4.8 Review

Minimum physicochemical characterisation requirements for nanomaterial regulation

期刊

ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL
卷 52, 期 -, 页码 41-50

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2012.11.009

关键词

Nanoparticle; Nanomaterial; Regulation; Ecotoxicology; REACH; Characterisation

资金

  1. Natural Environthental Research Council
  2. Facility for Environmental Nanoscience Analysis and Characterisation (FENAC)
  3. UK Environment Agency
  4. SmartState Center for Environmental Nanoscience and Risk (CENR) at the University of South Carolin
  5. Natural Environment Research Council [FENAC010001] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. NERC [FENAC010001] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Appropriate characterisation of manufactured nanomaterials (NMs) is vital for many aspects of their synthesis, product formulation, toxicological testing and regulation. As the range and quantity of NMs in production has expanded, the interest in their potential environmental and toxicological consequences has grown. With this growth, there is increased need for clarity and rigour in characterising appropriate physicochemical parameters. Which physicochemical parameters should be characterised and under what conditions remains a topic of debate, along with the most appropriate techniques and methodologies to best describe any one characteristic. This review assesses the characterisation requirements of current and future regulatory frameworks for NMs, with specific focus on the incoming REACH framework of the EU. For regulatory compliance, characterisation requirements will be necessarily prescriptive. The minimum physicochemical parameters required to adequately describe NMs for regulatory purposes are proposed, along with a discussion of the most appropriate mechanisms to obtain those data in terms of the overarching delivery mechanism. Guiding principles for particle characterisation during the hazard testing required to comply with regulations are examined. (c) 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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

4.8
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