Environmental Nanoscience Initiative (ENI) Knowledge Exchange Fellowship
Lead Research Organisation:
Cranfield University
Department Name: School of Water, Energy and Environment
Abstract
Nanomaterials can be used across a range of different sectors to bring about benefits, including the potential for systems to sense and act upon their environment; to improve medical diagnosis and treatment; to generate or harness power; to reduce weight and fuel consumption; to enhance waste treatment; and increase performance and strength. As such, the research in this field is multidisciplinary, presenting communication challenges for the exchange of knowledge between researchers, regulators, and industry. The work within the Environmental Nanoscience Initiative (ENI) Phase 2 programme was designed to address the potential impacts that nanomaterials may have on the environment in its widest form. This Knowledge Exchange Fellowship is designed to help promote the dissemination and understanding of the research outputs to key bodies and individuals who have been identified has having an interest in this area. In doing so, the Fellowship will bring together the researchers from across the programme through a series of visits and consolidate their individual research outputs to provide a cohesive statement of the current understanding within specific sectors. These statements will be obtained using a combine, communicate, and collaborate approach promoting the development of these multidisciplinary collaborations.
The knowledge exchange between the different interested parties will be achieved by:
- Visiting and meeting with Phase 2 contributors, regulators and industry bodies to develop an understanding of the different communication and information needs of the different groups;
- Developing case study illustrations, using Phase 2 contributor outputs to highlight current research within different areas and promoting their academic papers and other research outputs;
- Using the case studies and communication needs of each group to develop short communications (leaflets, presentations) that can be used by other interested parties to disseminate research outputs from the Phase 2 programme of research;
- Promoting a clear visual identity and web presence for the ENI community;
- Running an industry-centric workshop in a central location where researchers can actively network to kick start collaborations;
- Developing a nano-engagement toolkit to promote exchange within the nanoscience community;
The knowledge exchange between the different interested parties will be achieved by:
- Visiting and meeting with Phase 2 contributors, regulators and industry bodies to develop an understanding of the different communication and information needs of the different groups;
- Developing case study illustrations, using Phase 2 contributor outputs to highlight current research within different areas and promoting their academic papers and other research outputs;
- Using the case studies and communication needs of each group to develop short communications (leaflets, presentations) that can be used by other interested parties to disseminate research outputs from the Phase 2 programme of research;
- Promoting a clear visual identity and web presence for the ENI community;
- Running an industry-centric workshop in a central location where researchers can actively network to kick start collaborations;
- Developing a nano-engagement toolkit to promote exchange within the nanoscience community;
| Description | This knowledge exchange fellowship sought to expand upon "in progress" research in order to maximise and capture the potential outputs within the field of nanoscience. Nanomaterials can be used across a range of different sectors to bring about benefits, including in applications for systems to sense and act upon their environment, to improve medical diagnosis and treatment, to generate or harness power, to reduce weight and fuel consumption, to enhance waste treatment and increase performance and strength. As such, the research in this field is multidisciplinary, presenting communication challenges for the exchange of knowledge between researchers, regulators, and industry. The knowledge exchange fellowship was focused on work within the Environmental Nanoscience Initiative and its three research projects within Phase 2 of the Initiative (involving UK and US collaborators). The knowledge exchange outputs of the Environmental Nanoscience Initiative Phase 2 have included: • Dissemination event at the Royal Society, London December 2015 • Brochure summarising outputs and state of the science understanding • Short leaflet providing summary of overall themes arising from the work • Over 98 academic journal publications (equating to a cost of approximately US$ 91.5k per publication) • Interaction with a wide range of stakeholders including Government, industry and academia. The Fellowship objectives were to: • contribute to dissemination of ENI Phase 2 outputs; • provide wider research context; • facilitate communication and application of outputs; • demonstrate areas of potential impact; and • improve knowledge exchange within the programme. and these were achieved via a variety of routes, however the most impactful was through direct dialogue. |
