Future Directions for the Chemical Industry
In: Transforming Sustainability Strategy into Action, S. 329-360
11 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Transforming Sustainability Strategy into Action, S. 329-360
In: Environmental science and pollution research: ESPR, Band 29, Heft 5, S. 7772-7781
ISSN: 1614-7499
From Crossref journal articles via Jisc Publications Router ; History: epub 2020-07-23, issued 2020-07-23 ; Article version: VoR ; Publication status: Published ; Funder: European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program; Grant(s): 814425, 814572
BASE
In: Isigonis , P , Afantitis , A , Antunes , D , Bartonova , A , Beitollahi , A , Bohmer , N , Bouman , E , Chaudhry , Q , Cimpan , M R , Cimpan , E , Doak , S , Dupin , D , Fedrigo , D , Fessard , V , Gromelski , M , Gutleb , A C , Halappanavar , S , Hoet , P , Jeliazkova , N , Jomini , S , Lindner , S , Linkov , I , Longhin , E M , Lynch , I , Malsch , I , Marcomini , A , Mariussen , E , de la Fuente , J M , Melagraki , G , Murphy , F , Neaves , M , Packroff , R , Pfuhler , S , Puzyn , T , Rahman , Q , Pran , E R , Semenzin , E , Serchi , T , Steinbach , C , Trump , B , Vrcek , I V , Warheit , D , Wiesner , M R , Willighagen , E & Dusinska , M 2020 , ' Risk Governance of Emerging Technologies Demonstrated in Terms of its Applicability to Nanomaterials ' , Small , vol. 16 , no. 36 , 2003303 . https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.202003303
Nanotechnologies have reached maturity and market penetration that require nano-specific changes in legislation and harmonization among legislation domains, such as the amendments to REACH for nanomaterials (NMs) which came into force in 2020. Thus, an assessment of the components and regulatory boundaries of NMs risk governance is timely, alongside related methods and tools, as part of the global efforts to optimise nanosafety and integrate it into product design processes, via Safe(r)-by-Design (SbD) concepts. This paper provides an overview of the state-of-the-art regarding risk governance of NMs and lays out the theoretical basis for the development and implementation of an effective, trustworthy and transparent risk governance framework for NMs. The proposed framework enables continuous integration of the evolving state of the science, leverages best practice from contiguous disciplines and facilitates responsive re-thinking of nanosafety governance to meet future needs. To achieve and operationalise such framework, a science-based Risk Governance Council (RGC) for NMs is being developed. The framework will provide a toolkit for independent NMs' risk governance and integrates needs and views of stakeholders. An extension of this framework to relevant advanced materials and emerging technologies is also envisaged, in view of future foundations of risk research in Europe and globally.
BASE
From Crossref via Jisc Publications Router ; History: epub 2020-07-23, issued 2020-07-23 ; Article version: VoR ; Funder: European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program; Grant(s): 814425, 814572
BASE
From Crossref via Jisc Publications Router ; History: epub 2020-07-23, issued 2020-07-23 ; Article version: VoR ; Funder: European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program; Grant(s): 814425, 814572
BASE
Nanotechnologies have reached maturity and market penetration that require nano‐specific changes in legislation and harmonization among legislation domains, such as the amendments to REACH for nanomaterials (NMs) which came into force in 2020. Thus, an assessment of the components and regulatory boundaries of NMs risk governance is timely, alongside related methods and tools, as part of the global efforts to optimise nanosafety and integrate it into product design processes, via Safe(r)‐by‐Design (SbD) concepts. This paper provides an overview of the state‐of‐the‐art regarding risk governance of NMs and lays out the theoretical basis for the development and implementation of an effective, trustworthy and transparent risk governance framework for NMs. The proposed framework enables continuous integration of the evolving state of the science, leverages best practice from contiguous disciplines and facilitates responsive re‐thinking of nanosafety governance to meet future needs. To achieve and operationalise such framework, a science‐based Risk Governance Council (RGC) for NMs is being developed. The framework will provide a toolkit for independent NMs' risk governance and integrates needs and views of stakeholders. An extension of this framework to relevant advanced materials and emerging technologies is also envisaged, in view of future foundations of risk research in Europe and globally.
BASE
Nanotechnologies have reached maturity and market penetration that require nano‐specific changes in legislation and harmonization among legislation domains, such as the amendments to REACH for nanomaterials (NMs) which came into force in 2020. Thus, an assessment of the components and regulatory boundaries of NMs risk governance is timely, alongside related methods and tools, as part of the global efforts to optimise nanosafety and integrate it into product design processes, via Safe(r)‐by‐Design (SbD) concepts. This paper provides an overview of the state‐of‐the‐art regarding risk governance of NMs and lays out the theoretical basis for the development and implementation of an effective, trustworthy and transparent risk governance framework for NMs. The proposed framework enables continuous integration of the evolving state of the science, leverages best practice from contiguous disciplines and facilitates responsive re‐thinking of nanosafety governance to meet future needs. To achieve and operationalise such framework, a science‐based Risk Governance Council (RGC) for NMs is being developed. The framework will provide a toolkit for independent NMs' risk governance and integrates needs and views of stakeholders. An extension of this framework to relevant advanced materials and emerging technologies is also envisaged, in view of future foundations of risk research in Europe and globally. ; This study received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 814425 (RiskGONE) and No 814572 (NanoSolveIT). ; Peer reviewed
BASE
Engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) are increasingly entering the environment with uncertain consequences including potential ecological effects. Various research communities view differently whether ecotoxicological testing of ENMs should be conducted using environmentally relevant concentrations-where observing outcomes is difficult-versus higher ENM doses, where responses are observable. What exposure conditions are typically used in assessing ENM hazards to populations? What conditions are used to test ecosystem-scale hazards? What is known regarding actual ENMs in the environment, via measurements or modeling simulations? How should exposure conditions, ENM transformation, dose, and body burden be used in interpreting biological and computational findings for assessing risks? These questions were addressed in the context of this critical review. As a result, three main recommendations emerged. First, researchers should improve ecotoxicology of ENMs by choosing test end points, duration, and study conditions-including ENM test concentrations-that align with realistic exposure scenarios. Second, testing should proceed via tiers with iterative feedback that informs experiments at other levels of biological organization. Finally, environmental realism in ENM hazard assessments should involve greater coordination among ENM quantitative analysts, exposure modelers, and ecotoxicologists, across government, industry, and academia.
BASE
Engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) are increasingly entering the environment with uncertain consequences including potential ecological effects. Various research communities view differently whether ecotoxicological testing of ENMs should be conducted using environmentally relevant concentrations-where observing outcomes is difficult-versus higher ENM doses, where responses are observable. What exposure conditions are typically used in assessing ENM hazards to populations? What conditions are used to test ecosystem-scale hazards? What is known regarding actual ENMs in the environment, via measurements or modeling simulations? How should exposure conditions, ENM transformation, dose, and body burden be used in interpreting biological and computational findings for assessing risks? These questions were addressed in the context of this critical review. As a result, three main recommendations emerged. First, researchers should improve ecotoxicology of ENMs by choosing test end points, duration, and study conditions-including ENM test concentrations-that align with realistic exposure scenarios. Second, testing should proceed via tiers with iterative feedback that informs experiments at other levels of biological organization. Finally, environmental realism in ENM hazard assessments should involve greater coordination among ENM quantitative analysts, exposure modelers, and ecotoxicologists, across government, industry, and academia.
BASE
Engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) are increasingly entering the environment with uncertain consequences including potential ecological effects. Various research communities view differently whether ecotoxicological testing of ENMs should be conducted using environmentally relevant concentrations—where observing outcomes is difficult—versus higher ENM doses, where responses are observable. What exposure conditions are typically used in assessing ENM hazards to populations? What conditions are used to test ecosystem-scale hazards? What is known regarding actual ENMs in the environment, via measurements or modeling simulations? How should exposure conditions, ENM transformation, dose, and body burden be used in interpreting biological and computational findings for assessing risks? These questions were addressed in the context of this critical review. As a result, three main recommendations emerged. First, researchers should improve ecotoxicology of ENMs by choosing test endpoints, duration, and study conditions—including ENM test concentrations—that align with realistic exposure scenarios. Second, testing should proceed via tiers with iterative feedback that informs experiments at other levels of biological organization. Finally, environmental realism in ENM hazard assessments should involve greater coordination among ENM quantitative analysts, exposure modelers, and ecotoxicologists, across government, industry, and academia.
BASE