Documents Hansen, Steffen F. 13 results

"The development, production and application of engineered nanomaterials are becoming more and more widespread. Because researchers, developers and industrial workers are the first in line to be exposed to potentially hazardous nanomaterials, appropriate occupational exposure assessment is a key area of concern. Therefore, a number of Control Banding (CB)-based tools have been developed in order to assess and manage the potential risks associated with occupational exposure to nanomaterials.
In this paper we provide a comparative analysis of different nanomaterial-specific types of control-banding/risk prioritization tools (the Control Banding Nanotool, IVAM Technical Guidance, Stoffenmanager Nano, ANSES CB Tool, NanoSafer, and the Precautionary Matrix) in order to evaluate their use-domains; types, extent, use and availability of input parameters; their output format; and finally their potential use and maturity in regard to meeting the minimum requirements for occupational exposure assessment under REACH and the conceptual source-transmission-receptor model by Schneider et al. (2011). This was done through an analysis including a literature review and use of the tools.
It was found that the tools were developed for different purposes, with different application domains and inclusion criteria. The exposure assessments and derived risk levels are based on different concepts and assumptions and outputs in different formats. The use of requested input parameters for exposure assessment differ greatly among the tools. Therefore, direct inter-comparison and combination of the different models into a larger holistic framework is not immediately possible.

Harmonization of input parameters and output could allow establishment of an exposure assessment framework with different levels of information requirements.

"The physical, chemical and biological properties of various nanomaterials differ substantially – as do the potential risks they pose. We argue that nanomaterials must be categorized based on the location of the nanoscale structure in the system/material before their hazards can be assessed and propose a categorization framework that enables scientists and regulators to identify the categories of nanomaterials systematically. The framework is applied to a suggested hazard identification approach aimed at identifying causality between inherent physical and chemical properties and observed adverse effects reported in the literature. We tested the workability of the proposed procedure using nanoparticles as an illustrative case study. A database was generated noting the reported inherent physical and chemical properties of the nanoparticles tested and the main effects observed. 428 studies were noted in the database reporting on a total of 965 nanoparticles. We found that although a limited number of studies have been reported on ecotoxicity, more than 120 and 270 have been reported on mammalian toxicity and cytotoxicity, respectively. In general there was a lack of characterization of the nanoparticles studied and it was not possible to link specific properties of nanoparticles to the observed effects. Our study shows that future research strategies must have a strong focus on characterization of the nanoparticles tested."

"History confirms that while technological innovations can bring many benefits, they can also cause much human suffering, environmental degradation and economic costs. But are we repeating history with new and emerging chemical and technological products? In preparation for volume 2 of ‘Late Lessons from Early Warnings' (European Environment Agency, 2013), two analyses were carried out to help answer this question. A bibliometric analysis of research articles in 78 environmental, health and safety (EHS) journals revealed that most focused on well-known rather than on newly emerging chemicals. We suggest that this ‘scientific inertia' is due to the scientific requirement for high levels of proof via well replicated studies; the need to publish quickly; the use of existing intellectual and technological resources; and the conservative approach of many reviewers and research funders. The second analysis found that since 1996 the funding of EHS research represented just 0.6% of the overall funding of research and technological development (RTD). Compared with RTD funding, EHS research funding for information and communication technologies, nanotechnology and biotechnology was 0.09%, 2.3% and 4% of total research, respectively. The low EHS research ratio seems to be an unintended consequence of disparate funding decisions; technological optimism; a priori assertions of safety; collective hubris; and myopia. In light of the history of past technological risks, where EHS research was too little and too late, we suggest that it would be prudent to devote some 5–15% of RTD on EHS research to anticipate and minimise potential hazards while maximising the commercial longevity of emerging technologies. "

"Based on a literature review this report provides a general description as well as an environmental and health profile of 7 nanomaterials. The examined nanomaterials are selected because of expected high use or specific environmental and health properties. Fullerenes, iron, silver, nanoclay and titanium-, cerium-, and silicondioxides were studied in the project. Based on current uses, it is concluded that current applications of nano-iron and nanoclay can not cause unexpected “nano-associated” health or environmental problems. Although no specific risk associated with current uses of any of the 7 other nanomaterials were identified, there are areas where there may be reason for attention and thus need for more knowledge."

