Perspective | Published:

Legal and practical challenges in classifying nanomaterials according to regulatory definitions

Abstract

The European Union (EU) has adopted nano-specific provisions for cosmetics, food and biocides, among others, which include binding definitions of the term “nanomaterial”. Here we take an interdisciplinary approach to analyse the respective definitions from a legal and practical perspective. Our assessment reveals that the definitions contain several ill-defined terms such as “insoluble” or “characteristic properties” and/or are missing thresholds. Furthermore, the definitions pose major and so far unsolved analytical challenges that, in practice, make it nearly impossible to classify nanomaterials according to EU regulatory requirements. An important purpose of the regulations, the protection of human health and the environment, may remain unfulfilled and the development of innovative applications of nanomaterials may be facing a path full of (legal) uncertainties. Based on our findings, we provide five recommendations for a more coherent and practical approach towards the regulation of nanomaterials.

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

Journal peer review information Nature Nanotechnology thanks Diana Bowman, Steffen Hansen and Iseult Lynch for their contribution to the peer review of this work

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

References

  1. 1.

    Amenta, V. et al. Regulatory aspects of nanotechnology in the agri/feed/food sector in EU and non-EU countries. Regul. Toxicol. Pharm. 73, 463–476 (2015).

  2. 2.

    Bleeker, E. A. J. et al. Considerations on the EU definition of a nanomaterial: science to support policy making. Regul. Toxicol. Pharm. 65, 119–125 (2013).

  3. 3.

    D’Silva, J. What’s in a name? Defining a ‘nanomaterial’ for regulatory purposes in Europe. Eur. J. Risk Regul. 2, 85–91 (2011).

  4. 4.

    Rauscher, H., Rasmussen, K. & Sokull-Klüttgen, B. Regulatory aspects of nanomaterials in the EU. Chem. Ing. Tech. 89, 224–231 (2017).

  5. 5.

    European Parliament & Council of the European Union. Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products. L342, 59–209 (Official Journal of the EU, 2009).

  6. 6.

    European Parliament & Council of the European Union. Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on novel foods, amending Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1852/2001. L327, 1–22 recital 10 (Official Journal of the EU, 2015).

  7. 7.

    European Parliament & Council of the European Union. Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products. L167, 1–123 (Official Journal of the EU, 2012).

  8. 8.

    European Parliament & Council of the European Union. Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on medical devices, amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and repealing Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC. L117, 1–175 (Official Journal of the EU, 2017).

  9. 9.

    European Commission. Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/1881 of 3 December 2018 amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards Annexes I, III, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, and XII to address nanoforms of substances. L308, 1–20 (Official Journal of the EU, 2018).

  10. 10.

    European Parliament & Council of the European Union. Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. L396, 1–849 (Official Journal of the EU, 2006).

  11. 11.

    European Commission. Commission Recommendation of 18 October 2011 on the definition of nanomaterial, 2011/696/EU. L275, 38–40 (Official Journal of the EU, 2011).

  12. 12.

    Babick, F., Mielke, J., Wohlleben, W., Weigel, S. & Hodoroaba, V.-D. How reliably can a material be classified as a nanomaterial? Available particle-sizing techniques at work. J. Nanopart. Res. 18, 158 (2016).

  13. 13.

    Bouwmeester, H., Brandhoff, P., Marvin, H. J. P., Weigel, S. & Peters, R. J. B. State of the safety assessment and current use of nanomaterials in food and food production. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 40, 200–210 (2014).

  14. 14.

    Linsinger, T. P. J. et al. Validation of methods for the detection and quantification of engineered nanoparticles in food. Food Chem. 138, 1959–1966 (2013).

  15. 15.

    Maynard, A. D. Don’t define nanomaterials. Nature 475, 31–31 (2011).

  16. 16.

    Pettitt, M. E. & Lead, J. R. Minimum physicochemical characterisation requirements for nanomaterial regulation. Environ. Int. 52, 41–50 (2013).

  17. 17.

    Stamm, H., Gibson, N. & Anklam, E. Detection of nanomaterials in food and consumer products: bridging the gap from legislation to enforcement. Food Addit. Contam. A 29, 1175–1182 (2012).

  18. 18.

