Key challenges for nanotechnology: Standardization of ecotoxicity testing

References

• Flament G. Closing the gap: the impact of nanotechnologies on the global divide. Nanotechnology Industries Association (NIA) Report. Bruxelles, Belgique; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Dreher KL. Health and environmental impact of nanotechnology: toxicological assessment of manufactured nanoparticles. Toxicol Sci. 2003;77:3–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feynman R. There's plenty of room at the bottom. Caltech Engineering & Science. 1960;23:22–36.
   Google Scholar
• Kumar A, Dhawan A. Manual on critical issues in nanotechnology R&D management-an Asia-Pacific perspective. Chapter 1: Nano-safety, standardization and certification. Asian and Pacific Centre for Transfer of Technology (APCTT) of the United Nations- Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP). New Delhi, India. 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Klaine SJ, Koelmans AA, Horne N, Carley S, Handy RD, Kapustka L, Nowack B, Kammer F. Paradigms to assess the environmental impact of manufactured nanomaterials. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2012;31:3–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taniguchi N. On the basic concept of ‘nano-technology’. Proc Intl Conf Prod Eng Tokyo, Part II, Japan Society of Precision Engineering. 1974;2:5–10.
   Google Scholar
• Assessment of the risks associated with nanomaterials, issues and update of current knowledge. French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES); Maisons-Alfort Cedex, France, 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Lang J, Meyer-Plath A. Characterisation of substances at nanoscale as background for the regulation in the framework of the regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006 (REACH). Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing (BAM), Berlin, Germany; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Cheng L-C, Jiang X, Wang J, Chen C, Liu R-S. Nano-bio effects: interaction of nanomaterials with cells. Nanoscale. 2013;5:3547–3569.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soni D, Naoghare PK, Saravanadevi S, Pandey RA. Release, transport and toxicity of engineered nanoparticles. In: Whitacre DM (Ed.), Rev Environ Contam T., Vol 234. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2015: 1–48.
   Google Scholar
• Yadav T, Mungray AA, Mungray AK. Fabricated nanoparticles: current status and potential phytotoxic threats. In: Whitacre DM (Ed.), Rev Environ Contam T, Vol 230. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2014: 83–110.
   Google Scholar
• Stern ST, McNeil SE. Nanotechnology safety concerns revisited. Toxicol Sci. 2008;101:4–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McShan D, Zhang Y, Deng H, Ray PC, Yu H. synergistic antibacterial effect of silver nanoparticles combined with ineffective antibiotics on drug resistant salmonella typhimurium DT104. J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev. 2015;33:369–384.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartl S, Fries R, Giovanna DD, Klein J, Micheletti C, Laganis J, Łojkowski W, Sobczyk J, Swiderska-Sroda A, Falk A. “NANOFORCE” nanotechnology for chemical enterprises-how to link scientific knowledge to the business in the Central Europe space. Book of recommendations for the European Commission-Longversion. NANOFORCE Project, CENTRAL EUROPE Programme co-financed by the ERDF. 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Hermann A, Diesner M-O, Abel J, Hawthorne C, Greßmann A. Assessment of impacts of a European register of products containing nanomaterials. Germany: Federal Environment Agency; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Greßler S, Part F, Gazsó A. “Nanowaste”—nanomaterial-containing products at the end of their life cycle. NanoTrust Dossier No. 040en—August 2014. Institute of Technology Assessment of the Austrian Academy of Sciences; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Bhatt I, Tripathi BN. Interaction of engineered nanoparticles with various components of the environment and possible strategies for their risk assessment. Chemosphere. 2011;82:308–317.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Srivastava V, Gusain D, Sharma YC. A critical review on the toxicity of some widely used engineered nanoparticles. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2015;54:6209–6233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050. The Consequences of Inaction. OECD Publishing; 2012. DOI:10.1787/9789264122246-en
   Google Scholar
• OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050. The Consequences of Inaction. http://www. oecd.org/env/indicators-modelling-outlooks/waterchapteroftheoecdenvironmentaloutlook to2050theconsequencesofinaction.htm (accessed October 2016).