"Besides the European Union (EU) Directive on Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of CHemicals (REACH), the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) is probably the single most important piece of environmental legislation in Europe when it comes to dealing with nanomaterials in the future given their widespread and dispersive use. Despite of the importance of the WFD, the WFD has come under little academic scrutiny in this regard.

While REACH deals with the manufacturing and import of chemicals, the Water Framework Directive is directed towards reducing the presence of dangerous chemicals (i.e. “priority substances”) in European waters.

In this article, we first introduce to the key elements of the WFD and we analyze and discuss the challenges that hamper the implementation of the WFD, if nanomaterials were to be covered by the WFD as effectively as e.g. xenobiotic organic chemicals and heavy metals.

These challenges include whether nanomaterials could be considered as possible candidates to be selected as priority substances, how European Member States are to establish Environmental Quality Standards (EQSs) for nanomaterials, how European Member States are to undertake environmental monitoring of nanomaterials and finally, the applicability of Best Available Techniques and associated emission limit values when it comes to reducing point and diffuse sources of nanomaterials. We recommend that emerging (eco)toxicological evidence as well as the possibility of widespread environmental contamination of certain nanomaterials is used to select priority substances and that resources are allocated toward obtaining a deeper scientific understanding of the environmental processes that form the basis for deriving EQSs today. Instead of focusing on environmental monitoring downstream, “upstream monitoring” should be implemented by systematically mapping nanomaterial production volumes, product concentrations, market penetration, dispersive vs. non-dispersive uses, etc. to map out the trends of environmental exposure in a given river basin district and finally, that focus is increased on engineering environmentally benign nanomaterials in order to prevent future point and diffuse sources of pollution."

"One of the concerns often voiced by critics of the precautionary principle is that a widespread regulatory application of the principle will lead to a large number of false positives (i.e., overregulation of minor risks and regulation of nonexisting risks). The present article proposes a general definition of a regulatory false positive, and seeks to identify case studies that can be considered authentic regulatory false positives. Through a comprehensive review of the science policy literature for proclaimed false positives and interviews with authorities on regulation and the precautionary principle we identified 88 cases. Following a detailed analysis of these cases, we found that few of the cases mentioned in the literature can be considered to be authentic false positives. As a result, we have developed a number of different categories for these cases of "mistaken false positives," including: real risks, "The jury is still out," nonregulated proclaimed risks, "Too narrow a definition of risk," and risk-risk tradeoffs. These categories are defined and examples are presented in order to illustrate their key characteristics. On the basis of our analysis, we were able to identify only four cases that could be defined as regulatory false positives in the light of today's knowledge and recognized uncertainty: the Southern Corn Leaf Blight, the Swine Flu, Saccharin, and Food Irradiation in relation to consumer health. We conclude that concerns about false positives do not represent a reasonable argument against future application of the precautionary principle."

"This review is the first of its kind in the emerging field of environmental fate and effects of nanomaterials. While other reviews in this area have focused merely on reviewing the ecotoxicological literature and pointing out the lack of knowledge, this review makes a link between the documented state-of-knowledge on effects of nanomaterials, possible environmental monitoring options, and the most important piece of legislation of the aquatic environment in Europe - the Water Framework Directive. With this combination, the review improves the knowledge and leads to a better understanding of an emerging issue of high international interest, not only for environmental researchers but also for regulators, water authorities, and other stakeholders in water resource issues."

"Nanomaterials and their associated technologies hold promising opportunities for the development of new materials and applications in a wide variety of disciplines, including medicine, environmental remediation, waste treatment, and energy conservation. However, current information regarding the environmental effects and health risks associated with nanomaterials is limited and sometimes contradictory. This article summarizes the conclusions of a 2008 NATO workshop designed to evaluate the wide-scale implications (e.g., benefits, risks, and costs) of the use of nanomaterials on human health and the environment. A unique feature of this workshop was its interdisciplinary nature and focus on the practical needs of policy decision makers. Workshop presentations and discussion panels were structured along four main themes: technology and benefits, human health risk, environmental risk, and policy implications. Four corresponding working groups (WGs) were formed to develop detailed summaries of the state-of-the-science in their respective areas and to discuss emerging gaps and research needs. The WGs identified gaps between the rapid advances in the types and applications of nanomaterials and the slower pace of human health and environmental risk science, along with strategies to reduce the uncertainties associated with calculating these risks."