Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Zeitschriftenartikel (7)
- Handbuch (4)
- Forschungsbericht (3)
- Vortrag (2)
- Beitrag zu einem Sammelband (1)
Sprache
- Englisch (17)
Schlagworte
- Nanomaterial (11)
- Nanoparticles (8)
- Nanomaterial classification (6)
- NanoDefine (4)
- Particle size distribution (4)
- Regulation (4)
- Nanomaterials (3)
- Particle size (3)
- Classification (2)
- Decision support (2)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
Eingeladener Vortrag
- nein (2)
Worldwide there is a variety of regulatory provisions addressing nanomaterials. The identification as nanomaterial in a regulatory context often has the consequence that specific legal rules apply. In identifying nanomaterials, and to find out whether nanomaterial-specific provisions apply, the external size of particles is globally used as a criterion. For legal certainty, its assessment for regulatory purposes should be based on measurements and methods that are robust, fit for the purpose and ready to be accepted by different stakeholders and authorities. This should help to assure the safety of nanomaterials and at the same time facilitate their international trading. Therefore, we propose a categorisation scheme which is driven by the capabilities of common characterisation techniques for particle size measurement. Categorising materials according to this scheme takes into account the particle properties that are most important for a determination of their size. The categorisation is exemplified for the specific particle number based size metric of the European Commission's recommendation on the definition of nanomaterial, but it is applicable to other metrics as well. Matching the performance profiles of the measurement techniques with the material property profiles (i) allows selecting the most appropriate size determination technique for every type of material considered, (ii) enables proper identification of nanomaterials, and (iii) has the potential to be accepted by regulators, industry and consumers alike. Having such a scheme in place would facilitate the regulatory assessment of nanomaterials in regional legislation as well as in international relations between different regulatory regions assuring the safe trade of nanomaterials.
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 VSSA approach has the important advantage over classifying, imaging and counting techniques that it does not involve dispersion protocols. Further, the BET technique as the basis for VSSA determination it is in widespread use, generates low costs and is specified for many commercial materials. Finally, the same equipment allows for a deeper analysis by full isotherm evaluation.
The present deliverable assesses all NanoDefine powders, supplemented by further real-world materials (in total 26 powders), and quantitatively compares the relationship between the median size (by Electron Microscopy – considered as benchmark for the EC nanomaterial definition) vs. the size derived from VSSA. The VSSA method mitigates the challenges of EM to assess the thickness of platelets, but worked as well on fibbers and particles of irregular shapes. A screening strategy is proposed. If applied to the further data from real-world materials as validation set, this screening does achieve a correct classification, leaving only borderline materials for tier 2 assessment.
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.
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.
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.
Recommendations on a Revision of the EC Definition of Nanomaterial Based on Analytical Possibilities
(2015)
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.
In October 2011 the European Commission (EC) published a "Recommendation on the definition of na-nomaterial" (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 2017 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 sci-ence-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 an earlier report1 key aspects of the EC NM Definition were addressed, with the goal to improve the implementability of the EC NM Definition. Based on further developments and results obtained in NanoDefine project that first report was updated and is presented here. The key aspects are discussed based on the results of four 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 possibilities. 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 possi-bilities, according to the state of the art in 2017. 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: 'external dimension', ‘number based particle size distribution‘, ‘polydispersity‘ and ‘upper size limit‘, the term ‘particle’, the ‘means to prove that a material is not a nanomaterial‘ and ‘the role of the volume specific sur-face area (VSSA)‘, and "particulate materials'.
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.