Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Data dialogues: critical connections for designing and implementing future nanomaterial research

  • Published:
Environment Systems and Decisions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Individuals and organizations in the engineered nanomaterial (ENM) community have increasingly recognized two related but distinct concerns: (1) Discordant data due to differences in experimental design (e.g., material characteristics, experimental model, and exposure concentration) or reporting (e.g., dose metric and material characterization details), and (2) a lack of data to inform decisions about ENM environmental, health, and safety (EHS). As one way to help address these issues, this Commentary discusses the important role of “data dialogues” or structured discussions between ENM researchers in EHS fields (e.g., toxicology, exposure science, and industrial hygiene) and decision makers who use the data researchers’ collect. The importance of these structured discussions is examined here in the context of barriers, solutions, and incentives: barriers to developing research relevant for human and ecological risk assessments; potential solutions to overcome such barriers; and incentives to help implement these or other solutions. These barriers, solutions, and incentives were identified by a group of expert stakeholders and ENM community members at the December 2013 Society for Risk Analysis panel discussion on research needed to support decision making for multiwalled carbon nanotubes. Key topics discussed by experts and ENM community members include: (1) The value of researchers collaborating with EHS decision makers (e.g., risk analysts, product developers, and regulators) to design research that can inform ENM EHS-related decisions (e.g., occupational exposure limits and product safety determinations), (2) the importance of funding incentives for such collaborative research, (3) the need to improve mechanisms for data sharing within and between sectors (e.g., academia, government, and industry), and (4) the critical need to educate the “next generation” of nanotechnology researchers in EHS topics (e.g., risk assessment, risk management). In presenting these outcomes, this Commentary is not intended to conclude the conversation that took place in December 2013 but rather to support a broader dialogue that helps ensure important risk assessment questions are answered for ENMs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For any substance considered in a CEA application, stakeholders review information in the CEA framework, which includes: the product life cycle; environmental transport, transformation, and fate; exposure and dose in human, ecological, and abiotic receptors; impacts in human and ecological health, as well economic, environmental resource, and societal impacts. The term product life cycle refers to the processes that take place for a particular product related to: raw material extraction, production, transport, storage, use, and disposal and/or recycling. The term abiotic receptors includes inanimate objects such as cars or buildings that may also be impacted by exposure to environmental contaminants (e.g., effects of sulfur in the form of acid rain on structures).

References

  • Anastas PT (2012) Fundamental changes to EPA’s research enterprise: the path forward. Environ Sci Technol 46:580–586. doi:10.1021/es203881e

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Back PE, Rosen L, Norberg T (2007) Value of information analysis in remedial investigations. Ambio 36:486–493. doi:10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[486:VOIAIR]2.0.co;2

  • Bauer C, Buchgeister J, Hischier R, Poganietz W, Schebek L, Warsen J (2008) Towards a framework for life cycle thinking in the assessment of nanotechnology J Clean. Prod 16:910–926. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.04.022

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonner JC et al (2013) Interlaboratory evaluation of rodent pulmonary responses to engineered nanomaterials: the NIEHS Nano GO Consortium. Environ Health Perspect 6:676–682. doi:10.1289/ehp.1205693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canis L, Linkov I, Seager TP (2010) Application of stochastic multiattribute analysis to assessment of single walled carbon nanotube synthesis processes. Environ Sci Technol 44:8704–8711. doi:10.1021/es102117k

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Davis JM (2013) A comprehensive environmental assessment approach to engineered nanomaterials. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 5:139–149. doi:10.1002/wnan.1203

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • EC (2013) Call for nanotechnology, advanced materials and production: assessment of environmental fate of nanomaterials, NMP-28-2014. http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/2517-nmp-28-2014.html

  • El Kazzouli S, El Brahmi N, Mignani S, Bousmina M, Zablocka M, Majoral JP (2012) From metallodrugs to metallodendrimers for nanotherapy in oncology: a concise overview. Curr Med Chem 19:4995–5010. doi:10.2174/0929867311209024995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Europarl (2014) Nanofoods: MEPs object to new labelling rules. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/fr/news-room/content/20140307IPR38125/html/Nanofoods-MEPs-object-to-new-labelling-rules. Accessed 17 March 2014

  • Fukumori Y, Ichikawa H (2006) Nanoparticles for cancer therapy and diagnosis. Adv Powder Tech 17:1–28. doi:10.1163/156855206775123494

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory R, Failing L, Harstone M, Long G, McDaniels T, Ohlson D (2012) Structured decision making. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ. doi:10.1002/9781444398557

  • Grieger KD, Linkov I, Hansen SF, Baun A (2012) Environmental risk analysis for nanomaterials: review and evaluation of frameworks. Nanotoxicology 6:196–212. doi:10.3109/17435390.2011.569095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grieger K, Sayes C, Hendren CO, Rothrock G, Mansfield C, Jayanty RKM, Ensor D (2013) Finding the key to responsible nanomaterial development: Multi-stakeholder collaboration needed. EHS Today. http://ehstoday.com/training/finding-key-responsible-nanomaterial-development?page=3

