To the Editor
Within the European Seventh Framework (FP7) Programme, there are 34 projects dedicated to nanomaterial toxicology worth over €100 million1. This investment was necessary to establish public confidence, but nanotoxicology studies have not yet provided any clear and unequivocal answers on the toxicity of nanomaterials, as was highlighted in your recent Editorial2.
At present, nanomaterial toxicity is assessed by following test protocols developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and/or the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)3,4. These guidance documents were established based on results of early investigations into the toxicity of nanomaterials, where size, shape, chemistry, homogeneity and processing history of the nanomaterial were shown to be important. Consequently, the need to provide physicochemical data to support toxicological findings is increasingly important. Although current measurement guidelines will inform researchers as to which physicochemical characteristics should be measured, the quality of the data generated is being questioned. In particular, current techniques may not be suitable for all nanomaterial samples (for example, if the sample has a polydisperse shape and/or size, or if it is in a complex medium). Furthermore, imaging techniques such as transmission electron microscopy may give results that are either statistically not significant or highly operator dependent. The need to develop new and better measurement techniques is clear but it will take time and substantial research.
If our immediate goal is to effectively regulate without hampering public perception on the benefits of nano-related products, first, all stakeholders should agree on the definition of a nanomaterial, and the measurement methods that would support this definition. Second, the phases of the nanomaterial life cycle should be identified so the risk associated with each phase (from synthesis to product) can be assessed. For example, carbon nanotubes may be considered high risk in a factory setting where aerosol exposure can be problematic, but may be rendered medium or low risk when encapsulated in a composite matrix. Finally, simple test methods are needed to identify these risk categories. Instead of attempting to report a number of physicochemical properties at every phase of the nanomaterial life-cycle, we need to consider if there are some overarching parameters that can easily and rapidly categorize the risk of toxicity.
References
European Commission European Nanosafety Cluster Compendium (2012); http://go.nature.com/xLp2QR
Nature Nanotech. 7, 545 (2012).
International Organization for Standardization ISO/TR 13014:2012: Nanotechnologies — Guidance on Physico-chemical Characterization of Engineered Nanoscale Materials for Toxicologic Assessment (2012); http://www.iso.org/iso/home.htm
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development List of Manufactured Nanomaterials and List of Endpoints for Phase One of the Testing Programme (2008); http://go.nature.com/aJBhhe
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge Steffi Friedrich from the Nanotechnology Industries Association, Richard Brown and John Jarman for their contributions to the work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the National Physical Laboratory or NPL Management Limited.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tantra, R., Shard, A. We need answers. Nature Nanotech 8, 71 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2012.261
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2012.261
This article is cited by
-
The dialogue continues
Nature Nanotechnology (2013)
-
Epidermal growth factor receptor subunit locations determined in hydrated cells with environmental scanning electron microscopy
Scientific Reports (2013)