Literature DB >> 28775351

Setting the stage for debating the roles of risk assessment and life-cycle assessment of engineered nanomaterials.

Jeroen B Guinée1, Reinout Heijungs1,2, Martina G Vijver1, Willie J G M Peijnenburg1,3.   

Abstract

Although technological and environmental benefits are important stimuli for nanotechnology development, these technologies have been contested from an environmental point of view. The steady growth of applications of engineered nanomaterials has heated up the debate on quantifying the environmental repercussions. The two main scientific methods to address these environmental repercussions are risk assessment and life-cycle assessment. The strengths and weaknesses of each of these methods, and the relation between them, have been a topic of debate in the world of traditional chemistry for over two decades. Here we review recent developments in this debate in general and for the emerging field of nanomaterials specifically. We discuss the pros and cons of four schools of thought for combining and integrating risk assessment and life-cycle assessment and conclude with a plea for action.

Year:  2017        PMID: 28775351     DOI: 10.1038/nnano.2017.135

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nat Nanotechnol        ISSN: 1748-3387            Impact factor:   39.213


  31 in total

1.  New method for calculating comparative toxicity potential of cationic metals in freshwater: application to copper, nickel, and zinc.

Authors:  Nilima Gandhi; Miriam L Diamond; Dik van de Meent; Mark A J Huijbregts; Willie J G M Peijnenburg; Jeroen Guinée
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2010-07-01       Impact factor: 9.028

2.  Risk analysis, life cycle assessment--the common challenge of dealing with the precautionary frame (based on the toxicity controversy in Sweden and The Netherlands).

Authors:  Arnold Tukker
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 4.000

3.  GLOBOX: A spatially differentiated global fate, intake and effect model for toxicity assessment in LCA.

Authors:  Anneke Wegener Sleeswijk; Reinout Heijungs
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2010-04-14       Impact factor: 7.963

Review 4.  Review of Environmental Assessment Case Studies Blending Elements of Risk Assessment and Life Cycle Assessment.

Authors:  Robin Harder; Hanna Holmquist; Sverker Molander; Magdalena Svanström; Gregory M Peters
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2015-11-06       Impact factor: 9.028

5.  Harmonization of methods for impact assessment.

Authors:  R Heijungs
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 4.223

6.  Life cycle risk assessment of bottom ash reuse.

Authors:  Hsiu-ching Shih; Hwong-wen Ma
Journal:  J Hazard Mater       Date:  2011-03-22       Impact factor: 10.588

7.  Quick lessons on environmental nanotech.

Authors:  Chris Toumey
Journal:  Nat Nanotechnol       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 39.213

8.  Priority screening of toxic chemicals and industry sectors in the U.S. toxics release inventory: a comparison of the life cycle impact-based and risk-based assessment tools developed by U.S. EPA.

Authors:  Seong-Rin Lim; Carl W Lam; Julie M Schoenung
Journal:  J Environ Manage       Date:  2011-05-10       Impact factor: 6.789

9.  Including pathogen risk in life cycle assessment of wastewater management. 2. Quantitative comparison of pathogen risk to other impacts on human health.

Authors:  Sara Heimersson; Robin Harder; Gregory M Peters; Magdalena Svanström
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2014-08-05       Impact factor: 9.028

Review 10.  Uniform system for the evaluation of substances. I. Principles and structure.

Authors:  T G Vermeire; P T van der Zandt; H Roelfzema; C J van Leeuwen
Journal:  Chemosphere       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 7.086

View more
  6 in total

1.  Toward harmonizing ecotoxicity characterization in life cycle impact assessment.

Authors:  Peter Fantke; Nicoló Aurisano; Jane Bare; Thomas Backhaus; Cécile Bulle; Peter M Chapman; Dick De Zwart; Robert Dwyer; Alexi Ernstoff; Laura Golsteijn; Hanna Holmquist; Olivier Jolliet; Thomas E McKone; Mikołaj Owsianiak; Willie Peijnenburg; Leo Posthuma; Sandra Roos; Erwan Saouter; Diederik Schowanek; Nico M van Straalen; Martina G Vijver; Michael Hauschild
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 3.742

2.  An inventory of ready-to-use and publicly available tools for the safety assessment of nanomaterials.

Authors:  A Paula K Jantunen; Stefania Gottardo; Kirsten Rasmussen; Hugues P Crutzen
Journal:  NanoImpact       Date:  2018-10

3.  Distinguishing the sources of silica nanoparticles by dual isotopic fingerprinting and machine learning.

Authors:  Xuezhi Yang; Xian Liu; Aiqian Zhang; Dawei Lu; Gang Li; Qinghua Zhang; Qian Liu; Guibin Jiang
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2019-04-08       Impact factor: 14.919

4.  Applying an innovative biodegradable self-assembly nanomicelles to deliver α-mangostin for improving anti-melanoma activity.

Authors:  Shuping Yang; Xiang Gao; Yihong He; Yuzhu Hu; Bocheng Xu; Zhiqiang Cheng; Mingli Xiang; Yongmei Xie
Journal:  Cell Death Dis       Date:  2019-02-15       Impact factor: 8.469

5.  TiO₂, SiO₂ and ZrO₂ Nanoparticles Synergistically Provoke Cellular Oxidative Damage in Freshwater Microalgae.

Authors:  Yinghan Liu; Se Wang; Zhuang Wang; Nan Ye; Hao Fang; Degao Wang
Journal:  Nanomaterials (Basel)       Date:  2018-02-08       Impact factor: 5.076

6.  Toxicity of Carbon, Silicon, and Metal-Based Nanoparticles to the Hemocytes of Three Marine Bivalves.

Authors:  Konstantin Pikula; Vladimir Chaika; Alexander Zakharenko; Anastasia Savelyeva; Irina Kirsanova; Anna Anisimova; Kirill Golokhvast
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2020-05-10       Impact factor: 2.752

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.