Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Nov 27;12(12):15007-21.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph121214961.

The MARINA Risk Assessment Strategy: A Flexible Strategy for Efficient Information Collection and Risk Assessment of Nanomaterials

Affiliations

The MARINA Risk Assessment Strategy: A Flexible Strategy for Efficient Information Collection and Risk Assessment of Nanomaterials

Peter M J Bos et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. .

Abstract

An engineered nanomaterial (ENM) may actually consist of a population of primary particles, aggregates and agglomerates of various sizes. Furthermore, their physico-chemical characteristics may change during the various life-cycle stages. It will probably not be feasible to test all varieties of all ENMs for possible health and environmental risks. There is therefore a need to further develop the approaches for risk assessment of ENMs. Within the EU FP7 project Managing Risks of Nanoparticles (MARINA) a two-phase risk assessment strategy has been developed. In Phase 1 (Problem framing) a base set of information is considered, relevant exposure scenarios (RESs) are identified and the scope for Phase 2 (Risk assessment) is established. The relevance of an RES is indicated by information on exposure, fate/kinetics and/or hazard; these three domains are included as separate pillars that contain specific tools. Phase 2 consists of an iterative process of risk characterization, identification of data needs and integrated collection and evaluation of data on the three domains, until sufficient information is obtained to conclude on possible risks in a RES. Only data are generated that are considered to be needed for the purpose of risk assessment. A fourth pillar, risk characterization, is defined and it contains risk assessment tools. This strategy describes a flexible and efficient approach for data collection and risk assessment which is essential to ensure safety of ENMs. Further developments are needed to provide guidance and make the MARINA Risk Assessment Strategy operational. Case studies will be needed to refine the strategy.

Keywords: exposure-driven; nanomaterials; problem framing; risk assessment strategy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Schematic overview of the MARINA Risk Assessment Strategy, consisting of: (1) an overarching “Phase 1: Problem framing” (orange disc); (2) the iterative “Phase 2: Risk assessment” (green discs: cyclic evaluation process and a finalization step); (3) the three information-gathering pillars: Exposure (red), Fate/Kinetics (green) and Hazard (blue) and (4) the Risk characterization pillar (purple). Phase 1 consists of two steps: (a) Data evaluation; and (b) identification of Relevant Exposure Scenarios (RESs). The iterative evaluation process of Phase 2 consists of four steps: (a) Risk characterization including risk management options (RMOs); (b) Defining data needs; (c) Data gathering and (d) Data evaluation. (See text for further explanation).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Schematic view of the three information-gathering pillars on the left and the risk characterization pillar on the right and their placing in the respective phases and steps of the MARINA Risk Assessment Strategy.

References

    1. Mitrano D.M., Motellier S., Clavaguera S., Nowack B. Review of nanomaterial aging and transformations through the life cycle of nano-enhanced products. Environ. Int. 2015;77:132–147. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2015.01.013. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Arts J.H., Hadi M., Keene A.M., Kreiling R., Lyon D., Maier M., Michel K., Petry T., Sauer U.G., Warheit D., et al. A critical appraisal of existing concepts for the grouping of nanomaterials. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2014;70:492–506. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.07.025. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Arts J.H., Hadi M., Irfan M.A., Keene A.M., Kreiling R., Lyon D., Maier M., Michel K., Petry T., Sauer U.G., et al. A decision-making framework for the grouping and testing of nanomaterials (DF4nanogrouping) Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2015;71:S1–S27. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.03.007. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Oomen A.G., Bos P.M., Fernandes T.F., Hund-Rinke K., Boraschi D., Byrne H.J., Aschberger K., Gottardo S., von der Kammer F., Kuhnel D., et al. Concern-driven integrated approaches to nanomaterial testing and assessment—Report of the nanosafety cluster working group 10. Nanotoxicology. 2014;8:334–348. doi: 10.3109/17435390.2013.802387. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Landsiedel R., Fabian E., Ma-Hock L., van Ravenzwaay B., Wohlleben W., Wiench K., Oesch F. Toxico-/biokinetics of nanomaterials. Arch. Toxicol. 2012;86:1021–1060. doi: 10.1007/s00204-012-0858-7. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources