Environmental Health and Safety of Nanotechnology | Apply Online

NSF Environmental Health and Safety of Nanotechnology (Nano EHS) Program: FAQs

1) What is the NSF Nano EHS program trying to fund?

The NSF Environmental Health and Safety of Nanotechnology (Nano EHS) program funds engineering-focused research that helps society understand, predict, and manage how nanotechnologies affect the environment and biological systems. The emphasis is on generating fundamental, decision-relevant knowledge about environmental exposure, potential hazards, and practical ways to reduce or prevent harm across the lifecycle of nanomaterials (manufacturing, use, and disposal).

2) What is the core goal of Nano EHS research in this opportunity?

The core goal is to apply engineering principles to anticipate impacts early (not as an afterthought), design safer materials and processes, and build predictive tools that can guide industry and regulators. Projects should aim for mechanistic and/or predictive understanding that can be modeled, tested, and ultimately controlled in real-world contexts.

3) What kinds of topics are considered priority areas?

The solicitation highlights interest in projects focused on:

• Understanding and mitigating the effects of nanotechnology and biotechnology on environmental systems.
• Assessing environmental health and safety (EHS) impacts of nanotechnology, along with applications that address those impacts.
• Developing predictive methodologies for nanoparticle interactions, including improved approaches for predicting toxicity (such as structure-activity relationships, dose metrics, and mechanistic models).
• Fate and transport of nanoparticles (engineered, naturally occurring, or incidental byproducts of industrial processes).
• Risk assessment and risk management approaches for nanomaterials in environmental contexts.

4) Does the program care about real-world environmental systems, or mainly lab studies?

The program is explicitly interested in how nanoparticles interact with real-world environmental systems and with the human body in ways that can be modeled, predicted, and controlled. Proposals should align with the program emphasis on engineering science and decision-relevant knowledge, including exposure, fate/transport, mechanistic understanding, and risk frameworks.

5) Is a lifecycle perspective (manufacturing to end-of-life) important?

Yes. The opportunity highlights a lifecycle perspective, including systems-oriented innovations tied to production processes, waste reduction, recycling, and industrial ecology. Work that connects EHS knowledge to practical ways to reduce impacts across manufacturing, use, and disposal is aligned with stated interests.

6) Are predictive and mechanistic models especially encouraged?

Yes. The solicitation calls out predictive methodologies for nanoparticle interactions, including refined approaches for predicting toxicity (for example, structure-activity relationships, dose metrics, and mechanistic models). Projects that strengthen prediction, generalization, and decision-making relevance fit the program framing.

7) Does this program fund studies on fate and transport of nanoparticles?

Yes. Fate and transport is a listed priority topic, and it explicitly includes nanoparticles that are engineered, naturally occurring, or incidental byproducts from industrial processes.

8) Is risk assessment and risk management within scope?

Yes. Risk assessment and risk management approaches for nanomaterials in environmental contexts are specifically identified as a priority area.

9) What is out of scope for this opportunity?

The program does not support biomedical and nanotoxicology work that involves clinical trials. Proposals centered on clinical evaluation or trial-based biomedical research are outside the scope described in the notice.

10) Can a proposal include biological or human-body related components at all?

The description notes interest in nanoparticle interactions with the human body when those interactions can be modeled, predicted, and controlled in ways consistent with the program's engineering and environmental health and safety focus. However, clinical trial-based work is explicitly excluded.

11) How long are typical awards?

Unsolicited awards are typically one to three years in duration.

12) What is the typical award size?

The average annual award size is about $100,000. The notice cautions that requests substantially above that level may be returned without review unless the principal investigator (PI) consults the Program Director in advance.

13) What happens if my budget is much larger than the typical award size?

Proposals requesting substantially more than the average annual award size (about $100,000 per year) may be returned without review unless the PI has discussed the request with the Program Director before submission. Early communication is presented as the way to reduce the risk of an administrative return without review.

14) The posting mentions an "award floor" of $300,000. How should that be interpreted alongside the $100,000 average annual award size?

The provided information includes both an indicated award floor of $300,000 in the source metadata and a narrative emphasizing an average annual award size of about $100,000, with typical durations of one to three years. Taken together, the notice suggests multi-year totals can vary, while still cautioning applicants about substantially exceeding typical annual levels without prior discussion with the Program Director.

15) Is cost sharing required?

No cost sharing requirement is stated in the provided notice.

16) Who is eligible to apply?

Eligibility is described as broadly open (listed as unrestricted), subject to any clarifications in the full solicitation text.

17) Are only the listed topic areas allowed?

Not necessarily. The solicitation notes that creative ideas outside the listed topic areas can still be considered. At the same time, it strongly recommends that PIs contact the Program Director before submission to confirm fit and reduce the risk of return without review.

18) Should applicants contact the Program Director before submitting?

Yes. The notice strongly encourages PIs to contact the Program Director in advance, particularly if the idea is outside the listed topics or if the requested budget is substantially higher than typical. This is framed as a practical step to confirm program fit and reduce the chance of an administrative return without review.

19) Do RAPID and EAGER proposals require advance discussion?

Yes. The notice indicates that early communication and prior discussion are expected for special NSF mechanisms like RAPID and EAGER before submission.

20) What does the program expect regarding novelty or transformative potential?

As with many programs in NSF's CBET cluster, proposals are expected to clearly articulate novelty and/or potentially transformative aspects compared with the state of the art.

21) What must be included in the Project Summary according to the solicitation?

The Project Summary should, at minimum, include a statement describing the novelty and/or potentially transformative nature of the work, a clear explanation of why the work matters for engineering science, and a description of broader impacts for society and/or industry if successful.

22) Are funding decisions based only on reviewer scores?

No. The notice signals that funding decisions can consider factors beyond reviewer ratings, including portfolio balance across subfields, overall funds available, overlap with other funding, and broader NSF priorities.

23) How many awards and how much total funding were anticipated in the referenced cycle?

In the referenced cycle, NSF anticipated around 53 awards, with an estimated total program funding level of about $4.9 million.

24) What CFDA number is associated with this opportunity?

The notice references CFDA 47.041 (Engineering).

25) What were the submission dates and deadline time in the provided notice?

The provided notice lists a submission window in early 2012 (January 15 to February 17), with proposals due by 5 p.m. local time.

26) What is the posting date shown in the notice?

The posting date provided is June 6, 2011.

27) Are CAREER proposals encouraged under this program?

Yes. The solicitation encourages Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) proposals for investigators who are eligible. It notes that CAREER awards are five years in duration and that engineering CAREER proposals are typically due in July each year.

28) Are conference, workshop, and supplement proposals allowed?

The notice mentions conference, workshop, and supplement proposals and indicates they should generally be timed within the regular proposal windows. It also strongly encourages discussing these plans with the Program Director ahead of time.

29) Is the program focused on engineering, environmental science, or biomedical research?

The framing in the notice emphasizes engineering science applied to environmental health and safety questions for nanotechnology, including exposure, fate/transport, predictive and mechanistic understanding, and risk frameworks. Clinical trial-based biomedical research is explicitly outside scope.

30) What is the program trying to avoid in how EHS is handled?

The program explicitly pushes against treating EHS as an add-on at the end of product development. Instead, it is framed around anticipating impacts and designing safer materials and processes early, supported by predictive tools and engineering analysis.