   Google Scholar
• OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050. The Consequences of Inaction. http://www. oecd.org/env/indicators-modelling-outlooks/healthenvchapter-environmentaloutlookto 2050.htm (accessed October 2016).
   Google Scholar
• Zhao T, Zhou T, Yao Q, Hao C, Chen X. Metal nanoclusters: applications in environmental monitoring and cancer therapy. J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev. 2015;33:168–187.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greßler S, Nentwich M. “Nano and the environment- Part I: potential environmental benefits and sustainability effects. NanoTrust Dossier No. 026en–March 2012. Institute of Technology Assessment of the Austrian Academy of Sciences; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Sánchez A, Recillas S, Font X, Casals E, González E, Puntes V. Ecotoxicity of, and remediation with, engineered inorganic nanoparticles in the environment. Trac-Trend Anal Chem. 2011;30:507–516.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kah M, Hofmann T. The Challenge: Carbon nanomaterials in the environment: New threats or wonder materials?. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2015;34:954–958.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ray PC, Yu H, Fu PP. Nanogold-based sensing of environmental toxins: excitement and challenges. J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev. 2011;29:52–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qu X, Brame J, LI Q, Alvarez PJJ. Nanotechnology for a safe and sustainable water supply: enabling integrated water treatment and reuse. Accounts Chem Res. 2013;46:834– 843.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aschberger K, Rauscher H, Crutzen H, Rasmussen K, Christensen FM, Sokull-Klüttgen B, Stamm H. Considerations on information needs for nanomaterials in consumer products. Discussion of a labelling and reporting scheme for nanomaterials in consumer products in the EU. Joint Research Centre (JRC) Science and Policy Reports. European Comission; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Keller AA, McFerran S, Lazareva A, Suh S. Global life cycle releases of engineered nanomaterials. J Nanopart Res. 2013;15:1692.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bour A, Mouchet F, Silvestre J, Gauthier L, Pinelli E. Environmentally relevant approaches to assess nanoparticles ecotoxicity: a review. J Hazard Mater. 2015;283:764– 777.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greßler S, Nentwich M. “Nano and environment—Part II: hazard potentials and risks. NanoTrust Dossier No. 027en–March 2012. Institute of Technology Assessment of the Austrian Academy of Sciences; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Professor Richard Owen. Associate Dean of Research and Knowledge. Transfer and Chair Responsible Innovation. University of Exeter. The Business School, Exeter, Devon, UK.
   Google Scholar
• The nano revolution. Episode 3. Will nano save the planet? Directed by Mike Downie, produced by Takahiro Hamano. 2011. ARTE France DOCSIDE PRODUCTION-CBC NHK. Released in 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Professor Mark R. Wiesner. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Duke University. Director of the Center for the Environmental Implications of NanoTechnology (CEINT). Durham, North Carolina, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Professor Cole Matson. Assistant Professor of Environmental Science. Member of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). Baylor University. Waco, Texas, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Batley GE, Kirby JK, Mclaughlin MJ. Fate and risks of nanomaterials in aquatic and terrestrial environments. Accounts Chem Res. 2013;46:854–862.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston H, Pojana G, Zuin S, et al. Engineered nanomaterial risk. Lessons learnt from completed nanotoxicology studies: potential solutions to current and future challenges. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2013;43:1–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NANoREG Final Proposal: A common European approach to the regulatory testing of nanomaterials. European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013)-grant agreement n° 310584. Work programme topics NMP.2012.1.3-3 Regulatory testing of nanomaterials; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Growth-Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs. European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/nanomaterials/index_en.htm (accessed October 2016).
   Google Scholar
• EU NanoSafety Cluster. European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (DG RTD). http://www.nanosafetycluster.eu/ (accessed October 2016).
   Google Scholar
• NanoImpactNet: European Network on the Health and Environmental Impact of Nanomaterials. EU-FP7. Grant Agreement No: 218539. http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/86639_en.html (accessed October 2016).
   Google Scholar
• QualityNano: European Union-funded infrastructure for Quality in nanomaterials safety testing. EU-FP7. Grant Agreement No: 262163. http://www.qualitynano.eu/ (accessed October 2016).
   Google Scholar
• Second Regulatory Review on Nanomaterials. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee Brussels; 3 October 2012. http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/the-policy_en.html (accessed October 2016).
   Google Scholar
• Environment-Nanomaterials in REACH and CLP. European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/nanotech/reach-clp/caracal_en.htm (accessed October 2016).
   Google Scholar
• Bleeker EAJ, Theodori D, Wijnhoven SWP. Exploring building blocks for amending EU regulation of nanomaterials. The Netherlands: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• A Research Strategy for Environmental, Health, and Safety Aspects of Engineered Nanomaterials. National Research Council of the National Academies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Fries R, Gazsó A. Research projects on EHS aspects of nanotechnology in the 7th Framework Program of the EU. NanoTrust Dossier No. 030en–May 2012. Institute of Technology Assessment of the Austrian Academy of Sciences; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• NANoREG Newsletter 3-March 2015. NANoREG: A common European approach to the regulatory testing of nanomaterials. EU-FP7. Grant Agreement No: 310584. http://www.nanoreg.eu/news-events/newsletter (accessed October 2016).
   Google Scholar
• NANoREG Newsletter 2-August 2014. NANoREG: A common European approach to the regulatory testing of nanomaterials. EU-FP7. Grant Agreement No: 310584. http://www.nanoreg.eu/news-events/newsletter (accessed October 2016).
   Google Scholar
• NANoREG Newsletter 2-August 2014. NANoREG: A common European approach to the regulatory testing of nanomaterials. EU-FP7. Grant Agreement No: 310584. http://www.nanoreg.eu/news-events/newsletter (accessed October 2016).
   Google Scholar
• Kahru A, Dubourguier H-C. From ecotoxicology to nanoecotoxicology. Toxicology. 2010;269:105–119.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baun A, Hartmann NB, Grieger K, Kusk KO. Ecotoxicity of engineered nanoparticles to aquatic invertebrates: a brief review and recommendations for future toxicity testing. Ecotoxicology. 2008;17:387–395.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaudrie CEH, Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Harthorn BH. Expert views on regulatory preparedness for managing the risks of nanotechnologies. Plos One. 2013;8: e80250.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Djurisšićc AB, Leung YH, Ng AMC, Xu XY, Lee PKH, Degger N, Wu RSS. Toxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles: mechanisms, characterization, and avoiding experimental artefacts. Small. 2015;11:26–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vale G, Mehennaouic K, Cambier S, Giovanni Libralato, Jomini S, Domingos RF. Manufactured nanoparticles in the aquatic environment-biochemical responses on freshwater organisms: A critical overview. Aquat Toxicol. 2016;170:162–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gottschalk F, Sun T, Nowack B. Environmental concentrations of engineered nanomaterials: review of modeling and analytical studies. Environ Pollut. 2013;181:287–300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahru A, Ivask A. Mapping the dawn of nanoecotoxicological research. Accounts Chem Res. 2013;46:823–833.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oomen AG, Bos PMJ, Fernandes TF, Hund-Rinke K, Boraschi D, Byrne HJ, et al. Concern-driven integrated approaches to nanomaterial testing and assessment—report of the NanoSafety Cluster Working Group 10. Nanotoxicology. 2014;8:334–348.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa PM, Fadeel B. Emerging systems biology approaches in nanotoxicology: Towards a mechanism-based understanding of nanomaterial hazard and risk. Toxicol Appl Pharm. 2016;299:101–111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Topuz E, van Gestel CAM. An approach for environmental risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and fuzzy inference rules. Environ Int. 2016;92–93:334–347.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone V, Pozzi-Mucelli S, Tran L, Aschberger K, Sabella S, Vogel U, et al. ITS-NANO—Prioritising nanosafety research to develop a stakeholder driven intelligent testing strategy. Part Fibre Toxicol. 2014;11:9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Puzyn T, Leszczynska D, Leszczynski J. Toward the development of “nano-QSARs”: advances and challenges. Small. 2009;5:2494–2509.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chau YT, Yap CW. Quantitative nanostructure-activity relationship modelling of nanoparticles. RSC Adv. 2012;2:8489.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westerhoff P, Nowack B. 2013. Searching for global descriptors of engineered nanomaterial fate and transport in the environment. Accounts Chem Res. 2013;46:844–853.
