Development of a control banding tool for nanomaterials

Control banding (CB) can be a useful tool for managing the potential risks of nanomaterials. The here proposed CB, which should be part of an overall risk control strategy, groups materials by hazard and emission potential. The resulting decision matrix proposes control bands adapted to the risk potential levels and helps define an action plan. If this plan is not practical and financially feasible, a full risk assessment is launched. The hazard banding combines key concepts of nanomaterial toxicology: translocation across biological barriers, fibrous nature, solubility, and reactivity. Already existing classifications specific to the nanomaterial can be used "as is." Otherwise, the toxicity of bulk or analogous substances gives an initial hazard band, which is increased if the substance is not easily soluble or if it has a higher reactivity than the substance. The emission potential bands are defined by the nanomaterials' physical form and process characteristics. Quantities, frequencies, and existing control measures are taken into account during the definition of the action plan. Control strategies range from room ventilation to full containment with expert advice. This CB approach, once validated, can be easily embedded in risk management systems. It allows integrating new toxicity data and needs no exposure data. [Authors]

Management of nanomaterials safety in research environment

Despite numerous discussions, workshops, reviews and reports about responsible development of nanotechnology, information describing health and environmental risk of engineered nanoparticles or nanomaterials is severely lacking and thus insufficient for completing rigorous risk assessment on their use. However, since preliminary scientific evaluations indicate that there are reasonable suspicions that activities involving nanomaterials might have damaging effects on human health; the precautionary principle must be applied. Public and private institutions as well as industries have the duty to adopt preventive and protective measures proportionate to the risk intensity and the desired level of protection. In this work, we present a practical, 'user-friendly' procedure for a university-wide safety and health management of nanomaterials, developed as a multi-stakeholder effort (government, accident insurance, researchers and experts for occupational safety and health). The process starts using a schematic decision tree that allows classifying the nano laboratory into three hazard classes similar to a control banding approach (from Nano 3 - highest hazard to Nano1 - lowest hazard). Classifying laboratories into risk classes would require considering actual or potential exposure to the nanomaterial as well as statistical data on health effects of exposure. Due to the fact that these data (as well as exposure limits for each individual material) are not available, risk classes could not be determined. For each hazard level we then provide a list of required risk mitigation measures (technical, organizational and personal). The target 'users' of this safety and health methodology are researchers and safety officers. They can rapidly access the precautionary hazard class of their activities and the corresponding adequate safety and health measures. We succeed in convincing scientist dealing with nano-activities that adequate safety measures and management are promoting innovation and discoveries by ensuring them a safe environment even in the case of very novel products. The proposed measures are not considered as constraints but as a support to their research. This methodology is being implemented at the Ecole Polytechnique de Lausanne in over 100 research labs dealing with nanomaterials. It is our opinion that it would be useful to other research and academia institutions as well. [Authors]

Minimal analytical characterisation of engineered nanomaterials need for hazard assessment in biological matrices

The safe and responsible development of engineered nanomaterials (ENM), nanotechnology-based materials and products, together with the definition of regulatory measures and implementation of "nano"-legislation in Europe require a widely supported scientific basis and sufficient high quality data upon which to base decisions. At the very core of such a scientific basis is a general agreement on key issues related to risk assessment of ENMs which encompass the key parameters to characterise ENMs, appropriate methods of analysis and best approach to express the effect of ENMs in widely accepted dose response toxicity tests. The following major conclusions were drawn: Due to high batch variability of ENMs characteristics of commercially available and to a lesser degree laboratory made ENMs it is not possible to make general statements regarding the toxicity resulting from exposure to ENMs. 1) Concomitant with using the OECD priority list of ENMs, other criteria for selection of ENMs like relevance for mechanistic (scientific) studies or risk assessment-based studies, widespread availability (and thus high expected volumes of use) or consumer concern (route of consumer exposure depending on application) could be helpful. The OECD priority list is focussing on validity of OECD tests. Therefore source material will be first in scope for testing. However for risk assessment it is much more relevant to have toxicity data from material as present in products/matrices to which men and environment are be exposed. 2) For most, if not all characteristics of ENMs, standardized methods analytical methods, though not necessarily validated, are available. Generally these methods are only able to determine one single characteristic and some of them can be rather expensive. Practically, it is currently not feasible to fully characterise ENMs. Many techniques that are available to measure the same nanomaterial characteristic produce contrasting results (e.g. reported sizes of ENMs). It was recommended that at least two complementary techniques should be employed to determine a metric of ENMs. The first great challenge is to prioritise metrics which are relevant in the assessment of biological dose response relations and to develop analytical methods for characterising ENMs in biological matrices. It was generally agreed that one metric is not sufficient to describe fully ENMs. 3) Characterisation of ENMs in biological matrices starts with sample preparation. It was concluded that there currently is no standard approach/protocol for sample preparation to control agglomeration/aggregation and (re)dispersion. It was recommended harmonization should be initiated and that exchange of protocols should take place. The precise methods used to disperse ENMs should be specifically, yet succinctly described within the experimental section of a publication. 4) ENMs need to be characterised in the matrix as it is presented to the test system (in vitro/ in vivo). 5) Alternative approaches (e.g. biological or in silico systems) for the characterisation of ENMS are simply not possible with the current knowledge. Contributors: Iseult Lynch, Hans Marvin, Kenneth Dawson, Markus Berges, Diane Braguer, Hugh J. Byrne, Alan Casey, Gordon Chambers, Martin Clift, Giuliano Elia1, Teresa F. Fernandes, Lise Fjellsbø, Peter Hatto, Lucienne Juillerat, Christoph Klein, Wolfgang Kreyling, Carmen Nickel1, and Vicki Stone.