| Exploitation Route | The Environmental Nanoscience Initiative (ENI; Phase 2) was unusual as it was formed of distinct and established consortia that were funded as separate research projects. However, there was a significant overlap between the projects as the research and approaches taken were complementary (which allowed for additional collaboration and co-authoring of publications across the consortia, facilitated by the fellowship highlighting areas of interest). A high degree of cooperation between the consortia has led to joint conferences and publications further enabling dissemination of research within the community as well as allowing networks to be built to support other research projects. Indeed, whilst there have been over 95 separate academic journal publications from the three consortia, five have specifically cited funding from multiple consortia. Researchers have developed close communication routes across organisations, taking advantage of career changes and normal academic movement between organisations to build further networking opportunities and to grow the research community. This has been demonstrated by the inclusion of project partners in new research projects as well as invited attendances at conferences. This may also be taken as being a positive outcome of specifically supporting knowledge exchange within larger projects. The knowledge exchange fellowship has also helped to capture the benefits from the wider research programme. The US-UK joint program in nanotechnology research has allowed US and UK scientists to work together across national borders to understand the complexities associated with nanomaterial toxicity and environmental behaviour. The international collaboration provided a platform for the consortia to take a robust, systematic approach that pooled strengths and expertise across disciplines. In addition, these projects have allowed the leveraging of additional funding and promoting transboundary working practices. Additional financial support with reciprocal input has been secured from both UK and US funders (e.g. US Consumer Product Safety Commission, UK National Environment Research Council, NSF, and the Royal Society), with outputs feeding into wider research groups within the nanoscience field. Particularly, the program has advanced the understanding of how nanomaterials enter and move through the environment, how they change and how they may affect the human health and ecosystems. A key output from this program has been models that characterise the fate of nanomaterials through the environment and predict the impacts they might have on environmental and human health. Although the collaborations have substantially advanced our knowledge, new funding schemes are required to take this forward. Funding should ideally require a more direct link between innovation and risk-related research. These are two cognate areas, but are often separate for structural reasons which limits the impact of both sectors. Whilst RCUK has started to ensure that research projects include a measure of risk within their work plans, this is normally considered at the end of the funding scheme and is not integral to the research. A more holistic approach with risk (considering potential issues at the beginning of the innovation cycle) has been identified as being the desired approach for a number of years and an integrated approach would increase the awareness of potential issues associated with the development of novel technologies. The UK/US funding approach has been particularly successful for this research programme, as evidenced by the number of publications and secured additional funding as well as anecdotal records of increased personal networks and industrial impact. Given this unique approach and the successful nature of the research, the following have been identified as potential enablers to the success of this funding stream: • Language and cultural similarities - the lack of a language barrier and the commonalities between the two countries (UK and US) may have enabled more regular and free flowing communication between the project partners. This was enabled by the UK and US co-ordinators (Richard Owen and Mitch Lestat, respectively) and further promoted by the individuals within the three consortia. Indeed, the fluency and impact of the academic journal articles produced during the projects is reflective of the similarities between the two research communities. In both countries there is also a common awareness of the research needs and a desire to ensure that outputs are relevant and impactful. • Research drivers (from organisations and individuals) - the organisations involved within this research all appear to have a wish to lead research within the nanoscience sector as well as support the individuals who lead this research in order for them to achieve world-class research outputs. There is a recognised desire for the participants to generate timely and novel research and to ensure that this reaches its end audience by a variety of dissemination methods. • Commercially relevant - all of the consortia considered commercially relevant exposures and nanomaterials. Whilst this was, to a degree, dictated by the original funding call, participants and the UK and US co-ordinators ensured that the conditions of exposure and measured outputs were relevant to the envisaged scenarios. • Common understanding - both UK and US researchers had a common understanding of the issues and the need for this research enabling the final research to be highly relevant and impactful. • Cohesive nature of the research - there were sufficient commonalities between the research projects to enable read across between the projects however different enough to allow for impactful results from the three groups. • Collaborations - the inclusive approach that all partners took to this research (both internal to the consortium and external with other consortia) promoted dissemination of good practice increasing the impact of the research. Many questions remain in the modelling sphere including: i) Do we have the analytical methodologies and background data to allow suitable parameterization and validation of models? ii) How do we suitably apply models to realistic situations (low concentrations, transformed nanomaterials)? iii) How do we apply these models to