Summary

Empa researchers are applying the «Safe and Sustainable by Design» principle (SSbD) to the 2D material graphene. The project uses extensive data from the EU «Graphene Flagship» project to test the applicability of the SSbD framework in practice. Since its synthesis in 2004, graphene has been an intensively researched material with advantageous properties such as electrical conductivity and high tensile strength. Researchers are investigating how different graphene variants (pure graphene, graphene oxide, few-layer graphene) affect humans and the environment. A central goal is the further development of the SSbD framework to make it accessible and applicable to SMEs.

People

  • Peter Wick (Head of Empa Laboratory «Nanomaterials in Health»)
  • Fiorella Pitaro (Empa Researcher, Department «Technology and Society»)
  • Bernd Nowack (Prof. Dr., Empa «Technology and Society»)

Topics

  • Materials Science and Nanomaterials
  • Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD)
  • Graphene and 2D Materials
  • Risk Assessment and Environmental Compatibility
  • Industry and SME Innovation

Clarus Lead

The SSbD framework addresses a growing regulatory and innovation policy concern: How can new materials be designed safely and sustainably during the development phase, rather than managing risks later? The Empa study demonstrates that established assessment tools for classical chemicals cannot be directly transferred to complex nanomaterials – a critical gap for the industrialization of graphene applications. The demand for simplification and accessibility of the framework underscores the tension between scientific reliability and practical applicability.

Detailed Summary

The SSbD concept is not new in substance: safety and sustainability were already central to the ten-year Graphene Flagship. What is new is the structured consolidation of these findings in the SSbD framework as an operational instrument for industry and regulation. The Empa teams used the extensive data available on graphene to test the framework and identify its gaps.

A central challenge lies in material diversity: In addition to pure graphene, there are graphene oxide, reduced graphene oxide, and multilayer few-layer graphene – terms that are sometimes used overlappingly. However, this pluralism also enables differentiated risk assessments: by comparing data for each material subclass, the damage potential can be correlated with structure, and the safest graphene variant can be selected for each application.

Exposure routes are critical for safety statements. Graphene can be inhaled, injected, ingested through the food chain, or applied dermally. Each route requires its own assessment. The central problem: existing SSbD tools were developed primarily for chemicals, where molecular structure dominates. For materials, surface characteristics, particle shape and size, processing methods, and other factors play a significant role. Empa researchers are therefore working on further developing these tools for material applications.

Regarding the safety and sustainability of graphene itself: the experts express cautious optimism. In many areas, graphene appears to be safer and more sustainable than current carbon-based alternatives – but this does not justify uncontrolled environmental release. Wick emphasizes: «We don't know everything yet.»

Key Statements

  • The SSbD framework is being systematically applied for the first time to a real nanomaterial (graphene) to test its practical applicability.
  • Existing assessment tools for chemicals cannot be directly transferred to complex materials with structure-dependent properties.
  • The diversity of graphene variants enables differentiated risk assessments and material-specific optimizations for different applications.
  • Simplification and accessibility of the framework are necessary so that SMEs can use it as well – without sacrificing reliability.
  • Exposure routes (inhalation, injection, oral, dermal) are critical parameters for safety statements and must be assessed application-specifically.

Critical Questions

  1. Data Quality/Evidence: What gaps remain in the toxicological and ecotoxicological data for graphene variants, and how are these identified or compensated for in the SSbD assessment?

  2. Conflicts of Interest/Independence: To what extent do industry partners (mentioned in the Technology Briefing) influence the development of the SSbD framework, and how is the independence of assessments ensured?

  3. Causality/Alternatives: Are the observed differences in safety/sustainability between graphene and conventional carbon alternatives causally attributable to material structure, or do manufacturing processes play an equally large role?

  4. Feasibility/Risks: How is it prevented that simplification of the SSbD framework for SME accessibility leads to uncritical or superficial assessments that underestimate risks?

  5. Regulatory Binding: Do Empa's SSbD assessments become binding criteria for approval or market access of graphene products, or do they remain recommendations?

  6. Long-Term Consequences: What mechanisms are established to capture long-term effects of graphene exposure (e.g., bioaccumulation, chronic effects) that go beyond classical acute toxicity testing?

  7. Scaling Effects: Do risks and sustainability profiles differ systematically between laboratory graphene and industrially produced quantities, and how is this reflected in the framework?

Bibliography

Primary Source: [Empa Press Release: «Safe and Sustainable by Design» for Graphene] – https://www.news.admin.ch/de/newnsb/akKR2PhAaEafU8fdoyimH

Supplementary Sources:

  1. Lin, H. et al. (2024). Environmental and Health Impacts of Graphene and Other Two-Dimensional Materials: A Graphene Flagship Perspective. ACS Nano. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.3c09699

  2. Pitaro, F., Seeger, S. & Nowack, B. (2025). The safe and sustainable by design framework applied to graphene-based materials. Environment International. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2025.109345

  3. Empa Technology Briefing «Safe and Sustainable by Design» (June 25, 2026). https://tb.empa.ch/overview

Verification Status: ✓ 04.06.2026

This text was created with the support of an AI model. Editorial Responsibility: clarus.news | Fact-Check: 04.06.2026