Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Comprehensive framework for human health risk assessment of nanopesticides

Nature Nanotechnology volume 16, pages 955–964 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Nanopesticides are not only in an advanced state of research and development but have started to appear on the market. Industry and regulatory agencies need a consolidated and comprehensive framework and guidance for human health risk assessments. In this perspective we develop such a comprehensive framework by exploring two case studies from relevant product types: an active ingredient delivered with a nanocarrier system, and a nanoparticle as an active ingredient. For a nanocarrier system, three entities are tracked during the assessment: the nanocarrier–active ingredient complex, the empty nanocarrier remaining after the complete release of the active ingredient, and the released active ingredient. For the nanoparticle of pure active ingredient, only two entities are relevant: the nanoparticle and the released ions. We suggest important adaptations of the existing pesticide framework to determine the relevant nanopesticide entities and their concentrations for toxicity testing. Depending on the nature of the nanopesticides, additional data requirements, such as those pertaining to durability in biological media and potential for crossing biological barriers, have also been identified. Overall, our framework suggests a tiered approach for human health risk assessment, which is applicable for a range of nanopesticide products to support regulators and industry in making informed decisions on nanopesticide submissions. Brief summaries of suitable methods including references to existing standards (if available) have been included together with an analysis of current knowledge gaps. Our study is an important step towards a harmonized approach accepted by regulatory agencies for assessing nanopesticides.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: The three stage of human exposure to pesticides.
Fig. 2: Decision tree considering case 1: a polymer NC associated with a pesticide AI.
Fig. 3: Decision tree considering case 2: metal or metal oxide NPs releasing ions over time.

References

  1. FAO The Future of Food and Agriculture: Trends and Challenges (2017); https://reliefweb.int/report/world/future-food-and-agriculture-trends-and-challenges

  2. Kah, M., Tufenkji, N. & White, J. C. Nano-enabled strategies to enhance crop nutrition and protection. Nat. Nanotechnol. 14, 532–540 (2019). This review summarizes current challenges in crop nutrition and protection, and the possible solutions offered by nanotechnology.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Adisa, I. O. et al. Recent advances in nano-enabled fertilizers and pesticides: a critical review of mechanisms of action. Environ. Sci. Nano 6, 2002–2030 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kah, M., Kookana, R. S., Gogos, A. & Bucheli, T. D. A critical evaluation of nanopesticides and nanofertilizers against their conventional analogues. Nat. Nanotechnol. 13, 677–684 (2018). A critical evaluation of nanofertilizers and nanopesticides against their conventional analogues indicates that lack of information on the efficacy and environmental impact of nanoagrochemicals under field conditions is a critical knowledge gap.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Camara, M. C. et al. Development of stimuli-responsive nano-based pesticides: emerging opportunities for agriculture. J. Nanobiotechnology 17, 100 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Singh, H. et al. Recent advances in the applications of nano-agrochemicals for sustainable agricultural development. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 23, 213–239 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Mitter, N. et al. Clay nanosheets for topical delivery of RNAi for sustained protection against plant viruses. Nat. Plants 3, 16207 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Health Canada Policy Statement on Health Canada’s Working Definition for Nanomaterial (2011); https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/science-research/reports-publications/nanomaterial/policy-statement-health-canada-working-definition.html

  9. Miernicki, M., Hofmann, T., Eisenberger, I., Kammer, Fvonder & Praetorius, A. Legal and practical challenges in classifying nanomaterials according to regulatory definitions. Nat. Nanotechnol. 14, 208–216 (2019). The current limitations of the European Union definitions for ‘nanomaterial’ are outlined along with recommendations for a more coherent approach to classifying nanomaterials for regulatory purposes.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. US EPA Control of Nanoscale Materials under the Toxic Substances Control Act (2015); https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/control-nanoscale-materials-under

  11. Boverhof, D. R. et al. Comparative assessment of nanomaterial definitions and safety evaluation considerations. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 73, 137–150 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Etheridge, M. L. et al. The big picture on nanomedicine: the state of investigational and approved nanomedicine products. Nanomedicine 9, 1–14 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kah, M. Nanopesticides and nanofertilizers: emerging contaminants or opportunities for risk mitigation? Front. Chem. 3, 64 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bocca, B. et al. Nanopesticides: physico-chemical characterization by a combination of advanced analytical techniques. Food Chem. Toxicol. 146, 111816 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R. & Polasky, S. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418, 671–677 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hardy, A. et al. Guidance on risk assessment of the application of nanoscience and nanotechnologies in the food and feed chain: Part 1, human and animal health. EFSA J. 16, e05327 (2018). This European Food Safety Authority guidance document provides detailed information on the physical chemical characterization and toxicological testing required for risk assessment of the impact of nanoscience and nanotechnology applications in the food and feed chain on animal and human health.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kookana, R. S. et al. Nanopesticides: guiding principles for regulatory evaluation of environmental risks. J. Agric. Food Chem. 62, 4227–4240 (2014). This paper presents the framework for ecological risk assessment of nanopesticides.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Walker, G. W. et al. Ecological risk assessment of nano-enabled pesticides: a perspective on problem formulation. J. Agric. Food Chem. 66, 6480–6486 (2018). This perspective article summarizes the relevant considerations for problem formulation in the ecological risk assessment of nanoenabled pesticides.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. ISO ISO/TR 19057:2017 (2017); https://www.iso.org/cms/render/live/en/sites/isoorg/contents/data/standard/06/38/63836.html

