Empowering citizens in international governance of nanotechnologies

The international dialogue on responsible governance of nanotechnologies engages a wide range of actors with conflicting as well as common interests. It is also characterised by a lack of evidence-based data on uncertain risks of in particular engineered nanomaterials. The present paper aims at deepening understanding of the collective decision making context at international level using the grounded theory approach as proposed by Glaser and Strauss in "The Discovery of Grounded Theory'' (1967). This starts by discussing relevant concepts from different fields including sociological and political studies of international relations as well as political philosophy and ethics. This analysis of current trends in international law making is taken as starting point for exploring the role that a software decision support tool could play in multi-stakeholder global governance of nanotechnologies. These theoretical ideas are then compared with the current design of the SUN Decision Support System (SUNDS) under development in the European project on Sustainable Nanotechnologies (SUN, www.sun-fp7.eu). Through constant comparison, the ideas are also compared with requirements of different stakeholders as expressed during a user workshop. This allows for highlighting discussion points for further consideration

Environmental Impacts by Fragments Released from Nanoenabled Products: A Multiassay, Multimaterial Exploration by the SUN Approach

Nanoenabled products (NEPs) have numerous outdoor uses in construction, transportation or consumer scenarios, and there is evidence that their fragments are released in the environment at low rates. We hypothesized that the lower surface availability of NEPs fragment reduced their environmental effects with respect to pristine nanomaterials. This hypothesis was explored by testing fragments generated by intentional micronisation (“the SUN approach”; Nowack et al. Meeting the Needs for Released Nanomaterials Required for Further Testing: The SUN Approach. <i>Environmental Science & Technology</i>, <b>2016</b> (<i>50</i>), 2747). The NEPs were composed of four matrices (epoxy, polyolefin, polyoxymethylene, and cement) with up to 5% content of three nanomaterials (carbon nanotubes, iron oxide, and organic pigment). Regardless of the type of nanomaterial or matrix used, it was observed that nanomaterials were only partially exposed at the NEP fragment surface, indicating that mostly the intrinsic and extrinsic properties of the matrix drove the NEP fragment toxicity. Ecotoxicity in multiple assays was done covering relevant media from terrestrial to aquatic, including sewage treatment plant (biological activity), soil worms (<i>Enchytraeus crypticus</i>), and fish (zebrafish embryo and larvae and trout cell lines). We designed the studies to explore the possible modulation of ecotoxicity by nanomaterial additives in plastics/polymer/cement, finding none. The results support NEPs grouping by the matrix material regarding ecotoxicological effect during the use phase. Furthermore, control results on nanomaterial-free polymer fragments representing microplastic had no significant adverse effects up to the highest concentration tested

Environmental Impacts by Fragments Released from Nanoenabled Products: A Multiassay, Multimaterial Exploration by the SUN Approach

Nanoenabled products (NEPs) have numerous outdoor uses in construction, transportation or consumer scenarios, and there is evidence that their fragments are released in the environment at low rates. We hypothesized that the lower surface availability of NEPs fragment reduced their environmental effects with respect to pristine nanomaterials. This hypothesis was explored by testing fragments generated by intentional micronisation (“the SUN approach”; Nowack et al. Meeting the Needs for Released Nanomaterials Required for Further Testing: The SUN Approach. <i>Environmental Science & Technology</i>, <b>2016</b> (<i>50</i>), 2747). The NEPs were composed of four matrices (epoxy, polyolefin, polyoxymethylene, and cement) with up to 5% content of three nanomaterials (carbon nanotubes, iron oxide, and organic pigment). Regardless of the type of nanomaterial or matrix used, it was observed that nanomaterials were only partially exposed at the NEP fragment surface, indicating that mostly the intrinsic and extrinsic properties of the matrix drove the NEP fragment toxicity. Ecotoxicity in multiple assays was done covering relevant media from terrestrial to aquatic, including sewage treatment plant (biological activity), soil worms (<i>Enchytraeus crypticus</i>), and fish (zebrafish embryo and larvae and trout cell lines). We designed the studies to explore the possible modulation of ecotoxicity by nanomaterial additives in plastics/polymer/cement, finding none. The results support NEPs grouping by the matrix material regarding ecotoxicological effect during the use phase. Furthermore, control results on nanomaterial-free polymer fragments representing microplastic had no significant adverse effects up to the highest concentration tested

Considerations of Environmentally Relevant Test Conditions for Improved Evaluation of Ecological Hazards of Engineered Nanomaterials

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