the next generation of nanomaterials? Nevertheless, much progress has been made and the UK-US partnership has shown there is a functional relationship between the physicochemical properties, their toxicity, and effect on organisms in the environment, and that this relationship is amenable to modelling in the three identified environments using a range of different parameters. The three research projects have expanded upon the predictive modelling techniques available to generate a wide range of specific computer models that are applicable (with certain caveats) to the movement and behaviour of nanomaterials in the environment. These include: • Fate and transport of aged nanomaterials from agricultural fields (Chesapeake Bay) • fate and behaviour (dissolution, aggregation, diffusion) in freshwater systems • development of the biotic ligand model for toxicity for a range of organisms for soluble nanomaterials • material flow analysis models for gold manufactured nanomaterials. • Validation of Prioritization/Ranking of Toxic Exposures with GIS (geographic information system) Extension (PRoTEGE) model for nanomaterials • detailed biologically based computational model of cellular interactions with manufactured nanomaterials • multiscale toxicodynamic model to quantify and predict pulmonary effects due to uptake of engineered nanomaterials in mice; and • Baysean risk forecasting model There is still no comprehensive approach to modelling nanomaterial behaviour within the environment, and therefore it is more difficult for individuals to select the most appropriate approach. |
| Sectors | Agriculture, Food and Drink,Chemicals,Environment,Healthcare,Government, Democracy and Justice,Manufacturing, including Industrial Biotechology |
| URL | https://nerc.ukri.org/research/funded/programmes/nanoscience/ |
| Description | The grant is a knowledge exchange fellowship aimed at increasing the impact of the Environmental Nanoscience Initiative consortia outputs within the UK sector, including the publicity of successful UK/US consortia. The outputs have been communicated to the industrial, academic and regulatory communities. Industrial dissemination has been achieved mainly via trade organisations. The regulatory communities interested in both water and soil protection have been interested in the larger picture from the research community. Funding from this grant has helped disseminate UK academic and industrial capabilities to other countries. It has been possible to demonstrate a benefit from the UK/US consortia, with the three funded research projects providing a platform to promote community building within academia and to expand academic partnerships into the supporting industrial sectors. Publications A total of 98 articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals from the start of the projects to date (as of October 2016) and were split fairly evenly between the three consortia . Co-authors were drawn from within each consortium as well as some collaborative papers across consortia (which have been attributed to the corresponding author's consortium). The majority of papers included authors from both UK and US organisations. Whilst the majority of articles acknowledged funding sources, there were cases where the funding was either not acknowledged or just the funding body was acknowledged and not the grant number. Where it is not possible to link a publication back to the respective grant, the publication was removed from consideration. However, this does highlight the inconsistent nature of grant citation and reinforce the need for authors to acknowledge the appropriate funding body, particularly when considering the funding impact by publication level. The overall budget for the ENI phase 2 programme was US$8.97M (for all three research projects from both UK and US funding bodies). This equates to approximately US$91.5k per publication. From a study considering the link between university funding per publication, for the UK each publication was valued at approximately US$80k, (Auranen and Nieminen, 2010). Similar conditions applied to publications from the Netherlands, Sweden and Germany suggested a value of US$130k, US$140k and US$160k, respectively for the research and development cost per publication. Although interesting, and despite the ENI project cost per publication being competitive , it has not been possible to make a true comparison with the ENI research project outputs to date as the value per publication in the Auranen and Mieminen study was averaged for all higher education sector research and development expenditure and papers were measured for 6 years after the funding. It would therefore be wise to consider longer term valuation to demonstrate research impact rather than just within the life of the grant. Each of the three consortia has successfully used the UK/US ENI funding to secure additional grants within the area of nanomaterials and environmental impacts. These have included both UK and US funding. When interviewed, all respondents from the three research projects highlighted the benefit of increased networks, as demonstrated by the amount of subsequent secured funding and overlaps between the different groups. All interviewees emphasised the benefit of funding supporting travel and communication between UK and US groups, reflected in the number of publications with joint UK and US authors and one of the consortia also benefited from wider networking opportunities in China. A UK chemical company (made aware of the research results of the consortia as a result of the knowledge exchange fellowship) were particularly interested in the benefit to UK industry and the potential to support world wide trade and a direct commercial benefit to a UK company from the ENI Phase 2 research. Other research outputs also