Jones, W; Gibb, A; Goodier, C and Bust, P (2017) Managing the unknown: Addressing the potential health risks of nanomaterials in the built environment. Construction Management and Economics, 35(3), pp. 122-136. ISSN 0144-6193
Abstract
Nanomaterials offer significant potential for high performing new products in the built environment and elsewhere. However, there are uncertainties regarding their potential adverse health effects and the extent to which they are currently used. A desk study and interviews with those working across the construction, demolition and product manufacture sectors (n = 59) identified the current state of knowledge regarding nanomaterial use within the built environment. Some nanomaterials are potentially toxic, particularly those based on fibres; others are much less problematic but the evidence base is incomplete. Very little is known regarding the potential for exposure for those working with nano-enabled construction materials. Identifying which construction products contain nanomaterials, and which nanomaterials these might be, is very difficult due to inadequate labelling by product manufacturers. Consequently, those working with nano-enabled products typically have very limited knowledge or awareness of this. Further research is required regarding the toxicology of nanomaterials and the potential for exposure during construction and demolition. Better sharing of the information which is already available is also required through the construction, demolition and manufacture/supply chains. This is likely to be important for other innovative products and processes in construction, not just those which use nanomaterials.;Nanomaterials offer significant potential for high performing new products in the built environment and elsewhere. However, there are uncertainties regarding their potential adverse health effects and the extent to which they are currently used. A desk study and interviews with those working across the construction, demolition and product manufacture sectors (n = 59) identified the current state of knowledge regarding nanomaterial use within the built environment. Some nanomaterials are potentially toxic, particularly those based on fibres; others are much less problematic but the evidence base is incomplete. Very little is known regarding the potential for exposure for those working with nano-enabled construction materials. Identifying which construction products contain nanomaterials, and which nanomaterials these might be, is very difficult due to inadequate labelling by product manufacturers. Consequently, those working with nano-enabled products typically have very limited knowledge or awareness of this. Further research is required regarding the toxicology of nanomaterials and the potential for exposure during construction and demolition. Better sharing of the information which is already available is also required through the construction, demolition and manufacture/supply chains. This is likely to be important for other innovative products and processes in construction, not just those which use nanomaterials.;
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | innovation; health; nanomaterials; materials; unknowns; nanotechnology; construction industry |
| Index terms: | construction industry, construction material, unknowns, built environment, exposure, construction product, evidence, construction and demolition, manufacturer, interview, health risk |
| Subjects: | waste management, practitioner, evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods, economic analysis, building materials, theoretical framing, public and environmental health, industry analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, environmental health |
| Topics: | Urban Studies, Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here