Advancing the Eco-Responsible Design and Disposal of Engineered Nanomaterials March 2009 Rice University, Houston, Texas Sponsor Recognition Participants from: Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, France, Mexico, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, USA

2 ICON: A New Model for Interaction ResearchCommercialization Gov/Reg/LawPublic Oversight Academics Industry Government Gov Policy Makers Regulators Lawyers Non-Governmental Organizations Social/Ethical Researchers Industry Trade Groups Information regarding potential environmental and health risks of nanotechnology to foster risk reduction and maximize societal benefit.

3 Quality Information about Risks & Benefits Survey of current workplace practices ICONsultations with diverse stakeholders International nanoEHS research needs assessment Database/VJ on nanoEHS research Knowledge Base Best Practices Communications ICON Working Groups New ES&T paper: DOI: /es702158q /es702158q

4 Good Nano Guide Wiki Protected Internet site on occupational practices for the safe handling of nanomaterials Multiple stakeholders contribute, share and discuss information Modern, interactive, up-to-date

International NanoEHS Research Needs

6 Predicting Nano-Biointeractions Report downloaded >500 times Media Event at Wilson Center Japanese translation of executive summary National Academies now studying NanoEHS research needs House Science Committee testimony on research needs October 31, 2007 “Independent efforts such as this one add tremendous value to the work we’re doing at the governmental level.” Sally Tinkle, NIEHS NSF BES May 1, research needs prioritized into 2-, 5- and 10-yr goals

7 Key Findings from Workshop 1 CHALLENGE: Nanomaterial properties are not static throughout lifecycle Tools and models must be developed that can describe the dynamic nature of nanomaterials throughout their lifecycle. CHALLENGE: Chemical composition is not the ideal or sole property on which to focus A set of screening tools is needed to correlate the functional properties of nanomaterials with their potential for biological interaction. CHALLENGE: Exposure scenarios are too diverse to draw general conclusions Exposure assessment studies are needed to enable predictions about implications of physicochemical properties for net dose.

8 Key Findings from Workshop 2 CHALLENGE: Nanoparticle surfaces undergo changes during interactions in biological environments Quantitative models are needed to describe how the properties of NPs control the nature and extent of biomolecular interactions at their surface. CHALLENGE: Existing mass-based metrics of measuring dose and dose rate may underestimate NP impacts Dose and dose rate may need to be validated independently for NPs. CHALLENGE: In vitro assays are practical given nanomaterial diversity but may be poor predictors of in vivo endpoints Better biomarkers are essential to address the vast diversity of NP types and to develop strong correlative models for predicting in vivo endpoints based on in-vitro results.

Workshop Planning Team Jamie Lead, University of Birmingham (Co-chair) Pedro Alvarez, Rice University (Co-chair) Vicki Colvin, Rice University Tracy Hester, Bracewell & Giuliani, LLP Barbara Karn, USEPA Kristen Kulinowski, Rice University Vicki Stone, Napier University Rapporteurs John Fortner Nastassja Lewinski Jaesang Lee Dong Li Shaily Mahendra Support Personnel David Johnson Denise Benoit Marilu Campos Teresa Champion Carlos Garcia Matt Huff Chris Rodriguez

Monday 3/9/09 8:15 – 8:30Logistics and organization 8:30 – 8:-45Overview #1, Colvin 8:45 – 9:00Overview #2, Hughes 9:00 – 9:10Overview #3, Golam Mustafa 9:15 – 9:30Overview #4, Lead 9:30 -12:00Brainstorming 1 on Design priorities (3 min each). 12:00 – 1:00Lunch 1:00 – 3:30Brainstorming 2 on Disposal priorities (3 min each). 3:30 – 4:00Break 4:00 – 5:00Full group discussion of consolidated themes 5:00 – 5:45Break 6:15 – 8:30Presentation by Michael Depledge and Reception at BIPP Tuesday 3/10/09 8:00Continental breakfast 8:15 – 8:30Summary of day 1 discussion and day 2 logistics 8: :00Work in teams to elaborate on assigned issue 12:00 – 1:00Lunch. 1:00 – 3:30Team presentations 15 min each including Q&A) 3:30 – 4:00Break 4:00 – 5:00Group discussion focused on integration and synthesis 5:00 – 5:30Polish write ups, incorporate feedback & group discussion

Nominal Group Technique Consensus planning tool to prioritize issues according to their importance, intellectual merit, practicality, and achievability.

Day 1 Logistics: Safe Design Alphabetically, 3 minutes each to answer: What critical knowledge gaps and opportunities exist to inform and advance the design of environmentally benign nanomaterials? Title of Priority Issue Description Importance/Significance

Potential Categories for Answers Structure-Activity Relationships Metrology, quantification and tracing NPs in the environment Computational Modeling of Nanoparticle Modifications in the Environment Towards Predicting Multimedia Fate, Transport & Exposure Rapporteurs will record and post your priority issue on the wall under best fitting category

Day 1 Logistics: Safe Disposal Alphabetically, 3 minutes each to answer: What critical knowledge gaps and opportunities exist to inform and advance the management of wastes containing nanomaterials? Title of Priority Issue Description Importance/Significance

Potential Categories for Answers Minimization and Disposal of Nanomaterial Production Wastes Release and Exposure Scenarios/Source Dynamics Impact of Nanomaterials on Environmental Protection Infrastructure Information Needs for Waste Disposal Companies and Recyclers Rapporteurs will record and post your priority issue on the wall under best fitting category

Day 2 Deliverables One category will be assigned per group, to discuss research priorities 8 PowerPoint presentations (15 min) Word document summarizing priority issues and approaches/challenges, to serve as a basis for a white paper Optional: review or position paper later