IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v36y2016i8p1644-1665.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Review of Research Trends and Methods in Nano Environmental, Health, and Safety Risk Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Serkan Erbis
  • Zeynep Ok
  • Jacqueline A. Isaacs
  • James C. Benneyan
  • Sagar Kamarthi

Abstract

Despite the many touted benefits of nanomaterials, concerns remain about their possible environmental, health, and safety (EHS) risks in terms of their toxicity, long‐term accumulation effects, or dose‐response relationships. The published studies on EHS risks of nanomaterials have increased significantly over the past decade and half, with most focused on nanotoxicology. Researchers are still learning about health consequences of nanomaterials and how to make environmentally responsible decisions regarding their production. This article characterizes the scientific literature on nano‐EHS risk analysis to map the state‐of‐the‐art developments in this field and chart guidance for the future directions. First, an analysis of keyword co‐occurrence networks is investigated for nano‐EHS literature published in the past decade to identify the intellectual turning points and research trends in nanorisk analysis studies. The exposure groups targeted in emerging nano‐EHS studies are also assessed. System engineering methods for risk, safety, uncertainty, and system reliability analysis are reviewed, followed by detailed descriptions where applications of these methods are utilized to analyze nanomaterial EHS risks. Finally, the trends, methods, future directions, and opportunities of system engineering methods in nano‐EHS research are discussed. The analysis of nano‐EHS literature presented in this article provides important insights on risk assessment and risk management tools associated with nanotechnology, nanomanufacturing, and nano‐enabled products.

Suggested Citation

  • Serkan Erbis & Zeynep Ok & Jacqueline A. Isaacs & James C. Benneyan & Sagar Kamarthi, 2016. "Review of Research Trends and Methods in Nano Environmental, Health, and Safety Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1644-1665, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:36:y:2016:i:8:p:1644-1665
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12546
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12546
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12546?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. Johansson, Jonas & Hassel, Henrik & Zio, Enrico, 2013. "Reliability and vulnerability analyses of critical infrastructures: Comparing two approaches in the context of power systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 27-38.
    2. Rickard Arvidsson & Sverker Molander & Björn A. Sandén, 2012. "Particle Flow Analysis," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 16(3), pages 343-351, June.
    3. Robert Falkner & Nico Jaspers, 2012. "Regulating Nanotechnologies: Risk, Uncertainty and the Global Governance Gap," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 12(1), pages 30-55, February.
    4. Mitchell J. Small, 2008. "Methods for Assessing Uncertainty in Fundamental Assumptions and Associated Models for Cancer Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1289-1308, October.
    5. Michelle Woodward & Zoran Kapelan & Ben Gouldby, 2014. "Adaptive Flood Risk Management Under Climate Change Uncertainty Using Real Options and Optimization," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(1), pages 75-92, January.
    6. James E. Smith & Robert F. Nau, 1995. "Valuing Risky Projects: Option Pricing Theory and Decision Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(5), pages 795-816, May.
    7. Bruce R. Judd & Stein Weissenberger, 1982. "A Systematic Approach to Nuclear Safeguards Decision-Making," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 289-302, March.
    8. George E. Apostolakis, 2004. "How Useful Is Quantitative Risk Assessment?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 515-520, June.
    9. Zopounidis, C., 1999. "Multicriteria decision aid in financial management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 404-415, December.
    10. David E. Burmaster & Paul D. Anderson, 1994. "Principles of Good Practice for the Use of Monte Carlo Techniques in Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(4), pages 477-481, August.
    11. Jennifer Kuzma & James Romanchek & Adam Kokotovich, 2008. "Upstream Oversight Assessment for Agrifood Nanotechnology: A Case Studies Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 1081-1098, August.
    12. Kara Morgan, 2005. "Development of a Preliminary Framework for Informing the Risk Analysis and Risk Management of Nanoparticles," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1621-1635, December.
    13. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    14. Lillo, Fabrizio & Pirino, Davide, 2015. "The impact of systemic and illiquidity risk on financing with risky collateral," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 180-202.
    15. Linda C. Abbott & Andrew D. Maynard, 2010. "Exposure Assessment Approaches for Engineered Nanomaterials," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(11), pages 1634-1644, November.
    16. John Michael Humphries Choptiany & Ronald Pelot, 2014. "A Multicriteria Decision Analysis Model and Risk Assessment Framework for Carbon Capture and Storage," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(9), pages 1720-1737, September.
    17. Niall Joseph O’Brien & Enda J. Cummins, 2011. "A Risk Assessment Framework for Assessing Metallic Nanomaterials of Environmental Concern: Aquatic Exposure and Behavior," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 706-726, May.
    18. Zhi Yuan & Nima Khakzad & Faisal Khan & Paul Amyotte, 2015. "Risk Analysis of Dust Explosion Scenarios Using Bayesian Networks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(2), pages 278-291, February.
    19. Rob P. Rechard, 1999. "Historical Relationship Between Performance Assessment for Radioactive Waste Disposal and Other Types of Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(5), pages 763-807, October.
    20. Robert T. Clemen & Robert L. Winkler, 1999. "Combining Probability Distributions From Experts in Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 187-203, April.
    21. Andrew D. Maynard & Robert J. Aitken & Tilman Butz & Vicki Colvin & Ken Donaldson & Günter Oberdörster & Martin A. Philbert & John Ryan & Anthony Seaton & Vicki Stone & Sally S. Tinkle & Lang Tran & N, 2006. "Safe handling of nanotechnology," Nature, Nature, vol. 444(7117), pages 267-269, November.
    22. Julia J. Pet‐Armacost & Jose Sepulveda & Milton Sakude, 1999. "Monte Carlo Sensitivity Analysis of Unknown Parameters in Hazardous Materials Transportation Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(6), pages 1173-1184, December.
    23. 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.
    24. Michael E. Kraft, 1982. "The Use Of Risk Analysis In Federal Regulatory Agencies: An Exploration1," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 1(4), pages 666-675, May.
    25. Boyle, Phelim P., 1977. "Options: A Monte Carlo approach," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 323-338, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marta Sousa & Pedro Arezes & Francisco Silva, 2021. "Occupational Exposure to Ultrafine Particles in Metal Additive Manufacturing: A Qualitative and Quantitative Risk Assessment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-15, September.