    Rauscher, H. et al. Towards a Review of the EC Recommendation for a Definition of the Term “Nanomaterial”. Part 1: Compilation of Information Concerning the Experience with the Definition (European Commission Joint Research Centre, 2014).

  19. 19.

    Rauscher, H. et al. Towards a Review of the EC Recommendation for a Definition of the Term “Nanomaterial”. Part 3: Scientific-technical Evaluation of Options to Clarify the Definition and to Facilitate Its Implementation (European Commission Joint Research Centre, 2015).

  20. 20.

    Roebben, G. et al. Towards a Review of the EC Recommendation for a Definition of the Term “Nanomaterial”. Part 2: Assessment of Collected Information Concerning the Experience with the Definition (European Commission Joint Research Centre, 2014).

  21. 21.

    European Commission. Revision of Commission Recommendation 2011/698/EU on the definition of nanomaterial. https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2017-4513169_en (2017).

  22. 22.

    Eisenberger, I. Innovation im Recht. Chapter 3.II (Verlag Österreich, 2016).

  23. 23.

    European Court of Justice. United Kingdom v. European Parliament. C-66/04, I-10553 (2005).

  24. 24.

    Benítez-Martínez, S., López-Lorente, Á. I. & Valcárcel, M. Determination of TiO2 nanoparticles in sunscreen using N-doped graphene quantum dots as a fluorescent probe. Microchim. Acta 183, 781–789 (2016).

  25. 25.

    Blasco, C. & Picó, Y. Determining nanomaterials in food. Trends Anal. Chem. 30, 84–99 (2011).

  26. 26.

    Braun, A. et al. Validation of dynamic light scattering and centrifugal liquid sedimentation methods for nanoparticle characterisation. Adv. Powder Technol. 22, 766–770 (2011).

  27. 27.

    Calzolai, L., Gilliland, D. & Rossi, F. Measuring nanoparticles size distribution in food and consumer products: a review. Food Addit. Contam. A 29, 1183–1193 (2012).

  28. 28.

    Contado, C. Nanomaterials in consumer products: a challenging analytical problem. Front. Chem. 3, 48 (2015).

  29. 29.

    Contado, C. & Pagnoni, A. TiO2 nano- and micro-particles in commercial foundation creams: field flow-fractionation techniques together with ICP-AES and SQW voltammetry for their characterization. Anal. Methods 2, 1112–1124 (2010).

  30. 30.

    Contado, C., Ravani, L. & Passarella, M. Size characterization by sedimentation field flow fractionation of silica particles used as food additives. Anal. Chim. Acta 788, 183–192 (2013).

  31. 31.

    Loeschner, K. et al. Detection and characterization of silver nanoparticles in chicken meat by asymmetric flow field flow fractionation with detection by conventional or single particle ICP-MS. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 405, 8185–8195 (2013).

  32. 32.

    Wagner, S. et al. First steps towards a generic sample preparation scheme for inorganic engineered nanoparticles in a complex matrix for detection, characterization, and quantification by asymmetric flow-field flow fractionation coupled to multi-angle light scattering and ICP-MS. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 30, 1286–1296 (2015).

  33. 33.

    Gondikas, A. P. et al. Release of TiO2 nanoparticles from sunscreens into surface waters: a one-year survey at the Old Danube Recreational Lake. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 5415–5422 (2014).

  34. 34.

    Hassellöv, M., Readman, J. W., Ranville, J. F. & Tiede, K. Nanoparticle analysis and characterization methodologies in environmental risk assessment of engineered nanoparticles. Ecotoxicology 17, 344–361 (2008).

  35. 35.

    Mitrano, D. M. et al. Detecting nanoparticulate silver using single-particle inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 31, 115–121 (2012).

  36. 36.

    Montaño, M. D., Badiei, H. R., Bazargan, S. & Ranville, J. F. Improvements in the detection and characterization of engineered nanoparticles using spICP-MS with microsecond dwell times. Environ. Sci. Nano 1, 338–346 (2014).

  37. 37.

    Montaño, M. D., Lowry, G. V., von der Kammer, F., Blue, J. & Ranville, J. F. Current status and future direction for examining engineered nanoparticles in natural systems. Environ. Chem. 11, 351–366 (2014).

  38. 38.

    Navratilova, J. et al. Detection of engineered copper nanoparticles in soil using single particle ICP-MS. Int. J. Env. Res. Public Health 12, 15756–15768 (2015).

  39. 39.

    Praetorius, A. et al. Single-particle multi-element fingerprinting (spMEF) using inductively-coupled plasma time-of-flight mass spectrometry (ICP-TOFMS) to identify engineered nanoparticles against the elevated natural background in soils. Environ. Sci. Nano 4, 307–314 (2017).

  40. 40.

    Reed, R. B. et al. Multi-day diurnal measurements of Ti-containing nanoparticle and organic sunscreen chemical release during recreational use of a natural surface water. Environ. Sci. Nano 4, 69–77 (2017).

  41. 41.

    Schierz, A., Parks, A. N., Washburn, K. M., Chandler, G. T. & Ferguson, P. L. Characterization and quantitative analysis of single-walled carbon nanotubes in the aquatic environment using near-infrared fluorescence spectroscopy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 12262–12271 (2012).

  42. 42.

    Tiede, K. et al. Detection and characterization of engineered nanoparticles in food and the environment. Food Addit. Contam. A 25, 795–821 (2008).

  43. 43.

    von der Kammer, F. et al. Analysis of engineered nanomaterials in complex matrices (environment and biota): general considerations and conceptual case studies. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 31, 32–49 (2012).

  44. 44.

    Cascio, C. et al. Detection, quantification and derivation of number size distribution of silver nanoparticles in antimicrobial consumer products. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 30, 1255–1265 (2015).

  45. 45.

    Dan, Y., Shi, H., Stephan, C. & Liang, X. Rapid analysis of titanium dioxide nanoparticles in sunscreens using single particle inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry. Microchem. J. 122, 119–126 (2015).

  46. 46.

    Laborda, F., Jimenez-Lamana, J., Bolea, E. & Castillo, J. R. Critical considerations for the determination of nanoparticle number concentrations, size and number size distributions by single particle ICP-MS. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 28, 1220–1232 (2013).

  47. 47.

    Peters, R. J. B. et al. Characterization of titanium dioxide nanoparticles in food products: analytical methods to define nanoparticles. J. Agric. Food Chem. 62, 6285–6293 (2014).

  48. 48.

    Linsinger, T. et al. Requirements on Measurements for the Implementation of the European Commission Definition of the Term “Nanomaterial” (European Commission Joint Research Centre, 2012).

  49. 49.

    Tiede, K., Dudkiewicz, A., Boxall, A. & Lewis, J. in Characterization of Nanomaterials in Complex Environmental and Biological Media. Frontiers of Nanoscience Vol. 8 (eds. Baalousha, M. & Lead, J. R.) 267–292 (Elsevier, 2015).

  50. 50.

    Lenaerts, K. & Van Nuffel, P. European Union Law (Sweet & Maxwell, 2011).

  51. 51.

    Mayer, F. C. Europäisches Sprachenverfassungsrecht. Der Staat 44, 367–401 (2005).

  52. 52.

    Potacs, M. Die Auslegung des Gemeinschaftsrechts durch den Europäischen Gerichtshof (Forschungsinst. für Europarecht, Karl-Franzens-Univ., 1996).

  53. 53.

    Lenaerts, K. & Gutiérrez-Fons, J. A. To say what the law of the EU is: methods of interpretation and the European Court of Justice. Colum. J. Eur. L. 20, 3–61 (2014).

  54. 54.

    Hansen, S. F. The European Union’s chemical legislation needs revision. Nat. Nanotechnol. 8, 305–306 (2013).

  55. 55.

    Auffan, M. et al. Towards a definition of inorganic nanoparticles from an environmental, health and safety perspective. Nat. Nanotechnol. 4, 634–641 (2009).

  56. 56.

    Roduner, E. Size matters: why nanomaterials are different. Chem. Soc. Rev. 35, 583–592 (2006).

  57. 57.

    European Commission. Types and uses of nanomaterials, including safety aspects. Accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the Second Regulatory Review on Nanomaterials. Commission staff working paper COM(2012) 572 final, SWD(2012) 288 final (2012).

  58. 58.

    Qin, L.-C. et al. The smallest carbon nanotube. Nature 408, 50 (2000).

  59. 59.

    Goel, A., Howard, J. B. & Vander Sande, J. B. Size analysis of single fullerene molecules by electron microscopy. Carbon 42, 1907–1915 (2004).

  60. 60.

    Lu, P.-J., Huang, S.-C., Chen, Y.-P., Chiueh, L.-C. & Shih, D. Y.-C. Analysis of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles in cosmetics. J. Food Drug Anal. 23, 587–594 (2015).

  61. 61.

    Luo, P. et al. Visualization and characterization of engineered nanoparticles in complex environmental and food matrices using atmospheric scanning electron microscopy. J. Microsc. 250, 32–41 (2013).

  62. 62.

    Laborda, F., Bolea, E. & Jiménez-Lamana, J. Single particle inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry: a powerful tool for nanoanalysis. Anal. Chem. 86, 2270–2278 (2014).

  63. 63.

    Lee, S. et al. Nanoparticle size detection limits by single particle ICP-MS for 40 elements. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 10291–10300 (2014).

  64. 64.

    Bleeker, E. A. J. et al. Interpretation and implications of the European Commission’s definition on nanomaterials. Letter Report 601358001 (RIVM, 2012).

  65. 65.

    SCENIHR. Opinion on the Scientific Basis for the Definition of the Term “Nanomaterial”. http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_030.pdf (2010).

  66. 66.

    SCCS. Guidance on the Safety Assessment of Nanomaterials in Cosmetics. http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_s_005.pdf (2012).

  67. 67.

    EFSA. Annual Report of the EFSA Scientific Network of Risk Assessment of Nanotechnologies in Food and Feed for 2015. EFSA supporting publication 2016:EN-939. https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/sp.efsa.2016.EN-939 (2016).

  68. 68.

    European Commission. Commission Implementing Decision (2013/674/EU) of 25 November 2013 on Guidelines on Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on cosmetic products. L315, 82–104 (Official Journal of the EU, 2013).

  69. 69.

    EFSA. Subject: Application of the Definition of Nanomaterial to Food and Feed. Ref. CGL/DL/RS/op (2012). https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/assets/corporatenanotechnology121003.pdf (2012).

  70. 70.

    Dudkiewicz, A. et al. Uncertainties of size measurements in electron microscopy characterization of nanomaterials in foods. Food Chem. 176, 472–479 (2015).

  71. 71.

    Rice, S. B. et al. Particle size distributions by transmission electron microscopy: an interlaboratory comparison case study. Metrologia 50, 663 (2013).

  72. 72.

    Lorenz, C. et al. Imaging and characterization of engineered nanoparticles in sunscreens by electron microscopy, under wet and dry conditions. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 16, 406–428 (2010).

  73. 73.

    US EPA. Chemical Substances When Manufactured or Processed as Nanoscale Materials; TSCA Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements. FR 82, 3641–3655 (Federal Register, 2017).

  74. 74.

    US Toxic Substances Control Act. Public Law No 94–469, 90 Stat. 2003, 15 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. (1976).

  75. 75.

    European Commission. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1363/2013 of 12 December 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of food information to consumers as regards the definition of “engineered” nanomaterials. L343, 26–28 (Official Journal of the EU, 2013).

  76. 76.

    European Parliament. European Parliament legislative resolution of 22 September 2010 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing on the market and use of biocidal products. COM(2009)0267 – C7-0036/2009 – 2009/0076(COD), P7_TA(2010)0333, CE50, 73–208 (Official Journal of the EU, 2010).

  77. 77.

    European Commission. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing on the market and use of biocidal products. COM(2009) 267 final, COD 2009/0076 (2009).

  78. 78.

    Kaegi, R. et al. Synthetic TiO2 nanoparticle emission from exterior facades into the aquatic environment. Environ. Pollut. 156, 233–239 (2008).

  79. 79.

    Borovinskaya, O., Gschwind, S., Hattendorf, B., Tanner, M. & Günther, D. Simultaneous mass quantification of nanoparticles of different composition in a mixture by microdroplet generator-ICPTOFMS. Anal. Chem. 86, 8142–8148 (2014).

  80. 80.

    Peters, R. et al. Presence of nano-sized silica during in vitro digestion of foods containing silica as a food additive. ACS Nano 6, 2441–2451 (2012).

  81. 81.

    Katz, L. M., Dewan, K. & Bronaugh, R. L. Nanotechnology in cosmetics. Food Chem. Toxicol. 85, 127–137 (2015).

  82. 82.

    Misra, S. K., Dybowska, A., Berhanu, D., Luoma, S. N. & Valsami-Jones, E. The complexity of nanoparticle dissolution and its importance in nanotoxicological studies. Sci. Total Environ. 438, 225–232 (2012).

  83. 83.

    Vencalek, B. E. et al. In situ measurement of CuO and Cu(OH)2 nanoparticle dissolution rates in quiescent freshwater mesocosms. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 3, 375–380 (2016).

  84. 84.

    Conway, J. R., Adeleye, A. S., Gardea-Torresdey, J. & Keller, A. A. Aggregation, dissolution, and transformation of copper nanoparticles in natural waters. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 2749–2756 (2015).

  85. 85.

    Ma, R. et al. Size-controlled dissolution of organic-coated silver nanoparticles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 752–759 (2012).

  86. 86.

    Mitrano, D. M. et al. Tracking dissolution of silver nanoparticles at environmentally relevant concentrations in laboratory, natural and processed waters using single particle ICP-MS (spICP-MS). Environ. Sci. Nano 1, 248–259 (2014).

  87. 87.

    Kent, R. D. & Vikesland, P. J. Controlled evaluation of silver nanoparticle dissolution using atomic force microscopy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 6977–6984 (2011).

  88. 88.

    ASASP. Statement for Synthetic Amorphous Silica regarding the definition of ‘nanomaterials’ for cosmetic use in the European Union by the Association of Synthetic Amorphous Silica Producers (ASASP), an Industry Sector Group of Cefic. http://www.asasp.eu/images/Publications/ASASP_Nano_under_Cosmetic_Reg_1223-2009_1304.pdf (2013).

  89. 89.

    EFSA Scientific Committee. Guidance on the risk assessment of the application of nanoscience and nanotechnologies in the food and feed chain. EFSA J. 9, 2140 (2011).

  90. 90.

    Singh, G., Stephan, C., Westerhoff, P., Carlander, D. & Duncan, T. V. Measurement methods to detect, characterize, and quantify engineered nanomaterials in foods. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 13, 693–704 (2014).

  91. 91.

    von der Kammer, F., Legros, S., Hofmann, T., Larsen, E. H. & Loeschner, K. Separation and characterization of nanoparticles in complex food and environmental samples by field-flow fractionation. Trends Anal. Chem. 30, 425–436 (2011).

  92. 92.

    Aschberger, K. et al. Nanomaterials in food—current and future applications and regulatory aspects. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 617, 012032 (2015).

  93. 93.

    Cuddy, M. F. et al. A weight-of-evidence approach to identify nanomaterials in consumer products: a case study of nanoparticles in commercial sunscreens. J. Expos. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 26, 26–34 (2016).

  94. 94.

    Bowman, D. M., van Calster, G. & Friedrichs, S. Nanomaterials and regulation of cosmetics. Nat. Nanotechnol. 5, 92 (2010).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank M. Velimirovic for discussion on analytical techniques. This work was funded by the Nano-Norms-Nature research platform of the University of Vienna.

Author information

A.P. conceived and supervised the project. M.M. performed the literature search and drafted the manuscript. M.M. and I.E. performed the legal analysis. M.M., T.H., F.v.d.K. and A.P. performed the practical assessment. M.M. and A.P. made the figures. All authors contributed to writing and editing the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Correspondence to Thilo Hofmann or Antonia Praetorius.

Supplementary information

  1. Supplementary information

    Supplementary text, supplementary tables 1-3

Rights and permissions

To obtain permission to re-use content from this article visit RightsLink.

About this article

Publication history

  • Received

  • Accepted

  • Published

  • Issue Date

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-019-0396-z

Fig. 1: Visualization of types of materials or structures classified as nanomaterials by the Cosmetics, Novel Food and Biocide Regulations according to their individual size specifications.
Fig. 2: Schematic representation of the effects of measurement artefacts on the classification of a material as ‘nano’ or ‘non-nano’.