  • Hankin S, Boraschi D, Duschi A, Lehr C-M, Lichtenbeld H (2011) Towards nanotechnology regulation. Publish the unpublishable. Nano Today 6:228–231. doi:10.1016/j.nantod.2011.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris JK, Provan KG, Johnson KJ, Leischow SJ (2012) Drawbacks and benefits associated with inter-organizational collaboration along the discovery-development-delivery continuum: a cancer research network case study. Implement Sci 7:69. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendren CO, Mesnard X, Dröge J, Wiesner MR (2011) Estimating production data for five engineered nanomaterials as a basis for exposure assessment. Environ Sci Technol 45:2562–2569. doi:10.1021/es103300g

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • ICF (2011) Nanomaterial case study workshop: Developing a comprehensive environmental assessment research strategy for nanoscale silver - Workshop report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC

  • ILSI (2013) ILSI: risk science innovation and application. http://www.ilsi.org/ResearchFoundation/RSIA/Pages/NanoRelease1.aspx

  • Linkov I, Bates ME, Canis LJ, Seager TP, Keisler JM (2011a) A decision-directed approach for prioritizing research into the impact of nanomaterials on the environment and human health. Nat Nanotechnol 6:784–787. doi:10.1038/nnano.2011.163

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Linkov I, Welle P, Loney D, Tkachuk A, Canis L, Kim JB, Bridges T (2011b) Use of multicriteria decision analysis to support weight of evidence evaluation. Risk Anal 31:1211–1225. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01585.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu Y, Zhao Y, Sun B, Chen C (2013) Understanding the toxicity of carbon nanotubes. Acc Chem Res 46:702–713. doi:10.1021/ar300028m

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Masinter A, Small M, Casman E (2014) Research prioritization using hypothesis maps. Environ Syst Decis 34:49–59. doi:10.1007/s10669-014-9489-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nanotechnology (2013) It’s all about data. Nat Nanotechnol 8:691. doi:10.1038/nnano.2013.216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nanowerk (2014) Nanowerk: nanomaterial database. http://www.nanowerk.com/phpscripts/n_dbsearch.php

  • National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine (2004) Facilitating interdisciplinary research. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • NIOSH (2013a) Current strategies for engineering controls in nanomaterial production and downstream handling processes. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cincinnati, OH

  • NIOSH (2013b) Occupational exposure to carbon nanotubes and nanofibers vol 65. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cincinnati, OH

  • NNCO (2012) Regional, state, and local initiatives in nanotechnology. Report of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Workshop, May 1–2, 2012, Portland, Oregon. Arlington, VA

  • NNI (2011) Environmental Health and Safety Research Strategy. National Science and Technology Council, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowack B et al (2012) Potential scenarios for nanomaterial release and subsequent alteration in the environment. Environ Toxicol Chem 31:5059. doi:10.1002/etc.726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NRC (2012) A research strategy for environmental, health, and safety aspects of engineered nanomaterials. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (2013) Research progress on environmental, health, and safety aspects of engineered nanomaterials. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • NSF (2014a) EPA/NSF Networks for sustainable molecular design and synthesis (NSMDS)

  • NSF (2014b) SusChEM: IUPAC: Green and sustainable catalysts for synthesis of organic building blocks. http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1401722&HistoricalAwards=false

  • OECD (2012) Important issues on risk assessment of manufactured nanomaterials. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J (2014) A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res 14:2. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Painter K, McConnell ER, Sahasrabudhe S, Burgoon L, Powers CM (2014) What do the data show? Knowledge map development for comprehensive environmental assessment. Integr Environ Assess Manag 10:37–47. doi:10.1002/ieam.1486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PCAST (2012) Report to the president and congress on the fourth assessment of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Executive office of the President of the United States, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Powers CM et al (2012) Comprehensive environmental assessment: a meta-assessment approach. Environ Sci Technol 46:9202–9208. doi:10.1021/es3023072

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Powers CM et al (2014) A web-based tool to engage stakeholders in informing research planning for future decisions on emerging materials. Sci Total Environ 470–471:660–668. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.10.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (2014) The project on emerging nanotechnologies: inventories. http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/

  • Rapport DJ (1997) Transdisciplinarity: transcending the disciplines. Trends Ecol Evol 12:289. doi:10.1016/s0169-5347(97)81031-2

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • RTI International (2012) Nanomaterial case study workshop process: Identifying and prioritizing research for multiwalled carbon nanotubes: summary report-final. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park

    Google Scholar 

  • SCCS (2013) Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety: WG on ‘Nanomaterials in cosmetic products’. European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_miwg_166.pdf

  • Schrurs F, Lison D (2012) Focusing the research efforts. Nat Nanotechnol 7:546–548. doi:10.1038/nnano.2012.148

