4.7 Article

Grouping Hypotheses and an Integrated Approach to Testing and Assessment of Nanomaterials Following Oral Ingestion

期刊

NANOMATERIALS
卷 11, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nano11102623

关键词

ingested nanomaterials; integrated approach to testing and assessment; grouping; dissolution; durability; biopersistence

资金

  1. European Commission Horizon 202 project GRACIOUS [760840]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The article presents nine integrated approaches to testing and assessment (IATAs) for grouping ingested nanomaterials, using decision trees and tiered testing strategies to support grouping decisions and indicate implications per group.
The risk assessment of ingested nanomaterials (NMs) is an important issue. Here we present nine integrated approaches to testing and assessment (IATAs) to group ingested NMs following predefined hypotheses. The IATAs are structured as decision trees and tiered testing strategies for each decision node to support a grouping decision. Implications (e.g., regulatory or precautionary) per group are indicated. IATAs integrate information on durability and biopersistence (dissolution kinetics) to specific hazard endpoints, e.g., inflammation and genotoxicity, which are possibly indicative of toxicity. Based on IATAs, groups of similar nanoforms (NFs) of a NM can be formed, such as very slow dissolving, highly biopersistent and systemically toxic NFs. Reference NMs (ZnO, SiO2 and TiO2) along with related NFs are applied as case studies to testing the oral IATAs. Results based on the Tier 1 level suggest a hierarchy of biodurability and biopersistence of TiO2 > SiO2 > ZnO, and are confirmed by in vivo data (Tier 3 level). Interestingly, our analysis suggests that TiO2 and SiO2 NFs are able to induce both local and systemic toxicity along with microbiota dysbiosis and can be grouped according to the tested fate and hazard descriptors. This supports that the decision nodes of the oral IATAs are suitable for classification and assessment of the toxicity of NFs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据