have commercial and industrial implications, however the ENI example is a clear demonstration of RCUK research directly supporting UK industrial activity to a degree that may result in wider commercial acceptance, having a positive benefit therefore not only on worldwide air quality but also financially within the UK. The UK/US funding approach has been particularly successful for this research programme, as evidenced by the number of publications (98) and additional funding that has been secured as well as anecdotal records of increased personal networks and industrial impact. Given this unique approach and the successful nature of the research, the following have been identified as potential enablers to the success of this funding stream: • Language and cultural similarities - the lack of a language barrier and the commonalities between the two countries (UK and US) may have enabled more regular and free flowing communication between the project partners. This was supported by the UK and US co-ordinators (Richard Owen and Mitch Lestat, respectively) and further promoted by the individuals within the three consortia. Indeed, the fluency and impact of the academic journal articles produced during the projects is reflective of the similarities between the two research communities. In both countries there is also a common awareness of the research needs and a desire to ensure that outputs are relevant and impactful. • Research drivers (from organisations and individuals) - the organisations involved within this research all appear to have a wish to lead research within the nanoscience sector as well as support the individuals who lead this research in order for them to achieve world-class research outputs. There is a recognised desire for the participants to generate timely and novel research and to ensure that this reaches its end audience by a variety of dissemination methods. • Common understanding - both UK and US researchers had a common understanding of the issues and the need for this research enabling the final programme to be highly relevant and impactful. • Cohesive nature of the research - there were sufficient commonalities between the research projects to enable read across between the projects, however different, to allow for impactful results from the three groups. • Collaborations - the inclusive approach that all partners took to this research (both internal to each consortium and external with other consortia) promoted dissemination of good practice increasing the impact of the research. • Commercially relevant - all of the consortia considered commercially relevant exposures and nanomaterials. Whilst this was, to a degree, dictated by the original funding call, participants and the UK and US co-ordinators ensured that the conditions of exposure and measured outputs were relevant to the envisaged scenarios. |
| First Year Of Impact | 2015 |
| Sector | Agriculture, Food and Drink,Chemicals,Environment,Manufacturing, including Industrial Biotechology,Transport |
| Impact Types | Societal,Economic |
| Description | ENI phase 2 finale event |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | The Environmental Nanoscience Initiative finale event was held at the Royal Society in London on 10th December 2015 with 62 participants from industry, government, funders and academia. The event was used to summarise the outputs from the three consortia (TINE, RAMNUC and NanoBEE), highlighting the excellent level of collaboration and output that was acheived between the different UK and USA consortia members. The event was supported by NERC. There was a round table discussion involving external participants (from materials science [Prof Robert Dorey], design [Dr Alison Prendiville], horizon scanning and Defra) which allowed participants to consider the future direction of this field and outputs. As a direct result of this event, I have been invited to speak to members of the Environment Agency and Scottish Environment Protection Agency and have been working with industrial contacts to further publiscise the outputs of this work as required under the conditions of the Knowledge Exchange Fellowship |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| URL | http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/funded/programmes/nanoscience/news/finale-event/ |
| Description | Environmental Nanoscience Initiative Phase 2 - summary document |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A magazine, newsletter or online publication |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Industry/Business |
| Results and Impact | An A5 leaflet (folded A4) has been produced to summarise the overall research and findings of the ENI Phase 2 research. This has been circulated to the grant PIs and to government as well as trade bodies to promote the dissemination of the outputs. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2016 |
| Description | Environmental Nanoscience Initiative glossy brochure |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A magazine, newsletter or online publication |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Collation and editing of information from the Environmental Nanoscience Initiative consortia (TINE, NanoBEE and RAMNUC) into a final "glossy" brochure to publicize the outputs from the ENI phase 2 consortia. The document has been published on the web and copies have been sent to the USA for dissemination around interested parties there (as the consortia all involved US collaborators). The brochure has been praised as an excellent summary of the research insights generated over the programme and has been used to generate more interest within the outputs and to prompt interactions with other audiences. Future work will involve the publicity of this document in the general media. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| URL | http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/funded/programmes/nanoscience/eni-phase2/ |
