IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v30y2010i11p1671-1679.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Characterization for Nanotechnology

Author

Listed:
  • Richard A. Williams
  • Kristen M. Kulinowski
  • Ronald White
  • Garrick Louis

Abstract

Nanotechnology is a broad term that encompasses materials, structures, or processes that utilize engineered nanomaterials, which can be defined as materials intentionally designed to have one or more dimensions between 1 and 100 nm. Historically, risk characterization has been viewed as the final phase of a risk assessment process that integrates hazard identification, dose‐response assessment, and exposure assessment. The novelty and diversity of materials, structures, and tools that are covered by above‐defined “nanotechnology” raise substantial methodological issues and pose significant challenges for each of these phases of risk assessment. These issues and challenges culminate in the risk characterization phase of the risk assessment process, and this article discusses several of these key issues and approaches to developing risk characterization results and their implications for risk management decision making that are specific to nanotechnology.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard A. Williams & Kristen M. Kulinowski & Ronald White & Garrick Louis, 2010. "Risk Characterization for Nanotechnology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(11), pages 1671-1679, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:30:y:2010:i:11:p:1671-1679
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01513.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01513.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01513.x?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard A. Williams & Kimberly M. Thompson, 2004. "Integrated Analysis: Combining Risk and Economic Assessments While Preserving the Separation of Powers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1613-1623, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. David M. Hassenzahl, 2006. "Implications of Excessive Precision for Risk Comparisons: Lessons from the Past Four Decades," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1), pages 265-276, February.
    2. James H. Lambert & Mark W. Farrington, 2006. "Risk‐Based Objectives for the Allocation of Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Air Emissions Sensors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1659-1674, December.
    3. Sandra Hoffmann, 2011. "Overcoming Barriers to Integrating Economic Analysis into Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(9), pages 1345-1355, September.
    4. Lambert, James H. & Farrington, Mark W., 2007. "Cost–benefit functions for the allocation of security sensors for air contaminants," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(7), pages 930-946.
    5. N. J. Welton & A. E. Ades & D. M. Caldwell & T. J. Peters, 2008. "Research prioritization based on expected value of partial perfect information: a case‐study on interventions to increase uptake of breast cancer screening," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 171(4), pages 807-841, October.
    6. Shamoun, Dima & Williams, Richard & Broughel, James & Calabrese, Edward, 2016. "Regulation under Uncertainty: Use of the Linear No-Threshold Model in Chemical and Radiation Exposure," Working Papers 04174, George Mason University, Mercatus Center.
    7. Sandra Hoffmann, 2010. "Ensuring Food Safety around the Globe: The Many Roles of Risk Analysis From Risk Ranking to Microbial Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5), pages 711-714, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:riskan:v:30:y:2010:i:11:p:1671-1679. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.