IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envsyd/v35y2015i1d10.1007_s10669-014-9531-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A relative ranking approach for nano-enabled applications to improve risk-based decision making: a case study of Army materiel

Author

Listed:
  • Khara D. Grieger

    (RTI International)

  • Jennifer Hoponick Redmon

    (RTI International)

  • Eric S. Money

    (RTI International)

  • Mark W. Widder

    (United States Army)

  • William H. Schalie

    (United States Army)

  • Stephen M. Beaulieu

    (RTI International)

  • Donna Womack

    (RTI International)

Abstract

Assessing the health and environmental risks of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) continues to be a challenging endeavor. Due to extensive challenges related to applying traditional risk assessment frameworks to ENMs, decision making regarding the use of ENMs in products and applications may need to rely on structured decision support tools such as risk ranking approaches. This study examines the use of one risk ranking tool that incorporates both quantitative and qualitative information regarding the potential human health risks of ENMs, focused primarily on worker and soldier health. Using a case study involving Army materiel (i.e., equipment), a relative risk ranking algorithm is proposed that accounts for not only the physicochemical characteristics of the ENMs, but also the characteristics of the Army materiel. In this way, the resulting risk potential for soldiers and workers is not solely based on the inherent characteristics of the ENMs but is also influenced within the context of the technology being developed. Among other important findings, the results from applying this risk ranking algorithm in this case study suggest that inhalation from accidental exposures to carbon nanotubes and copper flakes incorporated into energy and obscurant materiel by Army workers rank highest relative to the other items evaluated in this baseline assessment. As the presence of data gaps was one of the greatest challenges to applying this risk ranking algorithm, future applications may benefit from reliance on a continually revised database that may be updated in real time and possibly synced with publically available databases in order to use the most current and comprehensive set(s) of data available.

Suggested Citation

  • Khara D. Grieger & Jennifer Hoponick Redmon & Eric S. Money & Mark W. Widder & William H. Schalie & Stephen M. Beaulieu & Donna Womack, 2015. "A relative ranking approach for nano-enabled applications to improve risk-based decision making: a case study of Army materiel," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 42-53, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:35:y:2015:i:1:d:10.1007_s10669-014-9531-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10669-014-9531-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10669-014-9531-4
    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/s10669-014-9531-4?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Janeck J. Scott‐Fordsmand & Willie J. G. M. Peijnenburg & Elena Semenzin & Bernd Nowack & Neil Hunt & Danail Hristozov & Antonio Marcomini & Muhammad‐Adeel Irfan & Araceli Sánchez Jiménez & Robert Lan, 2017. "Environmental Risk Assessment Strategy for Nanomaterials," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-20, October.
    2. 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.

    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_s10669-014-9531-4. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.