| Description | Lecture for MSc in Advanced Materials at University of Surrey |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Local |
| Primary Audience | Postgraduate students |
| Results and Impact | 2 hour lecture talking about the environmental impact of nanomaterials (from cradle to grave) and the risk assessment processes that can be used within industry. Students were asked questions and participated in facilitated discussion drawing upon their own experiences. Questions were asked about REACH and Brexit as well as use of nanomaterials in commerical products. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2019 |
| Description | MASSIVE article |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A magazine, newsletter or online publication |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Industry/Business |
| Results and Impact | Information about the ENI programme circulated across industrial bodies via project newsletter (MASSIVE EP/L017695/1, August 2015). This targetted newsletter is circulated to industrial bodies specifically interested in the use of functional materials (including nanomaterials). |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2016 |
| URL | http://www.surrey.ac.uk/mes/massive/files/MASSIVE%20Newsletter%204%20(Mar%202016).pdf |
| Description | Nanomaterials Environment and Health Industry Group (NEHIG) presentation (Defra - trade bodies presentation) (May 2016) |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | Invited presentation to approximately 30 industrialists, academics, policymakers and trade body representatives highlighting the body of work within the Environmental Nanoscience Initiative (Phase 1 and 2). An overview of the outreach activity in December 2015 was provided along with key points acknowledging both the negative and positive outcomes of the research (e.g. within current regulatory amounts). the presentation sparked debate and questioning, along with requests for further engagement that I have not been able to capitalise on due to maternity leave. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2016 |
| Description | Nursery visit - Surrey 18th and 25th Feb 2019 - using household products to illustrate movement of nanoparticles |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Local |
| Primary Audience | Other audiences |
| Results and Impact | 30 minute activity on both occasions associated with science week at nursery. Activities involved 2 -3 year olds and carers (approx 15 per group) and used household chemicals and items to discuss particles and their movements and separation. Children enjoyed watching how particles moved and interacting with the items. Carers asked questions about the experiments. Short and simple descriptions of what happened presented afterwards. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2019 |
| Description | Presentation by Jim Zhang to European Respiratory Society International Conference, London, September 2016 |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | Funds from the KE grant were used to support Prof Jim Zhang from California to attend the European Respiratory Society International Conference in London to publicise the outputs from the ENI Phase 2 consortia and the impact of nanotechnology on air pollution. This was a key opportunity to highlight the work to an audience that would otherwise not have been reached and, as a direct result of this presentation, further collaborations between UK and US collaborators were reported. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2016 |
| Description | Presentation to Institute of Agricultural Engineers (IAgrE, South East branch, November 2016) |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Local |
| Primary Audience | Public/other audiences |
| Results and Impact | Invited presentation to local agricultural community (approximately 25, including academics and farmers) on the impact of nanomaterials and nanotechnology on food production. Presentation was used to spark discussion afterwards and promote wider knowledge exchange. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2016 |
| URL | https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1039690916124986&id=159808327446587 |
| Description | Presentation to University of Surrey Materials Group |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Local |
| Primary Audience | Postgraduate students |
| Results and Impact | Invited presentation to Materials Symposia to provide an insight into how nanomaterials interact and affect the environment. The presentation was 45 mins plus questions and aimed at Materials Scientists, although some environmental scientists were in attendance. Q&A followed the presentation which concentrated on how to detect particles in the environment and whether these are cause for concern given other environmental pollutants. A number of attendees approached afterwards to ask for details about specific projects and to remark on the relevance to their studies. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2019 |
| Description | Visit to Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - Jan 2015 |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Visit to Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to meet with policy makers and regulators who would have use for outputs from ENI consortia members. Talked about requirements of policy stakeholders, policy questions and the key "need to know" issues within the area, as well as the outputs that they would have use for. Identified further informaiton requirements and outputs that they needed |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |