Engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) have tremendous potential to produce beneficial technological impact in numerous sectors in society. Safety assessment is, of course, of paramount importance. However, the myriad variations of ENM properties makes the identification of specific features driving toxicity challenging. At the same time, reducing animal tests by introducing alternative and/or predictive in vitro and in silico methods has become a priority. It is important to embrace these new advances in the safety assessment of ENMs. Indeed, remarkable progress has been made in recent years with respect to mechanism-based hazard assessment of ENMs, including systems biology approaches as well as high-throughput screening platforms, and new tools are also emerging in risk assessment and risk management for humans and the environment across the whole life-cycle of nano-enabled products. Here, we highlight some of the key advances in the hazard and risk assessment of ENMs.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from $8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.


  1. 1.

    Maynard, A. D. et al. Safe handling of nanotechnology. Nature 444, 267–269 (2006).

  2. 2.

    Krug, H. F. Nanosafety research--are we on the right track? Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 53, 12304–12319 (2014).

  3. 3.

    Valsami-Jones, E. & Lynch, I. NANOSAFETY. How safe are nanomaterials? Science 350, 388–389 (2015).

  4. 4.

    Sayes, C. M. & Warheit, D. B. Characterization of nanomaterials for toxicity assessment. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Nanomed. Nanobiotechnol. 1, 660–670 (2009).

  5. 5.

    Fadeel, B., Fornara, A., Toprak, M. S. & Bhattacharya, K. Keeping it real: the importance of material characterization in nanotoxicology. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 468, 498–503 (2015).

  6. 6.

    Walkey, C. D. & Chan, W. C. Understanding and controlling the interaction of nanomaterials with proteins in a physiological environment. Chem. Soc. Rev. 41, 2780–2799 (2012).

  7. 7.

    Monopoli, M. P., Åberg, C., Salvati, A. & Dawson, K. A. Biomolecular coronas provide the biological identity of nanosized materials. Nat. Nanotech. 7, 779–786 (2012).

  8. 8.

    Cohen, Y., Rallo, R., Liu, R. & Liu, H. H. In silico analysis of nanomaterials hazard and risk. Acc. Chem. Res. 46, 802–812 (2013).

  9. 9.

    Winkler, D. A. Recent advances, and unresolved issues, in the application of computational modelling to the prediction of the biological effects of nanomaterials. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 299, 96–100 (2016).

  10. 10.

    Fadeel, B. et al. There’s plenty of room at the forum: potential risks and safety assessment of engineered nanomaterials. Nanotoxicology 1, 73–84 (2007).

  11. 11.

    Savolainen, K. et al. Risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials and nanotechnologies--a review. Toxicology 269, 92–104 (2010).

  12. 12.

    Hussain, S. M. et al. At the crossroads of nanotoxicology in vitro: past achievements and current challenges. Toxicol. Sci. 147, 5–16 (2015).

  13. 13.

    Valsami-Jones, E., Lynch, I. & Charitidis, C. A. Nanomaterial ontologies for nanosafety: a rose by any other name…. J. Nanomed. Res. 3, 00070 (2016).

  14. 14.

    Worth, A. et al. Evaluation of the Availability and Applicability of Computational Approaches in the Safety Assessment of Nanomaterials (Joint Research Centre, 2017); https://doi.org/10.2760/248139

  15. 15.

    Hastings, J. et al. eNanoMapper: harnessing ontologies to enable data integration for nanomaterial risk assessment. J. Biomed. Semant. 6, 1–15 (2015).

  16. 16.

    Jeliazkova, N. et al. The eNanoMapper database for nanomaterial safety information. Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 6, 1609–1634 (2015).

  17. 17.

    Farcal, L. et al. Comprehensive in vitro toxicity testing of a panel of representative oxide nanomaterials: first steps towards an intelligent testing strategy. PLoS ONE 10, e0127174 (2015).

  18. 18.

    Collins, A. R. et al. High throughput toxicity screening and intracellular detection of nanomaterials. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Nanomed. Nanobiotechnol. 9, e1413 (2017).

  19. 19.

    Richard, A. M. et al. ToxCast chemical landscape: paving the road to 21st century toxicology. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 29, 1225–1251 (2016).

  20. 20.

    Nel, A. E. & Malloy, T. F. Policy reforms to update chemical safety testing. Science 355, 1016–1018 (2017).

  21. 21.

    Anguissola, S., Garry, D., Salvati, A., O’Brien, P. J. & Dawson, K. A. High content analysis provides mechanistic insights on the pathways of toxicity induced by amine-modified polystyrene nanoparticles. PLoS ONE 9, e108025 (2014).

