Search

The chemical composition and properties of environmental media determine nanomaterial (NM) transport, fate, biouptake, and organism response. To compare and interpret experimental data, it is essential that sufficient context be provided for describing the physical and chemical characteristics of the setting in which a nanomaterial may be present. While the nanomaterial environmental, health and safety (NanoEHS) field has begun harmonization to allow data comparison and re-use (e.g. using standardized materials, defining a minimum set of required material characterizations), there is limited guidance for standardizing test media. Since most of the NM properties driving environmental behaviour and toxicity are medium-dependent, harmonization of media is critical. A workshop in March 2016 at Duke University identified five categories of test media: aquatic testing media, soil and sediment testing media, biological testing media, engineered systems testing media and product matrix testing media. For each category of test media, a minimum set of medium characteristics to report in all NM tests is recommended. Definitions and detail level of the recommendations for specific standardized media vary across these media categories. This reflects the variation in the maturity of their use as a test medium and associated measurement techniques, variation in utility and relevance of standardizing medium properties, ability to simplify standardizing reporting requirements, and in the availability of established standard reference media. Adoption of these media harmonization recommendations will facilitate the generation of integrated comparable datasets on NM fate and effects. This will in turn allow testing of the predictive utility of functional assay measurements on NMs in relevant media, support investigation of first principles approaches to understand behavioral mechanisms, and support categorization strategies to guide research, commercial development, and policy.

The chemical composition and properties of environmental media determine nanomaterial (NM) transport, fate, biouptake, and organism response. To compare and interpret experimental data, it is essential that sufficient context be provided for describing the physical and chemical characteristics of the setting in which a nanomaterial may be present. While the nanomaterial environmental, health and safety (NanoEHS) field has begun harmonization to allow data comparison and re-use (e.g. using standardized materials, defining a minimum set of required material characterizations), there is limited guidance for standardizing test media. Since most of the NM properties driving environmental behaviour and toxicity are medium-dependent, harmonization of media is critical. A workshop in March 2016 at Duke University identified five categories of test media: aquatic testing media, soil and sediment testing media, biological testing media, engineered systems testing media and product matrix testing media. For each category of test media, a minimum set of medium characteristics to report in all NM tests is recommended. Definitions and detail level of the recommendations for specific standardized media vary across these media categories. This reflects the variation in the maturity of their use as a test medium and associated measurement techniques, variation in utility and relevance of standardizing medium properties, ability to simplify standardizing reporting requirements, and in the availability of established standard reference media. Adoption of these media harmonization recommendations will facilitate the generation of integrated comparable datasets on NM fate and effects. This will in turn allow testing of the predictive utility of functional assay measurements on NMs in relevant media, support investigation of first principles approaches to understand behavioral mechanisms, and support categorization strategies to guide research, commercial development, and policy.

Nanomaterial risk governance requires models to estimate the material flow, fate and transport as well as uptake/bioavailability, hazard and risk in the environment. This study assesses the fit of such available models to different stages during the innovation of nano-enabled products. Through stakeholder consultations, criteria were identified for each innovation stage from idea conception to market launch and monitoring. In total, 38 models were scored against 41 criteria concerning model features, applicability, resource demands and outcome parameters. A scoring scheme was developed to determine how the models fit the criteria of each innovation stage. For each model, the individual criteria scores were added, yielding an overall fit score to each innovation stage. Three criteria were critical to stakeholders and incorporated as multipliers in the scoring scheme; the required time/costs and level of expertise needed to use the model, and for risk assessment models only, the option to compare PEC and PNEC. Regulatory compliance was also identified as critical, but could not be incorporated, as a nanomaterial risk assessment framework has yet to be developed and adopted by legislators. In conclusion, the scoring approach underlined similar scoring profiles across stages within model categories. As most models are research tools designed for use by experts, their score generally increased for later stages where most resources and expertise are committed. In contrast, stakeholders need relatively simple models to identify potential hazards and risk management measures at early product development stages to ensure safe use of nanomaterials without costs and resource needs hindering innovation.

Nanomaterial risk governance requires models to estimate the material flow, fate and transport as well as uptake/bioavailability, hazard and risk in the environment. This study assesses the fit of such available models to different stages during the innovation of nano-enabled products. Through stakeholder consultations, criteria were identified for each innovation stage from idea conception to market launch and monitoring. In total, 38 models were scored against 41 criteria concerning model features, applicability, resource demands and outcome parameters. A scoring scheme was developed to determine how the models fit the criteria of each innovation stage. For each model, the individual criteria scores were added, yielding an overall fit score to each innovation stage. Three criteria were critical to stakeholders and incorporated as multipliers in the scoring scheme; the required time/costs and level of expertise needed to use the model, and for risk assessment models only, the option to compare PEC and PNEC. Regulatory compliance was also identified as critical, but could not be incorporated, as a nanomaterial risk assessment framework has yet to be developed and adopted by legislators. In conclusion, the scoring approach underlined similar scoring profiles across stages within model categories. As most models are research tools designed for use by experts, their score generally increased for later stages where most resources and expertise are committed. In contrast, stakeholders need relatively simple models to identify potential hazards and risk management measures at early product development stages to ensure safe use of nanomaterials without costs and resource needs hindering innovation.