  20. Gubala, V. et al. Engineered nanomaterials and human health: part 1. Preparation, functionalization and characterization (IUPAC Technical Report). Pure Appl. Chem. 90, 1283–1324 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. OECD Important Issues on Risk Assessment of Manufactured Nanomaterials (Series on the Safety of Manufactured Nanomaterials No. 33) (2012); http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono(2012)8&doclanguage=en

  22. Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) Guidance on the Safety Assessment of Nanomaterials in Cosmetics SCCS/1611/19 (Publications Office, 2019).

  23. Grieger, K. et al. Best practices from nano-risk analysis relevant for other emerging technologies. Nat. Nanotechnol. 14, 998–1001 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) Principles for the Assessment of Risks to Human Health from Exposure to Chemicals (1999); http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc210.htm

  25. EC Commission Regulation (EU) No 284/2013 of 1 March 2013 Setting Out the Data Requirements for Plant Protection Products, in Accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council Concerning the Placing of Plant Protection Products on the Market (2013); https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32013R0284

  26. US EPA Data Requirements for Pesticide Registration (2013); https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/data-requirements-pesticide-registration

  27. EC Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 Concerning the Placing of Plant Protection Products on the Market and Repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (2009).

  28. EC Commission Regulation (EU) No 283/2013 of 1 March 2013 Setting out the Data Requirements for Active Substances, in Accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council Concerning the Placing of Plant Protection Products on the Market (Text with EEA Relevance) (2013).

  29. Health Canada. Regulatory Directive (DIR2005-01) Guidelines for Developing a Toxicological Database for Chemical Pest Control Products. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/consumer-product-safety/reports-publications/pesticides-pest-management/policies-guidelines/regulatory-directive/2005/developing-toxicological-database-chemical-pest-control-products-dir2005-01.html (2005).

  30. Shakiba, S. et al. Emerging investigator series: polymeric nanocarriers for agricultural applications: synthesis, characterization, and environmental and biological interactions. Environ. Sci. Nano 7, 37–67 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Ma, C. et al. Advanced material modulation of nutritional and phytohormone status alleviates damage from soybean sudden death syndrome. Nat. Nanotechnol. 15, 1033–1042 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Avramescu, M.-L., Chénier, M., Palaniyandi, S. & Rasmussen, P. E. Dissolution behavior of metal oxide nanomaterials in cell culture medium versus distilled water. J. Nanoparticle Res. 22, 222 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Koltermann-Jülly, J. et al. Abiotic dissolution rates of 24 (nano)forms of 6 substances compared to macrophage-assisted dissolution and in vivo pulmonary clearance: grouping by biodissolution and transformation. NanoImpact 12, 29–41 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Health Canada Guidance for Waiving or Bridging of Mammalian Acute Toxicity Tests for Pesticides (2015); https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/consumer-product-safety/reports-publications/pesticides-pest-management/policies-guidelines/guidance-waiving-bridging-mammalian-acute-toxicity-tests-pesticides.html

  35. US EPA Bridging or Waiving Data Requirements (2020); https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/bridging-or-waiving-data-requirements

