Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (7)
Referierte Publikation
- ja (7) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Nanomaterial (3)
- Nanomaterials (3)
- Decision support (2)
- Particle size (2)
- Regulation (2)
- Classification (1)
- Definition (1)
- EC nanomaterial definition (1)
- Ecotoxicity (1)
- Expert system (1)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
Electron microscopy (EM) is the gold standard for the characterisation of the morphology (size and shape) of nanoparticles. Visual observation of objects under examination is always a necessary first step in the characterisation process. Several questions arise when undertaking to identify and count particles to measure their size and shape distribution. In addition to challenges with the dispersion and identification of the particles, more than one protocol for counting particles is in use. This paper focuses on precise rules for the counting of particles in EM micrographs, as this influences the measurement accuracy of the number of particles, thus implicitly affecting the size values of the counted particles. We review and compare four different, commonly used methods for counting, which we then apply in case studies. The impact of the selected counting rule on the obtained final particle size distribution is highlighted. One main aim of this analysis is to support the application of a specific, well-defined counting approach in accordance with regulatory
requirements to contribute to achieving more reliable and reproducible results. It is also useful for the new harmonised measurement procedures for determining the particle size and particle size distribution of nanomaterials.
The new recommended definition of a nanomaterial, 2022/C 229/01, adopted by the European Commission in 2022, will have a considerable impact on European Union legislation addressing chemicals, and therefore tools to implement this new definition are urgently needed. The updated NanoDefiner framework and its e-tool implementation presented here are such instruments, which help stakeholders to find out in a straightforward way whether a material is a nanomaterial or not. They are two major outcomes of the NanoDefine project, which is explicitly referred to in the new definition. This work revisits the framework and e-tool, and elaborates necessary adjustments to make these outcomes applicable for the updated recommendation. A broad set of case studies on representative materials confirms the validity of these adjustments. To further foster the sustainability and applicability of the framework and e-tool, measures for the FAIRification of expert knowledge within the e-tool’s knowledge base are elaborated as well. The updated framework and e-tool are now ready to be used in line with the updated recommendation. The presented approach may serve as an example for reviewing existing guidance and tools developed for the previous definition 2011/696/EU, particularly those adopting NanoDefine project outcomes.
Reliable nanomaterial classification of powders using the volume-specific surface area method
(2017)
The volume-specific surface area (VSSA) of a particulate material is one of two apparently very different metrics recommended by the European Commission for a definition of "nanomaterial" for regulatory purposes: specifically, the VSSA metric may classify nanomaterials and non-nanomaterials differently than the median size in number metrics, depending on the chemical composition, size, polydispersity, shape, porosity, and aggregation of the particles in the powder.
Here we evaluate the extent of agreement between classification by electron microscopy (EM) and classification by VSSA on a large set of diverse particulate substances that represent all the anticipated challenges except mixtures of different substances. EM and VSSA are determined in multiple labs to assess also the level of reproducibility. Based on the results obtained on highly characterized benchmark materials from the
NanoDefine EU FP7 project, we derive a tiered screening strategy for the purpose of implementing the definition of nanomaterials. We finally apply the Screening strategy to further industrial materials, which were classified correctly and left only borderline cases for EM.
On platelet-shaped nanomaterials, VSSA is essential to prevent false-negative classification by EM. On porous materials, approaches involving extended Adsorption isotherms prevent false positive classification by VSSA. We find no false negatives by VSSA, neither in Tier 1 nor in Tier 2, despite real-world industrial polydispersity and diverse composition, shape, and coatings. The VSSA screening strategy is recommended for inclusion in a technical guidance for the implementation of the definition.
Development and market introduction of new nanomaterials trigger the need for an adequate risk assessment of such products alongside suitable risk communication measures. Current application of classical and new nanomaterials is analyzed in context of regulatory requirements and standardization for chemicals, food and consumer products. The challenges of nanomaterial characterization as the main bottleneck of risk assessment and regulation are presented. In some areas, e.g., quantification of nanomaterials within complex matrices, the establishment and adaptation of analytical techniques such as laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry and others are potentially suited to meet the requirements. As an example, we here provide an approach for the reliable characterization of human exposure to nanomaterials resulting from food packaging. Furthermore, results of nanomaterial toxicity and ecotoxicity testing are discussed, with concluding key criteria such as solubility and fiber rigidity as important parameters to be considered in material development and regulation. Although an analysis of the public opinion has revealed a distinguished rating depending on the particular field of application, a rather positive perception of nanotechnology could be ascertained for the German public in general. An improvement of material characterization in both toxicological testing as well as end-product control was concluded as being the main obstacle to ensure not only safe use of materials, but also wide acceptance of this and any novel technology in the general public.
Identifying nanomaterials (NMs) according to European Union Legislation is challenging, as there is an enormous variety of materials, with different physico-chemical properties. The NanoDefiner Framework and its Decision Support Flow Scheme (DSFS) allow choosing the optimal method to measure the particle size distribution by matching the material properties and the performance of the particular measurement techniques. The DSFS leads to a reliable and economic decision whether a material is an NM or not based on scientific criteria and respecting regulatory requirements. The DSFS starts beyond regulatory requirements by identifying non-NMs by a proxy Approach based on their volume-specific surface area. In a second step, it identifies NMs. The DSFS is tested on real-world materials and is implemented in an e-tool. The DSFS is compared with a decision flowchart of the European Commission’s (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC), which rigorously follows the explicit criteria of the EC NM definition with the focus on identifying NMs, and non-NMs are identified by exclusion. The two approaches build on the same scientific basis and measurement methods, but start from opposite ends: the JRC Flowchart starts by identifying NMs, whereas the NanoDefiner Framework first identifies non-NMs.
NanoDefiner e-Tool: An Implemented Decision Support Framework for Nanomaterial Identification
(2019)
The European Commission’s recommendation on the definition of nanomaterial (2011/696/EU) established an applicable standard for material categorization. However, manufacturers face regulatory challenges during registration of their products. Reliable categorization is difficult and requires considerable expertise in existing measurement techniques (MTs). Additionally, organizational complexity is increased as different authorities’ registration processes require distinct reporting.
The NanoDefine project tackled these obstacles by providing the NanoDefiner e-tool: A decision support expert system for nanomaterial identification in a regulatory context. It providesMT recommendations for categorization of specific materials using a tiered approach (screening/confirmatory), and was constructed with experts from academia and industry to be extensible, interoperable, and adaptable for forthcoming revisions of the nanomaterial definition. An implemented MT-driven material categorization scheme allows detailed description. Its guided workflow is suitable for a variety of user groups. Direct feedback and explanation enable transparent decisions. Expert knowledge is Held in a knowledge base for representation of MT performance criteria and physicochemical particle type
properties. Continuous revision ensured data quality and validity. Recommendations were validated by independent case studies on industry-relevant particulate materials. Besides supporting material identification and registration, the free and open-source e-tool may serve as template for other expert systems within the nanoscience domain.
This chapter first gives an introduction to the concepts of SSA and volume-specific surface area (VSSA) and an outline of the BET method. It continues with a discussion of the relationship between particle size, shape, and the VSSA, followed by an overview of instrumentation, experimental methods, and standards. Finally, sections on the use of the VSSA as a tool to identify nanomaterials and non-nanomaterials and its role in a regulatory context provide some insight on the importance of VSSA in the current Regulation of nanomaterials.