scenarios, effects of MWCNT functionalization, developing techniques to quantify MWCNTs in air and other media, and estimation of safety thresholds [43]. CEA case studies were also documented for Nano Ag and Nano TiO 2 , in which information gaps were assessed to identify future research needs and priorities [72].…”

“…Several existing frameworks are suitable for Scenario V, including US EPA’s own Comprehensive Environmental Assessment CEA [42–43], Nano HAZ [87], a risk quantification based on probabilistic flow modeling analysis (PMFA RQ) [47], BN FINE [48], and the Nanomaterial Risk-Screening Tool (NRST). CEA is useful for regulatory decision analysis (e.g., regarding issuance of Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) for a new ENM) because it can be used to systematically organize information.…”

Predictive Ecotoxicology and Environmental Assessment

“…Finally, Powers et al (2014) described a web-based tool allowing the implementation of USEPA's comprehensive environmental assessment approach to prioritize research gaps in the field of emerging materials. Briefly, a prioritization matrix was built taking into account expert judgments about the "importance" of research areas to risk assessment efforts and the "confidence" in the availability and utility of current information to support risk management decisions.…”