  36. Gimeno-Benito, I., Giusti, A., Dekkers, S., Haase, A. & Janer, G. A review to support the derivation of a worst-case dermal penetration value for nanoparticles. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 119, 104836 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Beloqui, A., des Rieux, A. & Préat, V. Mechanisms of transport of polymeric and lipidic nanoparticles across the intestinal barrier. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 106, 242–255 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Paranjpe, M. & Müller-Goymann, C. C. Nanoparticle-mediated pulmonary drug delivery: a review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 15, 5852–5873 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Steinhäuser, K. G. & Sayre, P. G. Reliability of methods and data for regulatory assessment of nanomaterial risks. NanoImpact 7, 66–74 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Rasmussen, K., Rauscher, H., Kearns, P., González, M. & Riego Sintes, J. Developing OECD test guidelines for regulatory testing of nanomaterials to ensure mutual acceptance of test data. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 104, 74–83 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Gao, X. & Lowry, G. V. Progress towards standardized and validated characterizations for measuring physicochemical properties of manufactured nanomaterials relevant to nano health and safety risks. NanoImpact 9, 14–30 (2018). Progress towards standardization and validation of methods to characterize the intrinsic and extrinsic properties of nanomaterials for risk assessment purposes is reviewed.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Johnston, L. J., Gonzalez-Rojano, N., Wilkinson, K. J. & Xing, B. Key challenges for evaluation of the safety of engineered nanomaterials. NanoImpact 18, 100219 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Rasmussen, K. et al. Physico-chemical properties of manufactured nanomaterials—characterisation and relevant methods. An outlook based on the OECD Testing Programme. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 92, 8–28 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Sampathkumar, K., Tan, K. X. & Loo, S. C. J. Developing nano-delivery systems for agriculture and food applications with nature-derived polymers. iScience 23, 101055 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Liang, D. et al. Degradation of polyacrylate in the outdoor agricultural soil measured by FTIR-PAS and LIBS. Polymers 10, 1296 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Zumstein, M. T. et al. Biodegradation of synthetic polymers in soils: tracking carbon into CO2 and microbial biomass. Sci. Adv. 4, eaas9024 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. OECD Assessment of Biodurability of Nanomaterials and their Surface Ligands (Series on the Safety of Manufactured Nanomaterials No. 86 (2018); http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono(2018)11&doclanguage=enThis OECD report summarizes current in vitro and in vivo methods to measure biodurability of nanomaterials as well as the effects of surface coatings and ligands on dissolution and degradation processes.

  48. OECD Guidance Document for the Testing of Dissolution and Dispersion Stability of Nanomaterials and the Use of Data for Further Environmental Testing and Assessment Strategies (2020); http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono(2020)9&doclanguage=en

  49. OECD Test No. 106: Adsorption–Desorption Using a Batch Equilibrium Method (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2000).

  50. D’Souza, S. A review of in vitro drug release test methods for nano-sized dosage forms. Adv. Pharm. 2014, e304757 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  51. European Nanomedicine Characterisation Laboratory (EUNCL) Verification of Expected Lipid Composition in Nanomedical Controlled Release Systems by Liquid Chromatography–Tandem Mass Spectrometry EUNCL-PCC-032 (2017).

  52. Gioria, S. et al. Are existing standard methods suitable for the evaluation of nanomedicines: some case studies. Nanomedicine 13, 539–554 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Kah, M., Weniger, A.-K. & Hofmann, T. Impacts of (nano)formulations on the fate of an insecticide in soil and consequences for environmental exposure assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 10960–10967 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Kah, M., Walch, H. & Hofmann, T. Environmental fate of nanopesticides: durability, sorption and photodegradation of nanoformulated clothianidin. Environ. Sci. Nano 5, 882–889 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Zhang, P. et al. Nanomaterial transformation in the soil–plant system: implications for food safety and application in agriculture. Small 16, 2000705 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Marques, M. R. C., Loebenberg, R. & Almukainzi, M. Simulated biological fluids with possible application in dissolution testing. Dissolution Technol. 18, 15–28 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Oberdörster, G. et al. Principles for characterizing the potential human health effects from exposure to nanomaterials: elements of a screening strategy. Part. Fibre Toxicol. 2, 8 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. OECD Developments in Delegations on the Safety of Manufactured Nanomaterials (2019); https://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono(2019)11&doclanguage=en

  59. OECD Test No. 428: Skin Absorption: In Vitro Method (2004); https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/test-no-428-skin-absorption-in-vitro-method_9789264071087-en

  60. EFSA. Guidance on dermal absorption. EFSA J. 10, 2665 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Singh, N., Wills, J. W. & Doak, S. H. in Nanotoxicology 248–275 (Royal Society of Chemistry, 2017). The advantages of 3D cell culture models for in vitro nanotoxicity testing are reviewed, along with an overview of available 3D models to mimic the physiological environment of a variety of tissues and organs.

  62. OECD Test No. 439: In Vitro Skin Irritation: Reconstructed Human Epidermis Test Method (2020); https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/test-no-439-in-vitro-skin-irritation-reconstructed-human-epidermis-test-method_9789264242845-en

  63. OECD Test No. 431: In Vitro Skin Corrosion: Reconstructed Human Epidermis (RHE) Test Method (2014); https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/test-no-431-in-vitro-skin-corrosion-reconstructed-human-epidermis-rhe-test-method_9789264264618-en

  64. Wills, J. W. et al. Genetic toxicity assessment of engineered nanoparticles using a 3D in vitro skin model (EpiDermTM). Part. Fibre Toxicol. 13, 50 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Barosova, H., Drasler, B., Petri-Fink, A. & Rothen-Rutishauser, B. Multicellular human alveolar model composed of epithelial cells and primary immune cells for hazard assessment. J. Vis. Exp. 159, e61090 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Chortarea, S. et al. Repeated exposure to carbon nanotube-based aerosols does not affect the functional properties of a 3D human epithelial airway model. Nanotoxicology 9, 983–993 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Barosova, H. et al. Use of EpiAlveolar lung model to predict fibrotic potential of multiwalled carbon nanotubes. ACS Nano 14, 3941–3956 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Willoughby, J. A. Predicting respiratory toxicity using a human 3D airway (EpiAirwayTM) model combined with multiple parametric analysis. Appl. Vitr. Toxicol. 1, 55–65 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Evans, S. J. et al. In vitro detection of in vitro secondary mechanisms of genotoxicity induced by engineered nanomaterials. Part. Fibre Toxicol. 16, 8 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Kämpfer, A. A. M. et al. Development of an in vitro co-culture model to mimic the human intestine in healthy and diseased state. Toxicol. Vitr. 45, 31–43 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Ude, V. C., Brown, D. M., Stone, V. & Johnston, H. J. Using 3D gastrointestinal tract in vitro models with microfold cells and mucus secreting ability to assess the hazard of copper oxide nanomaterials. J. Nanobiotechnol. 17, 70 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Clift, M. J. D. et al. A novel technique to determine the cell type specific response within an in vitro co-culture model via multi-colour flow cytometry. Sci. Rep. 7, 434 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Modrzynska, J. et al. In vivo-induced size transformation of cerium oxide nanoparticles in both lung and liver does not affect long-term hepatic accumulation following pulmonary exposure. PLoS ONE 13, e0202477 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Test No. 417: Toxicokinetics, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals Section 4 (OECD, 2010).

  75. Toxicokinetics of Manufactured Nanomaterials: Report from the OECD Expert Meeting (OECD, 2016); http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono(2016)24&doclanguage=en

  76. Kah, M. & Kookana, R. Emerging investigator series: nanotechnology to develop novel agrochemicals: critical issues to consider in the global agricultural context. Environ. Sci.: Nano 7, 1867–1873 (2020).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Lowry, G. V., Avellan, A. & Gilbertson, L. M. Opportunities and challenges for nanotechnology in the agri-tech revolution. Nat. Nanotechnol. 14, 517–522 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Lombi, E., Donner, E., Dusinska, M. & Wickson, F. A One Health approach to managing the applications and implications of nanotechnologies in agriculture. Nat. Nanotechnol. 14, 523–531 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to several experts who made contributions to the early stages of this project, including D. Anderson, P. Demokritou, G. Mahler, L. Parsons, A. Byro, D. McShan, P. Reeves, A. Tobia, U. Nasini, S. Qu, G. Walker, H. Xiao and B. Xing. The development of this framework was facilitated by financial support from IUPAC via a project on Human Health Risk Consideration of Nano-enabled Pesticides for Industry and Regulators (project number 2017-035-2-600).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Environment, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    Melanie Kah

  2. Metrology Research Centre, National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

    Linda J. Johnston

  3. CSIRO, Glen Osmond, South Australia, Australia

    Rai S. Kookana

  4. University of Adelaide, Glen Osmond, South Australia, Australia

    Rai S. Kookana

  5. Health Evaluation Directorate, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

    Wendy Bruce

  6. Department of Chemical and Product Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany

    Andrea Haase

  7. Department of Pesticides Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany

    Vera Ritz

  8. Vive Crop Protection, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

    Jordan Dinglasan

  9. Institute of Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK

    Shareen Doak

  10. Department of Natural Science, Faculty of Technology, Middlesex University, London, UK

    Hemda Garelick

  11. Medway School of Pharmacy, University of Kent, Chatham Maritime, UK

    Vladimir Gubala

Authors
  1. Melanie Kah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Linda J. Johnston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rai S. Kookana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wendy Bruce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrea Haase
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Vera Ritz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jordan Dinglasan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Shareen Doak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Hemda Garelick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Vladimir Gubala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melanie Kah.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Nanotechnology thanks the anonymous reviewers 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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kah, M., Johnston, L.J., Kookana, R.S. et al. Comprehensive framework for human health risk assessment of nanopesticides. Nat. Nanotechnol. 16, 955–964 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-021-00964-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-021-00964-7

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Find nanotechnology articles, nanomaterial data and patents all in one place. Visit Nano by Nature Research