Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Zeitschriftenartikel (6)
- Handbuch (4)
- Forschungsbericht (4)
- Beitrag zu einem Tagungsband (1)
Sprache
- Englisch (15)
Schlagworte
- Nanomaterial (10)
- Nanoparticles (9)
- Nanomaterial classification (6)
- NanoDefine (4)
- Regulation (4)
- Particle size (3)
- Particle size distribution (3)
- Classification (2)
- Decision support (2)
- Size measurement (2)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
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.
Currently established and projected regulatory frameworks require the classification of materials (whether nano or non-nano) as specified by respective definitions, most of which are based on the size of the constituent particles. This brings up the question if currently available techniques for particle size determination are capable of reliably classifying materials that potentially fall under these definitions.
In this study, a wide variety of characterisation techniques, including counting, fractionating, and spectroscopic techniques, has been applied to the same set of materials under harmonised conditions.
The selected materials comprised well-defined Quality control materials (spherical, monodisperse) as well as industrial materials of complex shapes and considerable polydispersity. As a result, each technique could be evaluated with respect to the determination of the number-weighted median size. Recommendations on the most appropriate and efficient use of techniques for different types of material are given.
The content of the paper is the assessment of the performance of (conventional) measurement techniques (MTs)with respect to the classification of disperse materials according to the EC recommendation for a definition of nanomaterial. This performance essentially refers to the accurate assessment of the number weighted median of (the constituent) particles. All data and conclusions are based on the analytical study conducted as real-world performance testing.
It comprised different types of MTs (imaging, counting, fractionating, spectroscopic and integral) as well as different types of materials. Beside reference materials with well-defined size distribution the study also included several commercial powders (variation of particle composition, morphology, coating, size range and polydispersity). In order to ensure comparability of measurement results, the participants were guided to use uniform protocols in sample preparation, conducting measurements, data analysis and in reporting results. Corresponding documents have been made public, in order to support the reviewing process of the paper, respectively to ensure the reproducibility of data by other users under the same conditions.
The scientific paper relies on a comprehensive set of revised measurement data reported in uniform templates, completely describes the experimental procedures and discusses the MTs’ performance for selected materials in detail. Even more, the study is summarised and evaluated, which leads to recommendations for the use of MTs within a tiered approach of NM characterisation. In addition, the paper critically examines the factors that may affect the outcome of such a comparison among different MTs.
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.
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'.
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.
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 European Commission's recommendation on the definition of nanomaterial [2011/696/EU] is broadly applicable across different regulatory sectors and requires the quantitative size Determination of constituent particles in samples down to 1 nm. A material is a nanomaterial if 50 % or more of the particles are in the size range 1-100 nm. The implementation of the definition in a regulatory context challenges measurement methods to reliably identify nanomaterials and ideally also nonnanomaterials as substance or product ingredient as well as in various matrices.
The EU FP7 NanoDefine project [www.nanodefine.eu] addressed these challenges by developing a robust, readily implementable and cost-effective measurement strategy to decide for the widest possible range of materials whether it is a nanomaterial or not. It is based on existing and emerging particle measurement techniques evaluated against harmonized, material-dependent performance criteria and by intra- and inter-lab comparisons. Procedures were established to reliably measure the size of particles within 1-100 nm, and beyond, taking into account different shapes, coatings and chemical compositions in industrial materials and consumer products. Case studies prove their applicability for various sectors, including food, pigments and cosmetics.
A main outcome is the establishment of an integrated tiered approach including rapid screening (Tier 1) and confirmatory methods (tier 2), a decision support flow scheme and a user manual to guide end-users, such as manufacturers, in selecting appropriate methods. Another main product is the “NanoDefiner” e-Tool which implements the flow scheme in a user-friendly software and guides the user in a semi-automated way through the entire decision procedure. It allows a cost-effective selection of appropriate methods for material classification according to the EC's nanomaterial definition and provides a comprehensive report with extensive explanation of all decision steps to arrive at a transparent identification of nanomaterials as well as non-nanomaterials for regulatory
purposes.
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.
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.