    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. Chiara Franzoni & Paula Stephan & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2022. "Funding Risky Research," Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 103-133.
    2. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    3. Aven, Terje, 2020. "Three influential risk foundation papers from the 80s and 90s: Are they still state-of-the-art?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    4. James S. Dyer & James E. Smith, 2021. "Innovations in the Science and Practice of Decision Analysis: The Role of Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5364-5378, September.
    5. Michael Greenberg & Charles Haas & Anthony Cox & Karen Lowrie & Katherine McComas & Warner North, 2012. "Ten Most Important Accomplishments in Risk Analysis, 1980–2010," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 771-781, May.
    6. Tomás Lejarraga & Johannes Müller-Trede, 2017. "When Experience Meets Description: How Dyads Integrate Experiential and Descriptive Information in Risky Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(6), pages 1953-1971, June.
    7. Andrea C. Hupman & Jay Simon, 2023. "The Legacy of Peter Fishburn: Foundational Work and Lasting Impact," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 1-15, March.
    8. Vicki Bier, 2020. "The Role of Decision Analysis in Risk Analysis: A Retrospective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2207-2217, November.
    9. Andrea Mazzocchetti & Marco Raberto & Andrea Teglio & Silvano Cincotti, 2018. "Securitization and business cycle: an agent-based perspective," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(6), pages 1091-1121.
    10. Per Sander & Bo Bergbäck & Tomas Öberg, 2006. "Uncertain Numbers and Uncertainty in the Selection of Input Distributions—Consequences for a Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Contaminated Land," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1363-1375, October.
    11. Lijian Lu & Xiaoming Yan, 2016. "Capacity investment decisions under risk aversion," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 63(3), pages 218-235, April.
    12. Terje Aven, 2020. "Risk Science Contributions: Three Illustrating Examples," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1889-1899, October.
    13. Gilberto Montibeller & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2015. "Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1230-1251, July.
    14. Beyza, Jesus & Gil, Pablo & Masera, Marcelo & Yusta, Jose M., 2020. "Security assessment of cross-border electricity interconnections," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    15. Vafadarnikjoo, Amin & Chalvatzis, Konstantinos & Botelho, Tiago & Bamford, David, 2023. "A stratified decision-making model for long-term planning: Application in flood risk management in Scotland," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    16. Payuna Uday & Karen Marais, 2015. "Designing Resilient Systems‐of‐Systems: A Survey of Metrics, Methods, and Challenges," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(5), pages 491-510, October.
    17. Huai-I. Lee & Hsinan Hsu & Len-Kuo Hu & Ching-Chung Lin, 2011. "Portfolio insurance with ratcheted floor as a long-term asset management strategy: implications of loss aversion," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(15), pages 1449-1454.
    18. Vicky Henderson & David Hobson, 2013. "Risk Aversion, Indivisible Timing Options, and Gambling," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(1), pages 126-137, February.
    19. Felipe Isaza Cuervo & Sergio Botero Boterob, 2014. "Aplicación de las opciones reales en la toma de decisiones en los mercados de electricidad," Estudios Gerenciales, Universidad Icesi, November.
    20. Savolainen, Jyrki, 2016. "Real options in metal mining project valuation: Review of literature," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 49-65.

    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:36:y:2016:i:8:p:1644-1665. 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.