   Google Scholar
• Lynch I, Weiss C, Valsami-Jones E. A strategy for grouping of nanomaterials based on key physico-chemical descriptors as a basis for safer-by-design NMs. Nano Today. 2–14;9:266–270.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stefaniak AB, Hackley VA, Roebben G, Ehara K, Hankin S, Postek MT, et al. Nanoscale reference materials for environmental, health and safety measurements: needs, gaps and opportunities. Nanotoxicology. 2013;7:1325–1337.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• List of Manufactured Nanomaterials and List of Endpoints for Phase One of the Sponsorship Programme for the Testing of Manufactured Nanomaterials: Revision. OECD Environment, Health and Safety Publications Series on the Safety of Manufactured Nanomaterials No. 27. Paris: Organisation For Economic Co-Operation And Development; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• OECD Testing Programme of Manufactured Nanomaterials—Dossiers and Endpoints. http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/nanosafety/dossiers-and-endpoints-testingprogramme-manufactured-nanomaterials.htm (accessed October 2016).
   Google Scholar
• NANoREG Factsheet Deliverable 3.1-Critical exposure scenarios. 20, May 2015. http://www.nanoreg.eu/media-and-downloads/factsheets-of-nanoreg-output/229-factsheet-of-deliverable-3-1-critical-exposure-scenarios (accessed October 2016).
   Google Scholar
• Fish, Acute Toxicity Test. OECD Guideline 203. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; 17 July 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Daphnia sp. Acute Immobilisation Test. OECD Guideline 202. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; 13 April 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Daphnia magna Reproduction Test. OECD Guideline 211. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; 2 October 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Freshwater Alga and Cyanobacteria, Growth Inhibition Test. OECD Guideline 201. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; Adopted 23 March 2006, corrected 28 July 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Crane M, Handy RD, Garrod J, Owen R. Ecotoxicity test methods and environmental hazard assessment for engineered nanoparticles. Ecotoxicology. 2008;17:421–437.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peralta-Videa JR, Zhao L, Lopez-Moreno ML, de la Rosa G, Hong J, Gardea-Torresdey JL. Nanomaterials and the environment: a review for the biennium 2008–2010. J Hazard Mater. 2011;186:1–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garner KL, Keller AA. Emerging patterns for engineered nanomaterials in the environment: a review of fate and toxicity studies. J Nanopart Res. 2014;16:2503.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Navarro E, Baun A, Behra R, Hartmann NB, Filser J, Miao A-J, Quigg A, Santschi PH, Sigg L. Environmental behavior and ecotoxicity of engineered nanoparticles to algae, plants, and fungi. Ecotoxicology. 2008;17:372–386.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quik JTK, Vonk JA, Hansen SF, Baun A, Van De Meent D. How to assess exposure of aquatic organisms to manufactured nanoparticles? Environ Int. 2011;37:1068–1077.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scown TM, van Aerle R, Tyler CR. Review: Do engineered nanoparticles pose a significant threat to the aquatic environment? Crit Rev Toxicol. 2010;40:653–670.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coll C, Notter D, Gottschalk F, Sun T, Som C, Nowack B. Probabilistic environmental risk assessment of five nanomaterials (nano-TiO2, nano-Ag, nano-ZnO, CNT, and fullerenes). Nanotoxicology. 2016;10:436–444.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keller AA, Wang H, Zhou D, Lenihan HS, Cherr G, Cardinale BJ, Miller R, Ji Z. Stability and aggregation of metal oxide nanoparticles in natural aqueous matrices. Environ Sci Technol. 2010;44:1962–1967.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petosa AR, Jaisi DP, Quevedo IR, Elimelech M, Tufenkji N. Aggregation and deposition of engineered nanomaterials in aquatic environments: role of physicochemical interactions. Environ Sci Technol. 2010;44:6532–6549.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selck H, Handy RD, Fernandes TF, Klaine SJ, Petersen EJ. Nanomaterials in the aquatic environment: A European Union-United States perspective on the status of ecotoxicity testing, research priorities, and challenges ahead. