Nanomaterial Case Study: A Comparison of Multiwalled Carbon Nanotube and Decabromodiphenyl Ether Flame-Retardant Coatings Applied to Upholstery Textiles (Independent Peer Review Draft)
Notice - This site contains archived material(s)
Archive disclaimer
Archive
disclaimer
Archived files are provided for reference
purposes only. These files are no longer maintained by the Agency and may be outdated. For
current EPA information, go to www.epa.gov. It is EPA's policy to
support reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities, pursuant to the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 791. If you need assistance with accessing archived files, contact
EPA's Reasonable Accommodations
or submit a request using the Contact Us form.
Abstract
Engineered nanoscale materials (nanomaterials) are generally described as having at least one dimension between 1 and 100 nanometers (nm). Due to their small size, nanomaterials often have novel properties that confer different potential benefits and risk compared to their non-nano form. The assessment of such risks and benefits requires information, but given the nascent state of nanotechnology, much remains to be learned about the characteristics and effects of nanomaterials. The external review draft of this case study provided a starting point for a workshop process that engaged experts with diverse technical backgrounds (e.g., toxicology, polymer science, environmental fate and transport) and sector perspectives (e.g., industry, academia, government). Information on a historically used flame-retardant (decabromodiphenyl ether, or decaBDE) was included in the draft case study document as a more robust dataset to help experts identify potential key data gaps in assessing risks from MWCNTs. Experts used the external review draft of the case study document to identify and prioritize research gaps that could support future assessment and risk management efforts for MWCNTs. This prioritization took place through a structured decision process that allowed each expert to have equal input on the outcome. RTI International, an EPA contractor, independently conducted this structured workshop process through the use of web-based tools and a face-to-face workshop.
Subsequently, EPA revised the draft case study document to highlight the priority research areas identified through the structured workshop process, as well as incorporate valuable feedback from public commenters and experts participating in the RTI workshop process. These revisions included streamlining the document by highlighting how decaBDE information could inform MWCNT research planning and moving details on decaBDE to an appendix. The revised case study (i.e., peer review draft) then underwent an independent letter peer review. A final case study that reflects revisions EPA made in response to peer review comments is now available (see “Related Links” below).
Impact/Purpose
Status
Citation
History/Chronology
Date | Description |
---|---|
Feb 2007 | EPA's Nanotechnology White Paper recommends the development of case studies to identify unique risk assessment considerations and research needed to support risk assessment efforts for nanomaterials. |
Sep 2009 | EPA initiates the "Nanomaterial Case Studies Workshop: Developing a Comprehensive Environmental Assessment Research Strategy for Nanoscale Titanium Dioxide" under auspices of the EPA Board of Scientific Counselors (invitation only) to identify and prioritize research needs for titanium dioxide, using the nanoscale titanium dioxide case studies and a structured collective judgment process. |
May 2010 | EPA released the report, "Workshop Summary for the EPA Board of Scientific Counselors, Nanomaterial Case Studies Workshop: Developing a Comprehensive Environmental Assessment Research Strategy for Nanoscale Titanium Dioxide." |
Apr 2010 | EPA conducted an internal review of the "Nanomaterial Case Study: Nanoscale Silver in Disinfectant Spray" draft report. |
Aug 2010 | EPA released the external review draft of "Nanomaterial Case Study: Nanoscale Silver in Disinfectant Spray" for a 45-day public review and comment period. [Federal Register Aug 13, 2010] |
Nov 2010 | EPA released the final report, "Nanomaterial Case Studies: Nanoscale Titanium Dioxide in Water Treatment and in Topical Sunscreen." |
Dec 2010 | EPA announced a public meeting to review and discuss the EPA Nanomaterial Case Studies reports. [Federal Register Dec 13, 2010] |
Jan 2011 | EPA held a workshop in Research Triangle Park, NC on January 4-7, 2011 to identify and prioritize research questions related to nanoscale silver based on the external review draft of the Nanomaterial Case Study: Nanoscale Silver in Disinfectant Spray document. A summary report (PDF) is available that describes the workshop and its outcomes. |
Mar 2012 | EPA conducted an internal review of the "Nanomaterial Case Study: A Comparison of Multiwalled Carbon Nanotube and Decabromodiphenyl Ether Flame-Retardant Coatings Applied to Upholstery Textiles" draft report. |
May 2012 | EPA conducted an interagency review of the "Nanomaterial Case Study: A Comparison of Multiwalled Carbon Nanotube and Decabromodiphenyl Ether Flame-Retardant Coatings Applied to Upholstery Textiles" draft report. |
Jul 2012 | EPA released the external review draft of "Nanomaterial Case Study: A Comparison of Multiwalled Carbon Nanotube and Decabromodiphenyl Ether Flame-Retardant Coatings Applied to Upholstery Textiles" for a 60-day public review and comment period and announced a public meeting to review and discuss the EPA Nanomaterial Case Study. [Federal Register Notice Jul 2, 2012] |
Aug 2012 | EPA released the final report, "Nanomaterial Case Study: Nanoscale Silver in Disinfectant Spray". |
Oct 2012 | EPA held a Public Information Exchange Meeting in Research Triangle Park, NC on October 29, 2012 from 8:30 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. The purpose of this meeting was 1) for EPA to receive comments and questions on the draft document and 2) to provide information on the draft EPA nanomaterial case study and the workshop process conducted independently by RTI International. Following the conclusion of the October 29th meeting, RTI International, a contractor to EPA, conducted a separate meeting, the "Nanomaterial Case Study Workshop Process: Identifying and Prioritizing Research for Multiwalled Carbon Nanotubes," in the same location. The Contractor's Workshop Summary Report is available on the External Review draft document page (see “Related Links” below). |
Mar - Apr 2013 | An independent contractor conducted a letter peer review of "Nanomaterial Case Study: A Comparison of Multiwalled Carbon Nanotube and Decabromodiphenyl Ether Flame-Retardant Coatings Applied to Upholstery Textiles" (peer review draft). A Contractor's report detailing the letter peer review process and all review comments received is available under “Downloads”. |
Sep 2013 | EPA released the peer review draft of "Nanomaterial Case Study: A Comparison of Multiwalled Carbon Nanotube and Decabromodiphenyl Ether Flame-Retardant Coatings Applied to Upholstery Textiles." This draft underwent an independent, letter peer review in Spring 2013. A Contractor's report detailing the letter peer review process and all review comments received is available under "Downloads." |
Sep 2013 | EPA released the final report, "Comprehensive Environmental Assessment Applied to Multiwalled Carbon Nanotube Flame-Retardant Coatings in Upholstery Textiles: A Case Study Presenting Priority Research Gaps for Future Risk Assessments". |
This download(s) is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination peer review under applicable information quality guidelines. It has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency determination or policy.
Related Link(s)
- Nanomaterial Case Study: A Comparison of Multiwalled Carbon Nanotube and Decabromodiphenyl Ether Flame-Retardant Coatings Applied to Upholstery Textiles (External Review Draft)
- Comprehensive Environmental Assessment Applied To Multiwalled Carbon Nanotube Flame-Retardant Coatings In Upholstery Textiles: A Case Study Presenting Priority Research Gaps For Future Risk Assessments (Final Report)