4.4 Article

A critical appraisal of existing concepts for the grouping of nanomaterials

Journal

REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 70, Issue 2, Pages 492-506

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.07.025

Keywords

Nanomaterials; Risk assessment; REACH; Toxic Substances Control Act; Grouping of substances; Physico-chemical characterization; Exposure assessment; Hazard assessment; Biokinetics; Characterization

Funding

  1. EU FP7 project MARINA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The grouping of substances serves to streamline testing for regulatory purposes. General grouping approaches for chemicals have been implemented in, e.g., the EU chemicals regulation. While specific regulatory frameworks for the grouping of nanomaterials are unavailable, this topic is addressed in different publications, and preliminary guidance is provided in the context of substance-related legislation or the occupational setting. The European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals Task Force on the Grouping of Nanomaterials reviewed available concepts for the grouping of nanomaterials for human health risk assessment. In their broad conceptual design, the evaluated approaches are consistent or complement each other. All go beyond the determination of mere structure activity relationships and are founded on different aspects of the nanomaterial life cycle. These include the NM's material properties and biophysical interactions, specific types of use and exposure, uptake and kinetics, and possible early and apical biological effects. None of the evaluated grouping concepts fully take into account all of these aspects. Subsequent work of the Task Force will aim at combining the available concepts into a comprehensive 'multiple perspective' framework for the grouping of nanomaterials that will address all of the mentioned aspects of their life cycles. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available