TY - RPRT A1 - Rauscher, H. A1 - Mech, A. A1 - Gaillard, C. A1 - Stintz, M. A1 - Wohlleben, W. A1 - Weigel, St. A1 - Ghanem, A. A1 - Hodoroaba, Vasile-Dan A1 - Babick, F. A1 - Mielke, Johannes T1 - Recommendations on a Revision of the EC Definition of Nanomaterial Based on Analytical Possibilities N2 - In October 2011 the European Commission (EC) published a "Recommendation on the definition of nanomaterial" (2011/696/EU), to promote consistency in the interpretation of the term "nanomaterial" for legislative and policy purposes in the EU. The EC NM Definition includes a commitment to its review in the light of experience and of scientific and technological developments. This review is ongoing in 2015 and as a contribution to the review the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (JRC) has already developed a series of three scientific-technical reports with the title: “Towards a review of the EC Recommendation for a definition of the term nanomaterial” which provides to the EC policy services science-based options on how the definition could be revised or supported with additional guidance. The overarching nature and wide scope of the EC NM Definition, as it does not exclude a priori any particulate material regardless the state, form and size, creates many analytical challenges in its imple-mentation for all stakeholders, including enterprises and regulators. The NanoDefine project has as core objective to support the implementation of the EC NM Definition. In this report key aspects of the EC NM Definition are addressed, with the goal to improve the implement-ability of the EC NM Definition. These aspects are presented and discussed based on the results of two years of research performed within the framework of the project. As a result this report assesses how well the requirements of the EC NM Definition can be fulfilled with currently available analytical possi-bilities. It presents recommendations and options on a revision of the EC NM Definition to improve the implementability of the definition based on currently available analytical possibilities, according to the state of the art of mid-2015. Of the technical issues considered in this report, the following seem to deserve the most attention in terms of clarification of the definition and/or provision of additional implementation guidance:  The term ‘external dimension’. A clear definition of 'External dimension' should be included in the text of the EC NM definition and more precise guidance on what is considered as an external dimension and how to properly character-ise it should be provided.  The ‘number based particle size distribution‘. The EC NM Definition uses a threshold related to the number based size distribution of particles. Yet most of the easily available techniques provide a mass-, volume- or scattered light intensity-based size distribution which needs to be converted into a number based distribution to be used for regulatory pur-poses. A specific guidance on the conditions under which these methods can be used to identify a na-nomaterial by employing appropriate quantity or metrics conversion should be provided.  The ‘polydispersity‘ and ‘upper size limit‘ Polydispersity is a challenge for the measurement of particle size distribution for the EC NM definition, specifically for materials with high polydispersity index and broad size distribution especially when the volume or mass of the fraction containing particles below 100 nm is very small. Therefore a dedicated guidance should be provided that allows applying an upper size limit in measurements and particle statistics. KW - Nanomaterial KW - EU Definition of nanomaterial KW - Nanoparticles PY - 2015 UR - https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b43-432339 UR - http://www.nanodefine.eu/publications/reports/NanoDefine_TechnicalReport_D7.10.pdf SP - 1 EP - 68 PB - The NanoDefine Consortium CY - Wageningen, The Netherlands AN - OPUS4-43233 LA - eng AD - Bundesanstalt fuer Materialforschung und -pruefung (BAM), Berlin, Germany ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Boley, N. A1 - van der Veen, A.M.H. A1 - Robouch, P. A1 - Golze, Manfred A1 - van de Kreeke, Johannes A1 - Örnemark, U. A1 - Tylee, B. T1 - Comparability of PT schemes - what did we learn from COEPT? N2 - Abstract The use of proficiency testing schemes (PTS) by laboratories as an integral part of their quality system has been increasing in recent years. Accreditation bodies, regulators and the laboratories’ customers are increasingly using results from PTS in their relationship with laboratories. There are many PTS available in Europe in analytical chemistry; EPTIS indicates over 400. The comparability of these PTS is now a real issue, as many organisers of PTS move into new markets. The COEPT project has systematically demonstrated (in four technical sectors – water, soil, food and occupational hygiene), that there are many similarities between PTS in each sector. For example, nearly all use the z-score as a performance index. One significant difference between many PTS is the value used for the term s in the z-score equation, and this gives a range of evaluations for the same data point. Despite this, the agreement between PTS in the same sector for the evaluation of data is approximately 85%. COEPT has given us a basis for establishing the comparability of PTS and showing us where further harmonisation could occur. KW - Proficiency testing KW - Comparability KW - Harmonisation PY - 2006 SN - 0949-1775 SN - 1432-0517 VL - 11 IS - 8-9 SP - 391 EP - 399 PB - Springer CY - Berlin AN - OPUS4-14162 LA - eng AD - Bundesanstalt fuer Materialforschung und -pruefung (BAM), Berlin, Germany ER -