Literature DB >> 16323804

Relative risk analysis of several manufactured nanomaterials: an insurance industry context.

Christine Ogilvie Robichaud1, Dicksen Tanzil, Ulrich Weilenmann, Mark R Wiesner.   

Abstract

A relative risk assessment is presented for the industrial fabrication of several nanomaterials. The production processes for five nanomaterials were selected for this analysis, based on their current or near-term potential for large-scale production and commercialization: single-walled carbon nanotubes, bucky balls (C60), one variety of quantum dots, alumoxane nanoparticles, and nano-titanium dioxide. The assessment focused on the activities surrounding the fabrication of nanomaterials, exclusive of any impacts or risks with the nanomaterials themselves. A representative synthesis method was selected for each nanomaterial based on its potential for scaleup. A list of input materials, output materials, and waste streams for each step of fabrication was developed and entered into a database that included key process characteristics such as temperature and pressure. The physical-chemical properties and quantities of the inventoried materials were used to assess relative risk based on factors such as volatility, carcinogenicity, flammability, toxicity, and persistence. These factors were first used to qualitatively rank risk, then combined using an actuarial protocol developed by the insurance industry for the purpose of calculating insurance premiums for chemical manufacturers. This protocol ranks three categories of risk relative to a 100 point scale (where 100 represents maximum risk): incident risk, normal operations risk, and latent contamination risk. Results from this analysis determined that relative environmental risk from manufacturing each of these five materials was comparatively low in relation to other common industrial manufacturing processes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16323804     DOI: 10.1021/es0506509

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Sci Technol        ISSN: 0013-936X            Impact factor:   9.028


  9 in total

1.  Transfer of gold nanoparticles from the water column to the estuarine food web.

Authors:  John L Ferry; Preston Craig; Cole Hexel; Patrick Sisco; Rebecca Frey; Paul L Pennington; Michael H Fulton; I Geoff Scott; Alan W Decho; Shosaku Kashiwada; Catherine J Murphy; Timothy J Shaw
Journal:  Nat Nanotechnol       Date:  2009-06-21       Impact factor: 39.213

2.  A study of the mechanism of in vitro cytotoxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles using catfish primary hepatocytes and human HepG2 cells.

Authors:  Yonggang Wang; Winfred G Aker; Huey-min Hwang; Clement G Yedjou; Hongtao Yu; Paul B Tchounwou
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2011-08-17       Impact factor: 7.963

Review 3.  A review of nanoparticle functionality and toxicity on the central nervous system.

Authors:  Z Yang; Z W Liu; R P Allaker; P Reip; J Oxford; Z Ahmad; G Ren
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2010-06-02       Impact factor: 4.118

4.  Fullerene C60 exposure elicits an oxidative stress response in embryonic zebrafish.

Authors:  Crystal Y Usenko; Stacey L Harper; Robert L Tanguay
Journal:  Toxicol Appl Pharmacol       Date:  2008-01-18       Impact factor: 4.219

Review 5.  Use of fluorescent quantum dot bioconjugates for cellular imaging of immune cells, cell organelle labeling, and nanomedicine: surface modification regulates biological function, including cytotoxicity.

Authors:  Akiyoshi Hoshino; Noriyoshi Manabe; Kouki Fujioka; Kazuo Suzuki; Masato Yasuhara; Kenji Yamamoto
Journal:  J Artif Organs       Date:  2007-09-20       Impact factor: 1.731

Review 6.  Needs and challenges for assessing the environmental impacts of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs).

Authors:  Michelle Romero-Franco; Hilary A Godwin; Muhammad Bilal; Yoram Cohen
Journal:  Beilstein J Nanotechnol       Date:  2017-05-05       Impact factor: 3.649

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

Authors:  Panagiotis Isigonis; Danail Hristozov; Christina Benighaus; Elisa Giubilato; Khara Grieger; Lisa Pizzol; Elena Semenzin; Igor Linkov; Alex Zabeo; Antonio Marcomini
Journal:  Nanomaterials (Basel)       Date:  2019-05-04       Impact factor: 5.076

8.  Low concentrations of silver nanoparticles in biosolids cause adverse ecosystem responses under realistic field scenario.

Authors:  Benjamin P Colman; Christina L Arnaout; Sarah Anciaux; Claudia K Gunsch; Michael F Hochella; Bojeong Kim; Gregory V Lowry; Bonnie M McGill; Brian C Reinsch; Curtis J Richardson; Jason M Unrine; Justin P Wright; Liyan Yin; Emily S Bernhardt
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-02-27       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Developing a semi-quantitative occupational risk prediction model for chemical exposures and its application to a national chemical exposure databank.

Authors:  Shih-Min Wang; Trong-Neng Wu; Yow-Jer Juang; Yu-Tung Dai; Perng-Jy Tsai; Chiu-Ying Chen
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2013-07-25       Impact factor: 3.390

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.