Comparative assessment of nanomaterial definitions and safety evaluation considerations
Comparative assessment of nanomaterial definitions and safety evaluation considerations
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.06.001
复制
发表时间：
2015-10-01
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Gordon, Steve C.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Boverhof, Darrell R.;Bramante, Christina M.;Gordon, Steve C.
纳米材料继续为科学和技术带来有前途的进步。人们一致呼吁加强监管监督，以确保对纳米材料进行适当的识别和评估，这导致了对纳米材料定义的广泛讨论。政府、工业和标准组织已经提出了许多纳米材料的定义。我们对各国政府提出的现有纳米材料定义进行了全面的比较评估，以突出其相似性和差异性。我们发现，在不同的定义中使用的尺寸限制是不一致的，因为其他元素的考虑，包括团聚体和聚集体，分布阈值，新的属性，和溶解度。其他重要差异包括考虑数量大小分布与重量分布以及天然与有意制造的材料。总体而言，我们比较的定义并不一致，这可能导致纳米材料的识别和评估不一致，并可能对商业和公众对纳米技术的看法产生不利影响。我们提出了一系列考虑因素，供今后关于纳米材料定义的讨论在现有评估框架内使用基于风险的方法描述材料和评估其对健康和环境影响的潜力时考虑。我们的目的是发起一场对话，旨在更明确地确定那些可能需要额外评估的纳米材料，而不是提出一个正式的定义。(C)2015年，作者。爱思唯尔公司出版
Nanomaterials continue to bring promising advances to science and technology. In concert have come calls for increased regulatory oversight to ensure their appropriate identification and evaluation, which has led to extensive discussions about nanomaterial definitions. Numerous nanomaterial definitions have been proposed by government, industry, and standards organizations. We conducted a comprehensive comparative assessment of existing nanomaterial definitions put forward by governments to highlight their similarities and differences. We found that the size limits used in different definitions were inconsistent, as were considerations of other elements, including agglomerates and aggregates, distributional thresholds, novel properties, and solubility. Other important differences included consideration of number size distributions versus weight distributions and natural versus intentionally-manufactured materials. Overall, the definitions we compared were not in alignment, which may lead to inconsistent identification and evaluation of nanomaterials and could have adverse impacts on commerce and public perceptions of nanotechnology. We recommend a set of considerations that future discussions of nanomaterial definitions should consider for describing materials and assessing their potential for health and environmental impacts using risk-based approaches within existing assessment frameworks. Our intent is to initiate a dialogue aimed at achieving greater clarity in identifying those nanomaterials that may require additional evaluation, not to propose a formal definition. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.