Evaluating environmental risk assessment models for nanomaterials according to requirements along the product innovation Stage-Gate process

Hristozov²,

Benighaus

et al. 2019

Nanomaterials

Nanotechnologies have been increasingly used in industrial applications and consumer products across several sectors, including construction, transportation, energy, and healthcare. The widespread application of these technologies has raised concerns regarding their environmental, health, societal, and economic impacts. This has led to the investment of enormous resources in Europe and beyond into the development of tools to facilitate the risk assessment and management of nanomaterials, and to inform more robust risk governance process. In this context, several risk governance frameworks have been developed. In our study, we present and review those, and identify a set of criteria and tools for risk evaluation, mitigation, and communication, the implementation of which can inform better risk management decision-making by various stakeholders from e.g., industry, regulators, and the civil society. Based on our analysis, we recommend specific methods from decision science and information technologies that can improve the existing risk governance tools so that they can communicate, evaluate, and mitigate risks more transparently, taking stakeholder perspectives and expert opinion into account, and considering all relevant criteria in establishing the risk-benefit balance of these emerging technologies to enable more robust decisions about the governance of their risks.

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk Governance of Nanomaterials: Review of Criteria and Tools for Risk Communication, Evaluation, and Mitigation

Hristozov²,

Benighaus

et al. 2019

Nanomaterials

“…For example, Hristozov et al [62] have detailed the range of different risk pre-assessment and evaluation methods available, Lombi et al [63] addressed risk governance in the agriculture-nanotechnology field, while Grieger et al [64] have detailed the bevy of tools for risk screening of NMs. Similarly, Subramanian et al [65] and Isigonis et al [66] reflected upon tools for nanotechnology risk communication and mitigation, Trump et al [67] presented six options that have been deployed to address uncertainty regarding NMs in the United States, the European Union, as well as in developing countries, while Sørensen et al [68] evaluated environmental risk assessment models for NMs, in relation to their applicability within the caLIBRAte product innovation framework for NMs risk governance.…”

Section: Moving From Risk Assessment and Management To Governance Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk Governance of Emerging Technologies Demonstrated in Terms of its Applicability to Nanomaterials

Afantitis

Antunes³

et al. 2020

Small

Nanotechnologies have reached maturity and market penetration that require nano‐specific changes in legislation and harmonization among legislation domains, such as the amendments to REACH for nanomaterials (NMs) which came into force in 2020. Thus, an assessment of the components and regulatory boundaries of NMs risk governance is timely, alongside related methods and tools, as part of the global efforts to optimise nanosafety and integrate it into product design processes, via Safe(r)‐by‐Design (SbD) concepts. This paper provides an overview of the state‐of‐the‐art regarding risk governance of NMs and lays out the theoretical basis for the development and implementation of an effective, trustworthy and transparent risk governance framework for NMs. The proposed framework enables continuous integration of the evolving state of the science, leverages best practice from contiguous disciplines and facilitates responsive re‐thinking of nanosafety governance to meet future needs. To achieve and operationalise such framework, a science‐based Risk Governance Council (RGC) for NMs is being developed. The framework will provide a toolkit for independent NMs' risk governance and integrates needs and views of stakeholders. An extension of this framework to relevant advanced materials and emerging technologies is also envisaged, in view of future foundations of risk research in Europe and globally.

“…This problem is addressed in numerous research projects developing Decision Support Systems for nanomaterials. [ 10–12 ]…”

Section: The Science Policy Problems Addressed By Riskgonementioning

confidence: 99%

Embedding Ethical Impact Assessment in Nanosafety Decision Support

Malsch

Dušinská

et al. 2020

Small

Nanotechnology is a key enabling technology, which is developing fast and influences many aspects of life. Nanomaterials are already included in a broad range of products and industrial sectors. Nanosafety issues are still a matter of concern for policy makers and stakeholders, but currently, there is no platform where all stakeholders can meet and discuss these issues. A comprehensive overview of all the issues in one single dashboard presenting the output of a decision support system is also lacking. This article outlines a strategy for developing one innovative part of a modular decision support system, designed to support the work of a new Risk Governance Council (RGC) for nanomaterials which will be established through the combined efforts of the GOV4NANO, NANORIGO, and RiskGONE H2020 projects. This new module will consist of guidelines for Ethical Impact Assessment (EIA) for nanomaterials and nanoenabled products. This article offers recommendations for adapting the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) prestandard on Ethical Impact Assessment CWA (CEN Workshop Agreement) 17145‐2:2017 (E), to fit into the more‐encompassing decision support system for risk governance of nanomaterials within the RiskGONE project.