  22. 22.

    Harris, G. et al. Iron oxide nanoparticle toxicity testing using high-throughput analysis and high-content imaging. Nanotoxicology 9, 87–94 (2015).

  23. 23.

    Liu, R. et al. Classification NanoSAR development for cytotoxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles. Small 7, 1118–1126 (2011).

  24. 24.

    Rallo, R. et al. Self-organizing map analysis of toxicity-related cell signaling pathways for metal and metal oxide nanoparticles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 1695–1702 (2011).

  25. 25.

    George, S. et al. Use of a high-throughput screening approach coupled with in vivo zebrafish embryo screening to develop hazard ranking for engineered nanomaterials. ACS Nano 5, 1805–1817 (2011).

  26. 26.

    Liu, R. et al. Automated phenotype recognition for zebrafish embryo based in vivo high throughput toxicity screening of engineered nano-materials. PLoS ONE 7, e35014 (2012).

  27. 27.

    Marchese Robinson, R. L. et al. How should the completeness and quality of curated nanomaterial data be evaluated? Nanoscale 8, 9919–9943 (2016).

  28. 28.

    Nel, A. et al. Nanomaterial toxicity testing in the 21st century: use of a predictive toxicological approach and high-throughput screening. Acc. Chem. Res. 46, 607–621 (2013).

  29. 29.

    Briffa, S. M. et al. Development of scalable and versatile nanomaterial libraries for nanosafety studies: polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) capped metal oxide nanoparticles. RSC Adv. 7, 3894–3906 (2017).

  30. 30.

    Hansjosten, I. et al. Microscopy-based high-throughput assays enable multi-parametric analysis to assess adverse effects of nanomaterials in various cell lines. Arch. Toxicol. 92, 633–649 (2018).

  31. 31.

    Gallud, A. et al. Cytotoxicity screening of a panel of 31 nanomaterials in the human monocytic cell line THP.1 versus primary human monocyte-derived macrophages: assessing the role of surface modification. In New Tools and Approaches for Nanomaterial Safety Assessment: Book of Abstracts (2017); https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.26504.62722

  32. 32.

    Hongisto, V. et al. High-throughput screening approach evaluated toxicity of 31 engineered nanomaterials generated for the NANOSOLUTIONS project. In New Tools and Approaches for Nanomaterial Safety Assessment : Book of Abstracts (2017); https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.26504.62722

  33. 33.

    Walkey, C. D. et al. Protein corona fingerprinting predicts the cellular interaction of gold and silver nanoparticles. ACS Nano 8, 2439–2455 (2014).

  34. 34.

    Collins, F. S., Gray, G. M. & Bucher, J. R. TOXICOLOGY. Transforming environmental health protection. Science 319, 906–907 (2008).

  35. 35.

    Sturla, S. J. et al. Systems toxicology: from basic research to risk assessment. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 27, 314–329 (2014).

  36. 36.

    Hartung, T. et al. Systems toxicology: real world applications and opportunities. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 30, 870–882 (2017).

  37. 37.

    Costa, P. M. & Fadeel, B. Emerging systems biology approaches in nanotoxicology: towards a mechanism-based understanding of nanomaterial hazard and risk. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 299, 101–111 (2016).

  38. 38.

    Nymark, P. et al. A data fusion pipeline for generating and enriching adverse outcome pathway descriptions. Toxicol. Sci. 162, 264–275 (2018).

  39. 39.

    Fortino, V. & Greco, D. ENM SAFETY CLASSIFIER – a multi-view feature selection and classification algorithm for prediction of engineered nanomaterials (ENM) safety. In New Tools and Approaches for Nanomaterial Safety Assessment : Book of Abstracts (2017); https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.26504.62722

  40. 40.

    Kinaret, P. et al. Network analysis reveals similar transcriptomic responses to intrinsic properties of carbon nanomaterials in vitro and in vivo. ACS Nano 11, 3786–3796 (2017).

  41. 41.

    Bornholdt, J. et al. Identification of gene transcription start sites and enhancers responding to pulmonary carbon nanotube exposure in vivo. ACS Nano 11, 3597–3613 (2017).

  42. 42.

    Hristozov, D. R., Gottardo, S., Critto, A. & Marcomini, A. Risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials: a review of available data and approaches from a regulatory perspective. Nanotoxicology 6, 880–898 (2012).

  43. 43.

    Park, M. et al. Hazard evaluation in GUIDENANO: a web-based guidance tool for risk assessment and mitigation of nano-enabled products. In New Tools and Approaches for Nanomaterial Safety Assessment: Book of Abstracts (2017); https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.26504.62722

  44. 44.

    Subramanian, V. et al. Sustainable nanotechnology decision support system: bridging risk management, sustainable innovation and risk governance. J. Nanopart. Res. 8, 1–13 (2016).

  45. 45.

    Zabeo, A. et al. SUNDS, a multi-criteria decision support system for nanotechnology risk assessment and management. In New Tools and Approaches for Nanomaterial Safety Assessment : Book of Abstracts (2017); https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.26504.62722

  46. 46.

    Dekkers, S. et al. Towards a nanospecific approach for risk assessment. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 80, 46–59 (2016).

  47. 47.

    Oomen, A. G. et al. Grouping and read-across approaches for risk assessment of nanomaterials. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 12, 13415–13434 (2015).

  48. 48.

    González-Gálvez, D., Janer, G., Vilar, G., Vílchez, A. & Vázquez-Campos, S. The life cycle of engineered nanoparticles. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 947, 41–69 (2017).

  49. 49.

    Fernández-Rosas, E. et al. Influence of nanomaterial compatibilization strategies on polyamide nanocomposites properties and nanomaterial release during the use phase. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 2584–2594 (2016).

  50. 50.

    Mitrano, D. M., Lombi, E., Dasilva, Y. A. & Nowack, B. Unraveling the complexity in the aging of nanoenhanced textiles: a comprehensive sequential study on the effects of sunlight and washing on silver nanoparticles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 5790–5799 (2016).

  51. 51.

    Wohlleben, W. et al. A pilot interlaboratory comparison of protocols that simulate aging of nanocomposites and detect released fragments. Environ. Chem. 11, 402–418 (2014).

  52. 52.

    Nowack, B. et al. Meeting the needs for released nanomaterials required for further testing - the SUN approach. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 2747–2753 (2016).

  53. 53.

    Tsang, M. P., Kikuchi-Uehara, E., Sonnemann, G. W., Aymonier, C. & Hirao, M. Evaluating nanotechnology opportunities and risks through integration of life-cycle and risk assessment. Nat. Nanotech. 12, 734–739 (2017).

  54. 54.

    Linkov, I. et al. Integrate life-cycle assessment and risk analysis results, not methods. Nat. Nanotech. 12, 740–743 (2017).

  55. 55.

    Guinée, J. B., Heijungs, R., Vijver, M. G. & Peijnenburg, W. J. G. M. Setting the stage for debating the roles of risk assessment and life-cycle assessment of engineered nanomaterials. Nat. Nanotech. 12, 727–733 (2017).

  56. 56.

    Bishop, L. et al. In vivo toxicity assessment of occupational components of the carbon nanotube life cycle to provide context to potential health effects. ACS Nano 11, 8849–8863 (2017).

  57. 57.

    Rasmussen, K. et al. Review of achievements of the OECD Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials’ Testing and Assessment Programme. From exploratory testing to test guidelines. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 74, 147–160 (2016).

  58. 58.

    Fadeel, B. Systems biology in nanosafety research. Nanomed. (Lond.) 10, 1039–1041 (2015).

Download references


The authors and their laboratories were supported, in part, by the European Commission through the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7-eNANOMAPPER, grant no. 604134; FP7-GUIDENANO, grant no. 604387; FP7-NANOMILE, grant no. 310451; FP7-NANOSOLUTIONS, grant no. 309329; FP7-SUN, grant no. 604305). We thank all the project partners for invaluable contributions to these projects, and the project officers for their guidance.

Author information


  1. Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

    • Bengt Fadeel
    •  & Harri Alenius
  2. Douglas Connect GmbH, Basel, Switzerland

    • Lucian Farcal
    •  & Barry Hardy
  3. Department of New Technologies, LEITAT, Barcelona, Spain

    • Socorro Vázquez-Campos
  4. Department of Biology, University of Venice Ca Foscari, Venice, Italy

    • Danail Hristozov
    •  & Antonio Marcomini
  5. School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

    • Iseult Lynch
    •  & Eugenia Valsami-Jones
  6. Department of Bacteriology and Immunology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

    • Harri Alenius
  7. Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland

    • Kai Savolainen


  1. Search for Bengt Fadeel in:

  2. Search for Lucian Farcal in:

  3. Search for Barry Hardy in:

  4. Search for Socorro Vázquez-Campos in:

  5. Search for Danail Hristozov in:

  6. Search for Antonio Marcomini in:

  7. Search for Iseult Lynch in:

  8. Search for Eugenia Valsami-Jones in:

  9. Search for Harri Alenius in:

  10. Search for Kai Savolainen in:

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kai Savolainen.

About this article

Publication history