IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envsyd/v35y2015i1d10.1007_s10669-014-9529-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nanomaterial risk screening: a structured approach to aid decision making under uncertainty

Author

Listed:
  • Christian E. H. Beaudrie

    (University of British Columbia
    Compass Resource Management Ltd)

  • Milind Kandlikar

    (University of British Columbia
    University of British Columbia)

  • Robin Gregory

    (Decision Research)

  • Graham Long

    (Compass Resource Management Ltd)

  • Tim Wilson

    (Compass Resource Management Ltd)

Abstract

The responsible development of new nanomaterials and nano-enabled products requires that potential risks are understood and managed before harms occur. Although quantitative and predictive tools for anticipating human health and environmental risk are in early stages of development, there is a clear need for screening methodologies to inform decision making related to nanomaterial risk management in regulatory agencies and industry. This paper presents the results of a two-day workshop with nanotechnology experts aimed at developing a risk-screening framework for nanomaterials. Drawing upon expertise in nanotoxicology, human exposure, environmental fate and transport, and structured decision making, participants developed a decision support framework relating key nanomaterial physicochemical and product characteristics to important hazard and exposure indicators. Application of the preliminary nano-risk-screening tool (NRST) to several test cases illustrates the utility of the approach for both identifying nanomaterial characteristics that drive risks and for highlighting opportunities to redesign products to minimize risks. This framework for aiding risk managers’ decisions under uncertainty provides the foundation for the development of a transparent and adaptable screening tool that can inform the management of potential risks.

Suggested Citation

  • Christian E. H. Beaudrie & Milind Kandlikar & Robin Gregory & Graham Long & Tim Wilson, 2015. "Nanomaterial risk screening: a structured approach to aid decision making under uncertainty," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 88-109, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:35:y:2015:i:1:d:10.1007_s10669-014-9529-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s10669-014-9529-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10669-014-9529-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10669-014-9529-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christian E H Beaudrie & Terre Satterfield & Milind Kandlikar & Barbara H Harthorn, 2013. "Expert Views on Regulatory Preparedness for Managing the Risks of Nanotechnologies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-1, November.
    2. Kara Morgan, 2005. "Development of a Preliminary Framework for Informing the Risk Analysis and Risk Management of Nanoparticles," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1621-1635, December.
    3. Ralph L. Keeney & Robin S. Gregory, 2005. "Selecting Attributes to Measure the Achievement of Objectives," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 53(1), pages 1-11, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Igor Linkov & Margaret H. Kurth & Danail Hristozov & Jeffrey M. Keisler, 2015. "Nanotechnology: promoting innovation through analysis and governance," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 22-23, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sharon M. Friedman & Brenda P. Egolf, 2011. "A Longitudinal Study of Newspaper and Wire Service Coverage of Nanotechnology Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1701-1717, November.
    2. Auriel M. V. Fournier & R. Randy Wilson & Jeffrey S. Gleason & Evan M. Adams & Janell M. Brush & Robert J. Cooper & Stephen J. DeMaso & Melanie J. L. Driscoll & Peter C. Frederick & Patrick G. R. Jodi, 2023. "Structured Decision Making to Prioritize Regional Bird Monitoring Needs," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 207-217, May.
    3. Timothy L. McDaniels & Stephanie E. Chang & David Hawkins & Gerard Chew & Holly Longstaff, 2015. "Towards disaster-resilient cities: an approach for setting priorities in infrastructure mitigation efforts," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 252-263, June.
    4. Carland, Corinne & Goentzel, Jarrod & Montibeller, Gilberto, 2018. "Modeling the values of private sector agents in multi-echelon humanitarian supply chains," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(2), pages 532-543.
    5. Jay Simon & Donald Saari & Donald Saari, 2020. "Interdependent Altruistic Preference Models," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 17(3), pages 189-207, September.
    6. Gönenç Yücel & Catherine Miluska Chiong Meza, 2008. "Studying transition dynamics via focusing on underlying feedback interactions," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 320-349, December.
    7. Yang, Guo-liang & Rousseau, Ronald & Yang, Li-ying & Liu, Wen-bin, 2014. "A study on directional returns to scale," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 628-641.
    8. Rodrigo A. Estévez & Carlos Veloso & Gabriel Jerez & Stefan Gelcich, 2020. "A participatory decision making framework for artisanal fisheries collaborative governance: Insights from management committees in Chile," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 44(2), pages 144-160, May.
    9. Wiek, Arnim & Zemp, Stefan & Siegrist, Michael & Walter, Alexander I., 2007. "Sustainable governance of emerging technologies—Critical constellations in the agent network of nanotechnology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 388-406.
    10. Robin Gregory & Doug Easterling & Nicole Kaechele & William Trousdale, 2016. "Values‐Based Measures of Impacts to Indigenous Health," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1581-1588, August.
    11. Richard A. Canady, 2010. "The Uncertainty of Nanotoxicology: Report of a Society for Risk Analysis Workshop," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(11), pages 1663-1670, November.
    12. Richard M. Anderson & Robert Clemen, 2013. "Toward an Improved Methodology to Construct and Reconcile Decision Analytic Preference Judgments," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 121-134, June.
    13. Cleemput, Irina & Devriese, Stephan & Kohn, Laurence & Westhovens, René, 2018. "A multi-criteria decision approach for ranking unmet needs in healthcare," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(8), pages 878-884.
    14. Liu, Shuang & Proctor, Wendy & Cook, David, 2010. "Using an integrated fuzzy set and deliberative multi-criteria evaluation approach to facilitate decision-making in invasive species management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2374-2382, October.
    15. Ann Bostrom & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2010. "Nanotechnology Risk Communication Past and Prologue," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(11), pages 1645-1662, November.
    16. Ralph L. Keeney, 2007. "Modeling Values for Anti‐Terrorism Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 585-596, June.
    17. Abbas, Ali E. & Hupman, Andrea C., 2023. "Scale dependence in weight and rate multicriteria decision methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 309(1), pages 225-235.
    18. Cairns, George & Goodwin, Paul & Wright, George, 2016. "A decision-analysis-based framework for analysing stakeholder behaviour in scenario planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 1050-1062.
    19. Jamie Donatuto & Larry Campbell & Robin Gregory, 2016. "Developing Responsive Indicators of Indigenous Community Health," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-16, September.
    20. Angelis, Aris & Kanavos, Panos, 2017. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for evaluating new medicines in Health Technology Assessment and beyond: The Advance Value Framework," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 137-156.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:35:y:2015:i:1:d:10.1007_s10669-014-9529-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.