NanoImpactNet - Stakeholders' knowledge needs for research on the health and environmental impact of nanomaterials

NanoImpactNet (NIN) is a multidisciplinary European Commission funded network on the environmental, health and safety (EHS) impact of nanomaterials. The 24 founding scientific institutes are leading European research groups active in the fields of nanosafety, nanorisk assessment and nanotoxicology. This 4−year project is the new focal point for information exchange within the research community. Contact with other stakeholders is vital and their needs are being surveyed. NIN is communicating with 100s of stakeholders: businesses; internet platforms; industry associations; regulators; policy makers; national ministries; international agencies; standard−setting bodies and NGOs concerned by labour rights, EHS or animal welfare. To improve this communication, internet research, a questionnaire distributed via partners and targeted phone calls were used to identify stakeholders' interests and needs. Knowledge gaps and the necessity for further data mentioned by representatives of all stakeholder groups in the targeted phone calls concerned: potential toxic and safety hazards of nanomaterials throughout their lifecycles; fate and persistence of nanoparticles in humans, animals and the environment; risks associated to nanoparticle exposure; participation in the preparation of nomenclature, standards, methodologies, protocols and benchmarks; development of best practice guidelines; voluntary schemes on responsibility; databases of materials, research topics and themes. Findings show that stakeholders and NIN researchers share very similar knowledge needs, and that open communication and free movement of knowledge will benefit both researchers and industry. Consequently NIN will encourage stakeholders to be active members. These survey findings will be used to improve NIN's communication tools to further build on interdisciplinary relationships towards a healthy future with nanotechnology.

NanoImpactNet - building a multi-stakeholder dialogue on the health and environmental impact of nanomaterials

NanoImpactNet (NIN) is a multidisciplinary European Commission funded network on the environmental, health and safety (EHS) impact of nanomaterials. The 24 founding scientific institutes are leading European research groups active in the fields of nanosafety, nanorisk assessment and nanotoxicology. This 4-year project is the new focal point for information exchange within the research community. Contact with other stakeholders is vital and their needs are being surveyed. NIN is communicating with 100s of stakeholders: businesses; internet platforms; industry associations; regulators; policy makers; national ministries; international agencies; standard-setting bodies and NGOs concerned by labour rights, EHS or animal welfare. To improve this communication, internet research, a questionnaire distributed via partners and targeted phone calls were used to identify stakeholders' interests and needs. Knowledge gaps and the necessity for further data mentioned by representatives of all stakeholder groups in the targeted phone calls concerned: • the potential toxic and safety hazards of nanomaterials throughout their lifecycles; • the fate and persistence of nanoparticles in humans, animals and the environment; • the associated risks of nanoparticle exposure; • greater participation in: the preparation of nomenclature, standards, methodologies, protocols and benchmarks; • the development of best practice guidelines; • voluntary schemes on responsibility; • databases of materials, research topics and themes, but also of expertise. These findings suggested that stakeholders and NIN researchers share very similar knowledge needs, and that open communication and free movement of knowledge will benefit both researchers and industry. Subsequently a workshop was organised by NIN focused on building a sustainable multi-stakeholder dialogue. Specific questions were asked to different stakeholder groups to encourage discussions and open communication. 1. What information do stakeholders need from researchers and why? The discussions about this question confirmed the needs identified in the targeted phone calls. 2. How to communicate information? While it was agreed that reporting should be enhanced, commercial confidentiality and economic competition were identified as major obstacles. It was recognised that expertise was needed in the areas of commercial law and economics for a wellinformed treatment of this communication issue. 3. Can engineered nanomaterials be used safely? The idea that nanomaterials are probably safe because some of them have been produced 'for a long time', was questioned, since many materials in common use have been proved to be unsafe. The question of safety is also about whether the public has confidence. New legislation like REACH could help with this issue. Hazards do not materialise if exposure can be avoided or at least significantly reduced. Thus, there is a need for information on what can be regarded as acceptable levels of exposure. Finally, it was noted that there is no such thing as a perfectly safe material but only boundaries. At this moment we do not know where these boundaries lie. The matter of labelling of products containing nanomaterials was raised, as in the public mind safety and labelling are connected. This may need to be addressed since the issue of nanomaterials in food, drink and food packaging may be the first safety issue to attract public and media attention, and this may have an impact on 'nanotechnology as a whole. 4. Do we need more or other regulation? Any decision making process should accommodate the changing level of uncertainty. To address the uncertainties, adaptations of frameworks such as REACH may be indicated for nanomaterials. Regulation is often needed even if voluntary measures are welcome because it mitigates the effects of competition between industries. Data cannot be collected on voluntary bases for example. NIN will continue with an active stakeholder dialogue to further build on interdisciplinary relationships towards a healthy future with nanotechnology.

Chances and risks of nanomaterials for health and environment

Nanomaterials have properties that are often very different from normal materials made of the same substance, which can be used to create novel products with exciting properties. However, the health and environmental impact of these nanomaterials is also changed and their potential risk needs to be studied. There is evidence that some nanomaterials can pass through tissue barriers (including the blood-brain barrier) and cell membranes. This is interesting for medical applications, but it raises concerns about the impact of non-medical nanomaterials. Current research aims at better coordinating research efforts and at better communication between researchers and involved stakeholders. Many research labs and production sites currently follow strategies that were established for dealing with very toxic chemicals and powders, until future research in this field helps identify the appropriate level of protection. All these efforts will ultimately ensure a safe, healthy and environmental friendly production, use and disposal of nanomaterials.

Comparison of three acellular tests for assessing the oxidation potential of nanomaterials

Great effort is put into developing reliable, predictive, high-throughput, and low-cost screening approaches for the toxicity evaluation of ambient and manufactured nanoparticles (NP). These tests often consider oxidative reactivity, as oxidative stress is a well-documented pathway in particle toxicology. Based on a panel of six carbonaceous and five metal/metal oxide (Me/MeOx) nanoparticles, we: (i) compared the specifications (linearity, detection limits, repeatability) of three acellular reactivity tests using either dithiothreitol (DTT assay), dichlorofluorescein (DCFH assay), or ascorbic acid (AA-assay) as the reducing agent; and (ii) evaluated which physicochemical properties were important for explaining the observed reactivity. The selected AA assay was found to be neither sensitive nor robust enough to be retained. For the other tests, the surface properties of carbonaceous NP were of utmost importance for explaining their reactivity. In particular, the presence of "strongly reducing" surface functions explained most of its DCFH reactivity and a large part of its DTT reactivity. For the selected Me/MeOx, a different picture emerged. Whereas all particles were able to oxidize DCFH, dissolution and complexation processes could additionally influence the measured reactivity, as observed using the DTT assay. This study suggests that a combination of the DTT and DCFH assays provides complementary information relative to the quantification of the oxidative capacity of NP.

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]

Investigation of resins suitable for the preparation of biological sample for 3-D electron microscopy.

In the last two decades, the third-dimension has become a focus of attention in electron microscopy to better understand the interactions within subcellular compartments. Initially, transmission electron tomography (TEM tomography) was introduced to image the cell volume in semi-thin sections (∼500nm). With the introduction of the focused ion beam scanning electron microscope, a new tool, FIB-SEM tomography, became available to image much larger volumes. During TEM tomography and FIB-SEM tomography, the resin section is exposed to a high electron/ion dose such that the stability of the resin embedded biological sample becomes an important issue. The shrinkage of a resin section in each dimension, especially in depth, is a well-known phenomenon. To ensure the dimensional integrity of the final volume of the cell, it is important to assess the properties of the different resins and determine the formulation which has the best stability in the electron/ion beam. Here, eight different resin formulations were examined. The effects of radiation damage were evaluated after different times of TEM irradiation. To get additional information on mass-loss and the physical properties of the resins (stiffness and adhesion), the topography of the irradiated areas was analysed with atomic force microscopy (AFM). Further, the behaviour of the resins was analysed after ion milling of the surface of the sample with different ion currents. In conclusion, two resin formulations, Hard Plus and the mixture of Durcupan/Epon, emerged that were considerably less affected and reasonably stable in the electron/ion beam and thus suitable for the 3-D investigation of biological samples.