Minimal analytical characterization of engineered nanomaterials needed for hazard assessment in biological matrices.

Abstract This paper presents the outcomes from a workshop of the European Network on the Health and Environmental Impact of Nanomaterials (NanoImpactNet). During the workshop, 45 experts in the field of safety assessment of engineered nanomaterials addressed the need to systematically study sets of engineered nanomaterials with specific metrics to generate a data set which would allow the establishment of dose-response relations. The group concluded that international cooperation and worldwide standardization of terminology, reference materials and protocols are needed to make progress in establishing lists of essential metrics. High quality data necessitates the development of harmonized study approaches and adequate reporting of data. Priority metrics can only be based on well-characterized dose-response relations derived from the systematic study of the bio-kinetics and bio-interactions of nanomaterials at both organism and (sub)-cellular levels. In addition, increased effort is needed to develop and validate analytical methods to determine these metrics in a complex matrix.

Towards a consensus view on understanding nanomaterials hazards and managing exposure

The aim of this article is to present an overview of salient issues of exposure, characterisation and hazard assessment of nanomaterials as they emerged from the consensus-building of experts undertaken within the four year European Commission coordination project NanoImpactNet. The approach adopted is to consolidate and condense the findings and problem-identification in such a way as to identify knowledge-gaps and generate a set of interim recommendations of use to industry, regulators, research bodies and funders. The categories of recommendation arising from the consensual view address: significant gaps in vital factual knowledge of exposure, characterisation and hazards; the development, dissemination and standardisation of appropriate laboratory protocols; address a wide range of technical issues in establishing an adequate risk assessment platform; the more efficient and coordinated gathering of basic data; greater inter-organisational cooperation; regulatory harmonization; the wider use of the life-cycle approaches; and the wider involvement of all stakeholders in the discussion and solution-finding efforts for nanosafety.

Particle exposure scenarios for research and production activities involving nanomaterials

Nanomaterials with structures in the nanoscale (1 to 100 nm) often have chemical, physical and bioactive characteristics different from those of larger entities of the same material. This is interesting for industry but raises questions about the health of exposed people. However, little is known so far about the exposure of workers to inhalable airborne nanomaterials. We investigated several activities in research laboratories and industry to learn about relevant exposure scenarios. Work process analyses were combined with measurements of airborne particle mass concentrations and number−size distributions. Background levels in research settings were mostly low, while in industrial production, levels were sometimes elevated, especially in halls near busy roads or in the presence of diesel fork lifts without particle filters. Peak levels were found in an industrial setting dealing with powders (up to 80,000 particles/cm³ and up to 15 mg/m³). Mostly low concentrations were found for activities involving liquid applications. However, centrifugation and lyophilization of nanoparticle containing solutions resulted in very high particle number concentrations (up to 300,000 particles/cm³), whereas no increases were seen for the same activities conducted with nanoparticle−free liquids. No significant increases of particle concentrations were found for processes involving nanoparticles bound to surfaces. Also no increases were observed in laboratories that were visualizing properties and structures of small amounts of nanomaterials. Conclusion: When studying exposure scenarios for airborne nanomaterials, the focus should not only be on processes involving nano−powders, but also on processes involving intensively treated nanoparticle−containing liquids. Acknowledgement: We thank Chantal Imhof, MSc and Guillaume Ferraris, MSc for their contributions.

