IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v37y2017i7p1358-1374.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Human Health Impact Assessment of Engineered Nanomaterials in the Framework of Life Cycle Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Wouter Fransman
  • Harrie Buist
  • Eelco Kuijpers
  • Tobias Walser
  • David Meyer
  • Esther Zondervan‐van den Beuken
  • Joost Westerhout
  • Rinke H. Klein Entink
  • Derk H. Brouwer

Abstract

For safe innovation, knowledge on potential human health impacts is essential. Ideally, these impacts are considered within a larger life‐cycle‐based context to support sustainable development of new applications and products. A methodological framework that accounts for human health impacts caused by inhalation of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) in an indoor air environment has been previously developed. The objectives of this study are as follows: (i) evaluate the feasibility of applying the CF framework for NP exposure in the workplace based on currently available data; and (ii) supplement any resulting knowledge gaps with methods and data from the life cycle approach and human risk assessment (LICARA) project to develop a modified case‐specific version of the framework that will enable near‐term inclusion of NP human health impacts in life cycle assessment (LCA) using a case study involving nanoscale titanium dioxide (nanoTiO2). The intent is to enhance typical LCA with elements of regulatory risk assessment, including its more detailed measure of uncertainty. The proof‐of‐principle demonstration of the framework highlighted the lack of available data for both the workplace emissions and human health effects of ENMs that is needed to calculate generalizable characterization factors using common human health impact assessment practices in LCA. The alternative approach of using intake fractions derived from workplace air concentration measurements and effect factors based on best‐available toxicity data supported the current case‐by‐case approach for assessing the human health life cycle impacts of ENMs. Ultimately, the proposed framework and calculations demonstrate the potential utility of integrating elements of risk assessment with LCA for ENMs once the data are available.

Suggested Citation

  • Wouter Fransman & Harrie Buist & Eelco Kuijpers & Tobias Walser & David Meyer & Esther Zondervan‐van den Beuken & Joost Westerhout & Rinke H. Klein Entink & Derk H. Brouwer, 2017. "Comparative Human Health Impact Assessment of Engineered Nanomaterials in the Framework of Life Cycle Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(7), pages 1358-1374, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:7:p:1358-1374
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12703
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12703
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12703?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. Pierre Crettaz & David Pennington & Lorenz Rhomberg & Kevin Brand & Olivier Jolliet, 2002. "Assessing Human Health Response in Life Cycle Assessment Using ED10s and DALYs: Part 1—Cancer Effects," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 931-946, October.
    2. David Pennington & Pierre Crettaz & Annick Tauxe & Lorenz Rhomberg & Kevin Brand & Olivier Jolliet, 2002. "Assessing Human Health Response in Life Cycle Assessment Using ED10s and DALYs: Part 2—Noncancer Effects," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 947-963, October.
    3. Hilko Van Der Voet & Wout Slob, 2007. "Integration of Probabilistic Exposure Assessment and Probabilistic Hazard Characterization," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 351-371, April.
    4. W. Slob & M. N. Pieters, 1998. "A Probabilistic Approach for Deriving Acceptable Human Intake Limits and Human Health Risks from Toxicological Studies: General Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(6), pages 787-798, 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. Jessica Kratchman & Bing Wang & John Fox & George Gray, 2018. "Correlation of Noncancer Benchmark Doses in Short‐ and Long‐Term Rodent Bioassays," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 1052-1069, May.
    2. Joseph V. Spadaro & Ari Rabl, 2004. "Pathway Analysis for Population‐Total Health Impacts of Toxic Metal Emissions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1121-1141, October.
    3. Jin‐Feng Wang & Lian‐Fa Li, 2008. "Improving Tsunami Warning Systems with Remote Sensing and Geographical Information System Input," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1653-1668, December.
    4. Daniel J. Rozell & Sheldon J. Reaven, 2012. "Water Pollution Risk Associated with Natural Gas Extraction from the Marcellus Shale," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1382-1393, August.
    5. Roger Cooke, 2010. "Conundrums with Uncertainty Factors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 330-339, March.
    6. Hilko Van Der Voet & Wout Slob, 2007. "Integration of Probabilistic Exposure Assessment and Probabilistic Hazard Characterization," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 351-371, April.
    7. Susan Dekkers & Jan Telman & Monique A. J. Rennen & Marco J. Appel & Cees De Heer, 2006. "Within‐Animal Variation as an Indication of the Minimal Magnitude of the Critical Effect Size for Continuous Toxicological Parameters Applicable in the Benchmark Dose Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 867-880, August.
    8. Kristi Kuljus & Dietrich Von Rosen & Salomon Sand & Katarina Victorin, 2006. "Comparing Experimental Designs for Benchmark Dose Calculations for Continuous Endpoints," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 1031-1043, August.
    9. Royce A. Francis, 2015. "Elusive Critical Elements of Transformative Risk Assessment Practice and Interpretation: Is Alternatives Analysis the Next Step?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(11), pages 1983-1995, November.
    10. Signe M. Jensen & Felix M. Kluxen & Christian Ritz, 2019. "A Review of Recent Advances in Benchmark Dose Methodology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(10), pages 2295-2315, October.
    11. Mirjam Moerbeek & Aldert H. Piersma & Wout Slob, 2004. "A Comparison of Three Methods for Calculating Confidence Intervals for the Benchmark Dose," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 31-40, February.
    12. Kenneth T. Bogen, 2005. "Risk Analysis for Environmental Health Triage," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1085-1095, October.
    13. Paul S. Price & Heli M. Hollnagel & Jack M. Zabik, 2009. "Characterizing the Noncancer Toxicity of Mixtures Using Concepts from the TTC and Quantitative Models of Uncertainty in Mixture Toxicity," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(11), pages 1534-1548, November.
    14. Martí Nadal & Vikas Kumar & Marta Schuhmacher & José L. Domingo, 2008. "Applicability of a Neuroprobabilistic Integral Risk Index for the Environmental Management of Polluted Areas: A Case Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 271-286, April.
    15. Ling-Chin, J. & Heidrich, O. & Roskilly, A.P., 2016. "Life cycle assessment (LCA) – from analysing methodology development to introducing an LCA framework for marine photovoltaic (PV) systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 352-378.
    16. Dette, Holger & Pepelyshev, Andrey & Shpilev, Piter & Wong, Weng Kee, 2009. "Optimal designs for estimating critical effective dose under model uncertainty in a dose response study," Technical Reports 2009,07, Technische Universität Dortmund, Sonderforschungsbereich 475: Komplexitätsreduktion in multivariaten Datenstrukturen.
    17. Kan Shao & Jeffrey S. Gift, 2014. "Model Uncertainty and Bayesian Model Averaged Benchmark Dose Estimation for Continuous Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(1), pages 101-120, January.
    18. Wout Slob & Martine I. Bakker & Jan Dirk te Biesebeek & Bas G. H. Bokkers, 2014. "Exploring the Uncertainties in Cancer Risk Assessment Using the Integrated Probabilistic Risk Assessment (IPRA) Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(8), pages 1401-1422, August.
    19. Salomon J. Sand & Dietrich Von Rosen & Agneta Falk Filipsson, 2003. "Benchmark Calculations in Risk Assessment Using Continuous Dose‐Response Information: The Influence of Variance and the Determination of a Cut‐Off Value," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 1059-1068, October.
    20. Dette, Holger & Pepelyshev, Andrey & Shpilev, Piter & Wong, Weng Kee, 2009. "Optimal designs for estimating critical effective dose under model uncertainty in a dose response study," Technical Reports 2009,09, Technische Universität Dortmund, Sonderforschungsbereich 475: Komplexitätsreduktion in multivariaten Datenstrukturen.

    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:37:y:2017:i:7:p:1358-1374. 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.