The applicability of chemical alternatives assessment for engineered nanomaterials

• Published in: Integrated environmental assessment and management Vol. 13; no. 1; pp. 177 - 187
• Main Authors: Hjorth, Rune, Hansen, Steffen Foss, Jacobs, Molly, Tickner, Joel, Ellenbecker, Michael, Baun, Anders
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.01.2017
• Subjects: Adaptability; Alternatives assessment; Banding; Chemical engineering; Chemical Safety; Chemicals; Decision making; Design engineering; Ecological risk assessment; Engineered nanomaterials; Environmental risk; Exposure; Green Chemistry Technology; Hazard; Hazardous Substances - toxicity; Hazards; Momentum; Nanomaterials; Nanostructures - toxicity; Nanotechnology; New products; Organic chemistry; Risk assessment; Risk Assessment - methods; Safety by design; Screens; Substitutes; Toxicity; Safety by design; Decision making; Alternatives assessment; Hazard; Engineered nanomaterials
• ISSN: 1551-3777; 1551-3793
• DOI: 10.1002/ieam.1762

ABSTRACT The use of alternatives assessment to substitute hazardous chemicals with inherently safer options is gaining momentum worldwide as a legislative and corporate strategy to minimize consumer, occupational, and environmental risks. Engineered nanomaterials represent an interesting case for alternatives assessment approaches, because they can be considered both emerging “chemicals” of concern, as well as potentially safer alternatives to hazardous chemicals. However, comparing the hazards of nanomaterials to traditional chemicals or to other nanomaterials is challenging, and critical elements in chemical hazard and exposure assessment may have to be fundamentally altered to sufficiently address nanomaterials. The aim of this paper is to assess the overall applicability of alternatives assessment methods for nanomaterials and to outline recommendations to enhance their use in this context. The present paper focuses on the adaptability of existing hazard and exposure assessment approaches to engineered nanomaterials as well as strategies to design inherently safer nanomaterials. We argue that alternatives assessment for nanomaterials is complicated by the sheer number of nanomaterials possible. As a result, the inclusion of new data tools that can efficiently and effectively evaluate nanomaterials as substitutes is needed to strengthen the alternatives assessment process. However, we conclude that with additional tools to enhance traditional hazard and exposure assessment modules of alternatives assessment, such as the use of mechanistic toxicity screens and control banding tools, alternatives assessment can be adapted to evaluate engineered nanomaterials as potential substitutes for chemicals of concern and to ensure safer nanomaterials are incorporated in the design of new products. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2017;13:177–187. © 2016 SETAC Key Points We conclude that with additional tools, alternatives assessment can be adapted to evaluate engineered nanomaterials both as potential substitutes for chemicals of concern and to ensure safer nanomaterials are incorporated in the design of new products. While traditional chemical risk assessment still is infeasible for nanomaterials at large, alternatives assessment could drive near‐term decision making about materials choices as well as incorporate mechanistic toxicity data to aid the selection of safer nanomaterials. We encourage case studies of alternatives assessments that evaluate nanomaterials in order to further develop the necessary methods and to identify additional methodological needs going forward.