Impact of engineered nanomaterials on health : considerations for benefit-risk assessment

Nanotechnology encompasses the design, characterisation, production and application of materials and systems by controlling shape and size at the nanoscale (nanometres). Nanomaterials may differ from other materials because of their relatively large specific surface area, such that surface properties become particularly important. There has been rapid growth in investment in nanotechnology by both the public and private sectors worldwide. In the EU, nanotechnology is expected to become an important strategic contributor to achieving economic gain and societal and individual benefits. At the same time there is continuing scientific uncertainty and controversy about the safety of nanomaterials. It is important to ensure that timely policy development takes this into consideration. Uncertainty about safety may lead to polarised public debate and to business unwillingness to invest further. A clear regulatory framework to address potential health and environmental impacts, within the wider context of evaluating and communicating the benefit-risk balance, must be a core part of Europe's integrated efforts for nanotechnology innovation. While a number of studies have been carried out on the effect of environmental nanoparticles, e.g. from combustion processes, on human health, there is yet no generally acceptable paradigm for safety assessment of nanomaterials in consumer and other products. Therefore, a working group was established to consider issues for the possible impact of nanomaterials on human health focussing specifically on engineered nanomaterials. This represents the first joint initiative between EASAC and the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission. The working group was given the remit to describe the state of the art of benefits and potential risks, current methods for safety assessment, and to evaluate their relevance, identify knowledge gaps in studying the safety of current nanomaterials, and recommend on priorities for nanomaterial research and the regulatory framework. This report focuses on key principles and issues, cross-referencing other sources for detailed information, rather than attempting a comprehensive account of the science. The focus is on human health although environmental effects are also discussed when directly relevant to health

Coordination and collaboration in European research towards healthy and safe nanomaterials

Nanotechnology is becoming part of our daily life in a wide range of products such as computers, bicycles, sunscreens or nanomedicines. While these applications already become reality, considerable work awaits scientists, engineers, and policy makers, who want such nanotechnological products to yield a maximum of benefit at a minimum of social, environmental, economic and (occupational) health cost. Considerable efforts for coordination and collaboration in research are needed if one wants to reach these goals in a reasonable time frame and an affordable price tag. This is recognized in Europe by the European Commission which funds not only research projects but also supports the coordination of research efforts. One of these coordination efforts is NanoImpactNet, a researcher-operated network, which started in 2008 promote scientific cross-talk across all disciplines on the health and environmental impact of nanomaterials. Stakeholders contribute to these activities, notably the definition of research and knowledge needs. Initial discussions in this domain focused on finding an agreement on common metrics, and which elements are needed for standardized approaches for hazard and exposure identification. There are many nanomaterial properties that may play a role. Hence, to gain the time needed to study this complex matter full of uncertainties, researchers and stakeholders unanimously called for simple, easy and fast risk assessment tools that can support decision making in this rapidly moving and growing domain. Today, several projects are starting or already running that will develop such assessment tools. At the same time, other projects investigate in depth which factors and material properties can lead to unwanted toxicity or exposure, what mechanisms are involved and how such responses can be predicted and modelled. A vision for the future is that once these factors, properties and mechanisms are understood, they can and will be accounted for in the development of new products and production processes following the idea of "Safety by Design". The promise of all these efforts is a future with nanomaterials where most of their risks are recognized and addressed before they even reach the market.

Promoting good practices for handling nanomaterials : an international wiki project

As production and use of nanomaterials in commercial products grow it is imperative to ensure these materials are used safely with minimal unwanted impacts on human health or the environment. Foremost among the populations of potential concern are workers who handle nanomaterials in a variety of occupational settings, including university laboratories, industrial manufacturing plants and other institutions. Knowledge about prudent practices for handling nanomaterials is being developed by many groups around the world but may be communicated in a way that is difficult for practitioners to access or use. The GoodNanoGuide is a collaborative, open-access project aimed at creating an international forum for the development and discussion of prudent practices that can be used by researchers, workers and their representatives, occupational safety professionals, governmental officials and even the public. The GoodNanoGuide is easily accessed by anyone with access to a web browser and aims to become a living repository of good practices for the nanotechnology enterprise. Interested individuals are invited to learn more about the GoodNanoGuide at http://goodnanoguide.org.