IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v39y2019i8p1783-1795.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Definition and Categorization System for Advanced Materials: The Foundation for Risk‐Informed Environmental Health and Safety Testing

Author

Listed:
  • Alan Kennedy
  • Jonathon Brame
  • Taylor Rycroft
  • Matthew Wood
  • Valerie Zemba
  • Charles Weiss
  • Matthew Hull
  • Cary Hill
  • Charles Geraci
  • Igor Linkov

Abstract

Novel materials with unique or enhanced properties relative to conventional materials are being developed at an increasing rate. These materials are often referred to as advanced materials (AdMs) and they enable technological innovations that can benefit society. Despite their benefits, however, the unique characteristics of many AdMs, including many nanomaterials, are poorly understood and may pose environmental safety and occupational health (ESOH) risks that are not readily determined by traditional risk assessment methods. To assess these risks while keeping up with the pace of development, technology developers and risk assessors frequently employ risk‐screening methods that depend on a clear definition for the materials that are to be assessed (e.g., engineered nanomaterial) as well as a method for binning materials into categories for ESOH risk prioritization. The term advanced material lacks a consensus definition and associated categorization or grouping system for risk screening. In this study, we aim to establish a practitioner‐driven definition for AdMs and a practitioner‐validated framework for categorizing AdMs into conceptual groupings based on material characteristics. Results from multiple workshops and interviews with practitioners provide consistent differentiation between AdMs and conventional materials, offer functional nomenclature for application science, and provide utility for future ESOH risk assessment prioritization. The definition and categorization framework established here serve as a first step in determining if and when there is a need for specific ESOH and regulatory screening for an AdM as well as the type and extent of risk‐related information that should be collected or generated for AdMs and AdM‐enabled technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Alan Kennedy & Jonathon Brame & Taylor Rycroft & Matthew Wood & Valerie Zemba & Charles Weiss & Matthew Hull & Cary Hill & Charles Geraci & Igor Linkov, 2019. "A Definition and Categorization System for Advanced Materials: The Foundation for Risk‐Informed Environmental Health and Safety Testing," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(8), pages 1783-1795, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:39:y:2019:i:8:p:1783-1795
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13304
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13304
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13304?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. Adam M. Finkel & George Gray, 2018. "Taking the reins: how regulatory decision-makers can stop being hijacked by uncertainty," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 230-238, June.
    2. Michael D. Rogers, 2001. "Scientific and technological uncertainty, the precautionary principle, scenarios and risk management," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 1-15, January.
    3. Maine, Elicia & Garnsey, Elizabeth, 2006. "Commercializing generic technology: The case of advanced materials ventures," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 375-393, April.
    4. Vicki Stone & Martin Führ & Peter H. Feindt & Hans Bouwmeester & Igor Linkov & Stefania Sabella & Finbarr Murphy & Kilian Bizer & Lang Tran & Marlene Ågerstrand & Carlos Fito & Torben Andersen & Diana, 2018. "The Essential Elements of a Risk Governance Framework for Current and Future Nanotechnologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(7), pages 1321-1331, July.
    5. Igor Linkov & Benjamin D. Trump & Elke Anklam & David Berube & Patrick Boisseasu & Christopher Cummings & Scott Ferson & Marie-Valentine Florin & Bernard Goldstein & Danail Hristozov & Keld Alstrup Je, 2018. "Comparative, collaborative, and integrative risk governance for emerging technologies," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 170-176, June.
    6. Ronit Justo-Hanani & Tamar Dayan, 2016. "Explaining Transatlantic Policy Divergence: The Role of Domestic Politics and Policy Styles in Nanotechnology Risk Regulation," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 16(1), pages 79-98, February.
    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. Juran Noh & Hieu A. Doan & Heather Job & Lily A. Robertson & Lu Zhang & Rajeev S. Assary & Karl Mueller & Vijayakumar Murugesan & Yangang Liang, 2024. "An integrated high-throughput robotic platform and active learning approach for accelerated discovery of optimal electrolyte formulations," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-9, December.
    2. Steinar Andresen & G. Kristin Rosendal & Jon Birger Skjærseth, 2018. "Regulating the invisible: interaction between the EU and Norway in managing nano-risks," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 513-528, August.
    3. Scott L. Greer & Benjamin Trump, 2019. "Regulation and regime: the comparative politics of adaptive regulation in synthetic biology," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(4), pages 505-524, December.
    4. Benjamin D. Trump & Christy Foran & Taylor Rycroft & Matthew D. Wood & Nirzwan Bandolin & Mariana Cains & Timothy Cary & Fiona Crocker & Nicholas A. Friedenberg & Patrick Gurian & Kerry Hamilton & Jan, 2018. "Development of community of practice to support quantitative risk assessment for synthetic biology products: contaminant bioremediation and invasive carp control as cases," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 517-527, December.
    5. Lehrer, Mark & Banerjee, Preeta M. & Wang, I. Kim, 2017. "When the sky is the limit on scale: From temporal to multiplicative scaling in process-based technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 151-159.
    6. E. O. Chukwuma-Nwuba, 2013. "The Failure of Most Entrepreneurial Technological Innovations to Diffuse: What the Literatures Say," International Journal of Management Sciences, Research Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 1(11), pages 463-470.
    7. Barirani, Ahmad & Beaudry, Catherine & Agard, Bruno, 2017. "Can universities profit from general purpose inventions? The case of Canadian nanotechnology patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 271-283.
    8. Zhongfeng Su & En Xie & Hong Liu & Wei Sun, 2013. "Profiting from product innovation: The impact of legal, marketing, and technological capabilities in different environmental conditions," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 261-276, September.
    9. Rahul Kapoor & Thomas Klueter, 2021. "Unbundling and Managing Uncertainty Surrounding Emerging Technologies," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 62-74, March.
    10. Michael D. Rogers, 2003. "The European Commission's White Paper “Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy”: A Review," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 381-388, April.
    11. Korzinov, Vladimir & Savin, Ivan, 2018. "General Purpose Technologies as an emergent property," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 88-104.
    12. Teece, David J., 2018. "Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1367-1387.
    13. Baba, Yasunori & Shichijo, Naohiro & Sedita, Silvia Rita, 2009. "How do collaborations with universities affect firms' innovative performance? The role of "Pasteur scientists" in the advanced materials field," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 756-764, June.
    14. Kim Wang, 2017. "Technology Deployment By Late Movers," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(04), pages 1-25, May.
    15. Bliemel Martin J. & McCarthy Ian P. & Maine Elicia M.A., 2014. "An Integrated Approach to Studying Multiplexity in Entrepreneurial Networks," Entrepreneurship Research Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 4(4), pages 1-36, October.
    16. Vincett, P.S., 2010. "The economic impacts of academic spin-off companies, and their implications for public policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 736-747, July.
    17. Ronit Justo-Hanani & Tamar Dayan, 2021. "Risk regulation and precaution in Europe and the United States: the case of bioinvasion," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 3-20, March.
    18. Bergek, Anna & Berggren, Christian & Magnusson, Thomas & Hobday, Michael, 2013. "Technological discontinuities and the challenge for incumbent firms: Destruction, disruption or creative accumulation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 1210-1224.
    19. SCHOLZ, Eva-Maria, 2014. "Licensing to vertically related markets," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2014020, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    20. Xiaohua Li & Daozhou Yang & Wu Zhao, 2021. "Scholars’ Identity Transition and Its Impact on Spin-Offs’ R&D Input," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-14, February.

    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:39:y:2019:i:8:p:1783-1795. 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.