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2016;35:1055–1067.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aschberger K, Micheletti C, Sokull-Klüttgen B, Christensen FM. Analysis of currently available data for characterising the risk of engineered nanomaterials to the environment and human health-lessons learned from four case studies. Environ Int. 2011;37:1143–1156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quik JTK, Stuart MC, Wouterse M, Peijnenburg W, Hendriks AJ, van de Meent D. Natural colloids are the dominant factor in the sedimentation of nanoparticles. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2012;31:1019–1022.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dwivedi AD, Dubey SP, Sillanpää M, Kwon Y-N, Lee C, Varma RS. Fate of engineered nanoparticles: Implications in the environment. Coordin Chem Rev. 2015;287:64–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erhayem M, Sohn M. Effect of humic acid source on humic acid adsorption onto titanium dioxide nanoparticles. Sci Total Environ. 2014;470–471:92–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mallevre F, Fernandes TF, Aspray TJ. Silver, zinc oxide and titanium dioxide nanoparticle ecotoxicity to bioluminescent Pseudomonas putida in laboratory medium and artificial wastewater. Environ Pollut. 2014;195:218–225.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ecotoxicology and Environmental Fate of Manufactured Nanomaterials: Test Guidelines. Expert Meeting Report OECD Environment, Health and Safety Publications. Series on the Safety of Manufactured Nanomaterials No. 40. Paris: Organisation For Economic Co-Operation And Development; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Testing the test in NANoREG: Nanomaterial Characterization and Technical Guidance for Toxicological Testing; 2014. http://echa.europa.eu/news-and-events/ events/event-details/-/journal_content/56_INSTANCE_DR2i/title/topical-scientific-workshop-regulatory-challenges-in-risk-assessment-of-nanomaterials (accessed October 2016).
   Google Scholar
• Cerrillo C, Barandika G, Igartua A, Areitioaurtena O, Marcaide A, Mendoza G. Ecotoxicity of multiwalled carbon nanotubes: Standardization of the dispersion methods and concentration measurements. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2015;34:1854–1862.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petersen EJ, Henry TB, Zhao J, et al. Identification and avoidance of potential artifacts and misinterpretations in nanomaterial ecotoxicity measurements. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48:4226–4246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taurozzi JS, Hackley VA, Wiesner MR. Ultrasonic dispersion of nanoparticles for environmental, health and safety assessment-issues and recommendations. Nanotoxicology. 2011;5:711–729.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cerrillo C, Barandika G, Igartua A, Areitioaurtena O, Uranga N, Mendoza G. Colloidal stability and ecotoxicity of multiwalled carbon nanotubes: influence of select organic matters. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2016;35:74–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cerrillo C, Barandika G, Igartua A, Areitioaurtena O, Mendoza G. Towards the standardization of nanoecotoxicity testing: natural organic matter ‘camouflages’ the adverse effects of TiO2 and CeO2 nanoparticles on green microalgae. Sci Total Environ. 2016;543:95–104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwyzer I, Kaegi R, Sigg L, Smajda R, Magrez A, Nowack B. Long-term colloidal stability of 10 carbon nanotube types in the absence/presence of humic acid and calcium. Environ Pollut. 2012;169:64–73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang Z, Zhang L, Zhao J, Xing B. Environmental processes and toxicity of metallic nanoparticles in aquatic systems as affected by natural organic matter. Environ Sci Nano. 2016;3:240–255.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cupi D, Hartmann NB, Baun A. The influence of natural organic matter and aging on suspension stability in guideline toxicity testing of silver, zinc oxide, and titanium dioxide nanoparticles with Daphnia magna. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2015;34:497–506.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar