Ingenieurwissenschaften und zugeordnete Tätigkeiten
Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Zeitschriftenartikel (2)
- Vortrag (2)
- Beitrag zu einem Tagungsband (1)
Sprache
- Englisch (5)
Schlagworte
- Regulation (5) (entfernen)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
Eingeladener Vortrag
- nein (2)
The European legislation has responded to the wide use of nanomaterials in our daily life and defined the term “nanoform” in the Annexes to the REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization of Chemicals) Regulation. Now specific information of the nanomaterials is required from the companies when registering the appropriate materials in a dossier.
In the context of REACH eleven physicochemical properties were considered as relevant, of which the following six are essential for registration of nanoforms (priority properties): chemical composition, crystallinity, particle size, particle shape, chemical nature of the surface (“surface chemistry”), and specific surface area (SSA). A key role is the reliable, reproduceable and traceable character of the data of these priority properties.
In this context, we want to discuss which ‘analytical’ information is exactly required to fulfill these conditions. Time-of-Flight Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry (ToF-SIMS) and X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) were chosen as the most popular surface analytical methods. Both methods allow a detailed understanding of the surface chemistry with an information depth below ten nanometers. As a rather bulk method for the analysis of nanoforms, Electron Probe Microanalysis (EPMA) in the version with energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) is considered for the quick identification of the main chemical elements present in the sample. Furthermore, Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) results are discussed which provide results on particle size and shape. Thus, four of the six priority properties can be obtained with these methods.
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.
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.
In this paper, we identify the strategic motives of German manufacturing companies in the electrical engineering and machinery industry to be involved in standards development organizations. First, we present the general motives for the formation of strategic alliances and relate them to specific standardization motives. Then, we identify pursuing specific company interests, solving technical problems, knowledge seeking, influencing regulation, and facilitating market access as motives to standardize by means of factor analysis. In a second step, we test hypotheses on the relationship between the importance of strategic motives and firm level variables, e.g. R&D intensity, innovation activities, and firm size. The results reveal that firms in electric engineering and machinery have a particularly strong interest in ensuring industry-friendly design of regulations, which can be achieved by standards. Moreover, the results confirm that small firms also from these two sectors are active in standardization alliances to access knowledge from other involved stakeholders.