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schug TT et al (2013) ONE Nano: NIEHS’s strategic initiative on the health and safety effects of engineered nanomaterials. Environ Health Perspect 121:410–414. doi:10.1289/ehp.1206091

    Google Scholar 

  • Sooresh A, Zeng Z, Chandrasekharan J, Pillai SD, Sayes CM (2012) A physiologically relevant approach to characterize the microbial response to colloidal particles in food matrices within a simulated gastrointestinal tract. Food Chem Toxicol 50:2971–2977. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2012.05.025

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Hristozov D, Marcomini A, Linkov I (2014) Sustainable nanotechnology: defining, measuring and teaching. Nano Today. doi:10.1016/j.nantod.2014.01.001

    Google Scholar 

  • ter Riet G et al (2012) Publication bias in laboratory animal research: a survey on magnitude, drivers, consequences and potential solutions. PLoS ONE 7:e43404. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0043404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tervonen T, Linkov I, Figueira JR, Steevens J, Chappell M, Merad M (2009) Risk-based classification system of nanomaterials. J Nanopart Res 11:757–766. doi:10.1007/s11051-008-9546-1

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tolaymat TM, El Badawy AM, Genaidy A, Scheckel KG, Luxton TP, Suidan M (2010) An evidence-based environmental perspective of manufactured silver nanoparticle in syntheses and applications: a systematic review and critical appraisal of peer-reviewed scientific papers. Sci Total Environ 408:999–1006. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.11.003

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. EPA (2010a) Nanomaterial case studies workshop: developing a comprehensive environmental assessment research strategy for nanoscale titanium dioxide. U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. EPA (2010b) Nanomaterial case studies: nanoscale titanium dioxide in water treatment and in topical sunscreen (final) vol GRA and I. U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park

  • U.S. EPA (2012) Nanomaterial case study: nanoscale silver in disinfectant spray (final report). U.S. EPA, Washington, DC

  • U.S. EPA (2013) Comprehensive environmental assessment applied to multiwalled carbon nanotube flame-retardant coatings in upholstery textiles: a case study presenting priority research gaps for future risk assessments (final report). Washington, DC

  • U.S. GAO (2012) Nanotechnology: improved performance information needed for environmental, health, and safety research. United States Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Walser T, Demou E, Lang DJ, Hellweg S (2011) Prospective environmental life cycle assessment of nanosilver T-shirts. Environ Sci Technol 45:4570–4578. doi:10.1021/es2001248

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wardak A, Gorman ME, Swami N, Deshpande S (2008) Identification of risks in the life cycle of nanotechnology-based products. J Ind Ecol 12:435–448. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00029.x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wohlleben W, Meier MW, Vogel S, Landsiedel R, Cox G, Hirth S, Tomović Ž (2013) Elastic CNT-polyurethane nanocomposite: synthesis, performance and assessment of fragments released during use. Nanoscale 5:369–380. doi:10.1039/c2nr32711b

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the December 2013 Symposium panelists, Jim Alwood (U.S. EPA), Tim Fennell (RTI International) in conjunction with Sri Nadadur (NIEHS), Chuck Geraci (NIOSH), and Christie Sayes (RTI International) (also an author), for their insightful presentations. We are also grateful to symposium participants for the engaging discussion that provided a foundation for this article. Additionally, we appreciate insightful suggestions from Geniece Lehmann and Neal Fann (both U.S. EPA) for their valuable comments in reviewing previous drafts of this article.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Amy Wang

    Present address: Syngenta Crop Protection, 410 S Swing Rd, Greensboro, NC, 27409, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 109 TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, USA

    Christina M. Powers & Jeffrey S. Gift

  2. RTI International, 3040 Cornwallis Rd., Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA

    Khara D. Grieger & Christie M. Sayes

  3. Compass Resource Management Ltd, 200 – 1260 Hamilton Street, Vancouver, BC, V6B 2S8, Canada

    Christian Beaudrie

  4. Center for the Environmental Implications of NanoTechnology (CEINT), Duke University, Box 90287, 121 Hudson Hall, Durham, NC, 27708-0287, USA

    Christine Ogilvie Hendren

  5. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 67 Bingham Ridge Drive, Pittsboro, NC, 27312, USA

    J. Michael Davis

  6. National Center for Computational Toxicology, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 109 TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, USA

    Amy Wang

  7. Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Avenue, EVS/Bldg 240, Argonne, IL, 60439, USA

    Margaret MacDonell

Authors
  1. Christina M. Powers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Khara D. Grieger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christian Beaudrie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christine Ogilvie Hendren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. Michael Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Amy Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Christie M. Sayes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Margaret MacDonell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jeffrey S. Gift
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey S. Gift.

Additional information

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 108 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (TIFF 1580 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Powers, C.M., Grieger, K.D., Beaudrie, C. et al. Data dialogues: critical connections for designing and implementing future nanomaterial research. Environ Syst Decis 35, 76–87 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-014-9518-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-014-9518-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation