Nanomaterial grouping: Existing approaches and future recommendations

Abstract The physico-chemical properties of manufactured nanomaterials (NMs) can be fine-tuned to obtain different functionalities addressing the needs of specific industrial applications. The physico-chemical properties of NMs also drive their biological interactions. Accordingly, each NM requires an adequate physico-chemical characterization and potentially an extensive and time-consuming (eco)toxicological assessment, depending on regulatory requirements. Grouping and read-across approaches, which have already been established for chemicals in general, are based on similarity between substances and can be used to fill data gaps without performing additional testing. Available data on “source” chemicals are thus used to predict the fate, toxicokinetics and/or (eco)toxicity of structurally similar “target” chemical(s). For NMs similar approaches are only beginning to emerge and several challenges remain, including the identification of the most relevant physico-chemical properties for supporting the claim of similarity. In general, NMs require additional parameters for a proper physico-chemical description. Furthermore, some parameters change during a NM's life cycle, suggesting that also the toxicological profile may change. This paper compares existing concepts for NM grouping, considering their underlying basic principles and criteria as well as their applicability for regulatory and other purposes. Perspectives and recommendations based on experiences obtained during the EU Horizon 2020 project NanoReg2 are presented. These include, for instance, the importance of harmonized data storage systems, the application of harmonized scoring systems for comparing biological responses, and the use of high-throughput and other screening approaches. We also include references to other ongoing EU projects addressing some of these challenges.

[1]  Jerzy Leszczynski,et al.  From basic physics to mechanisms of toxicity: the "liquid drop" approach applied to develop predictive classification models for toxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles. , 2014, Nanoscale.

[2]  Dominique Lison,et al.  Mechanisms of lung fibrosis induced by carbon nanotubes: towards an Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) , 2015, Particle and Fibre Toxicology.

[3]  Luis M Liz-Marzán,et al.  Cellular Uptake of Nanoparticles versus Small Molecules: A Matter of Size. , 2018, Accounts of chemical research.

[4]  Candace C. Fleischer,et al.  Secondary Structure of Corona Proteins Determines the Cell Surface Receptors Used by Nanoparticles , 2014, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[5]  Teresa F. Fernandes,et al.  The MARINA Risk Assessment Strategy: A Flexible Strategy for Efficient Information Collection and Risk Assessment of Nanomaterials , 2015, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[6]  Jerzy Leszczynski,et al.  Metal Oxide Nanoparticles: Size-Dependence of Quantum-Mechanical Properties , 2012 .

[7]  Antonio Marcomini,et al.  Grouping and Read-Across Approaches for Risk Assessment of Nanomaterials , 2015, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[8]  Kimberly F. Sellers,et al.  Grouping nanomaterials : A strategy towards grouping and read-across , 2015 .

[9]  Pasquale Bove,et al.  Dissolution test for risk assessment of nanoparticles: a pilot study. , 2017, Nanoscale.

[10]  Jerzy Leszczynski,et al.  How the “Liquid Drop” Approach Could Be Efficiently Applied for Quantitative Structure–Property Relationship Modeling of Nanofluids , 2015 .

[11]  Imran Shah,et al.  Navigating through the minefield of read-across tools: A review of in silico tools for grouping , 2017 .

[12]  Anders Baun,et al.  Data supporting the investigation of interaction of biologically relevant proteins with ZnO nanomaterials: A confounding factor for in vitro toxicity endpoints , 2019, Data in brief.

[13]  Andrew Williams,et al.  Nano-risk Science: application of toxicogenomics in an adverse outcome pathway framework for risk assessment of multi-walled carbon nanotubes , 2015, Particle and Fibre Toxicology.

[14]  Stefan Seeger,et al.  Nanotechnology in the market: promises and realities , 2011 .

[15]  Michaela Kendall,et al.  ‘Bio-nano interactions: new tools, insights and impacts’: summary of the Royal Society discussion meeting , 2015, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[16]  Werner Österle,et al.  Multi-parametric reference nanomaterials for toxicology: state of the art, future challenges and potential candidates , 2013 .

[17]  R Damoiseaux,et al.  No time to lose--high throughput screening to assess nanomaterial safety. , 2011, Nanoscale.

[18]  Monika Herrchen,et al.  Test strategy for assessing the risks of nanomaterials in the environment considering general regulatory procedures , 2015, Environmental Sciences Europe.

[19]  Anders Baun,et al.  Interaction of biologically relevant proteins with ZnO nanomaterials: A confounding factor for in vitro toxicity endpoints. , 2019, Toxicology in vitro : an international journal published in association with BIBRA.

[20]  Reinhard Kreiling,et al.  Case studies putting the decision-making framework for the grouping and testing of nanomaterials (DF4nanoGrouping) into practice. , 2016, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[21]  Susan Wijnhoven,et al.  Risk assessment frameworks for nanomaterials: Scope, link to regulations, applicability, and outline for future directions in view of needed increase in efficiency , 2018 .

[22]  Jerzy Leszczynski,et al.  Periodic table-based descriptors to encode cytotoxicity profile of metal oxide nanoparticles: a mechanistic QSTR approach. , 2014, Ecotoxicology and environmental safety.

[23]  Tomasz Puzyn,et al.  How should the completeness and quality of curated nanomaterial data be evaluated? , 2016, Nanoscale.

[24]  Olga Tcheremenskaia,et al.  (Q)SAR Methods for Predicting Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity: Scientific Rationale and Regulatory Frameworks. , 2018, Methods in molecular biology.

[25]  Sabrina Gioria,et al.  The agglomeration state of nanoparticles can influence the mechanism of their cellular internalisation , 2017, Journal of Nanobiotechnology.

[26]  Georgia Tsiliki,et al.  The eNanoMapper database for nanomaterial safety information , 2015, Beilstein journal of nanotechnology.

[27]  Anders Baun,et al.  Techniques and Protocols for Dispersing Nanoparticle Powders in Aqueous Media—Is there a Rationale for Harmonization? , 2015, Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews.

[28]  Claudia Röhl,et al.  Manufactured nanomaterials: categorization and approaches to hazard assessment , 2014, Archives of Toxicology.

[29]  Jerzy Leszczynski,et al.  Using nano-QSAR to predict the cytotoxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles. , 2011, Nature nanotechnology.

[30]  Robert Landsiedel,et al.  Abiotic dissolution rates of 24 (nano)forms of 6 substances compared to macrophage-assisted dissolution and in vivo pulmonary clearance: Grouping by biodissolution and transformation , 2018, NanoImpact.

[31]  J Fisher,et al.  The effect of nano- and micron-sized particles of cobalt-chromium alloy on human fibroblasts in vitro. , 2007, Biomaterials.

[32]  Stefan Siegrist,et al.  Preclinical hazard evaluation strategy for nanomedicines , 2018, Nanotoxicology.

[33]  Fred A. Wright,et al.  ToxPi GUI: an interactive visualization tool for transparent integration of data from diverse sources of evidence , 2013, Bioinform..

[34]  Georgia Tsiliki,et al.  A Data Fusion Pipeline for Generating and Enriching Adverse Outcome Pathway Descriptions , 2017, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[35]  Steffen Foss Hansen,et al.  Categorization framework to aid hazard identification of nanomaterials , 2007 .

[36]  Sharon Munn,et al.  The Adverse Outcome Pathway approach in nanotoxicology , 2017 .

[37]  A. Fonseca,et al.  Particle release and control of worker exposure during laboratory-scale synthesis, handling and simulated spills of manufactured nanomaterials in fume hoods , 2018, Journal of Nanoparticle Research.

[38]  Andrea Haase,et al.  Quality in nanosafety — Towards reliable nanomaterial safety assessment , 2018, NanoImpact.

[39]  Richard Handy,et al.  Regulatory ecotoxicity testing of nanomaterials – proposed modifications of OECD test guidelines based on laboratory experience with silver and titanium dioxide nanoparticles , 2016, Nanotoxicology.

[40]  Sabine Neuss,et al.  Size-dependent cytotoxicity of gold nanoparticles. , 2007, Small.

[41]  H. Karlsson,et al.  Size-dependent toxicity of metal oxide particles--a comparison between nano- and micrometer size. , 2009, Toxicology letters.

[42]  Steffen Foss Hansen,et al.  Control banding tools for occupational exposure assessment of nanomaterials — Ready for use in a regulatory context? , 2016 .

[43]  Peter Kearns,et al.  Developing OECD test guidelines for regulatory testing of nanomaterials to ensure mutual acceptance of test data , 2019, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[44]  Robert Landsiedel,et al.  Concern-driven integrated approaches for the grouping, testing and assessment of nanomaterials. , 2016, Environmental pollution.

[45]  David M. Reif,et al.  Endocrine Profiling and Prioritization of Environmental Chemicals Using ToxCast Data , 2010, Environmental health perspectives.

[46]  Keld Alstrup Jensen,et al.  Nano-silver induces dose-response effects on the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. , 2012, Ecotoxicology and environmental safety.

[47]  Iseult Lynch,et al.  What the cell "sees" in bionanoscience. , 2010, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[48]  Thomas Hartung,et al.  Perspectives on validation of high-throughput assays supporting 21st century toxicity testing. , 2013, ALTEX.

[49]  Rachel Lubart,et al.  The Different Behavior of Rutile and Anatase Nanoparticles in Forming Oxy Radicals Upon Illumination with Visible Light: An EPR Study , 2012, Photochemistry and photobiology.

[50]  Eugenia Valsami-Jones,et al.  A strategy for grouping of nanomaterials based on key physico-chemical descriptors as a basis for safer-by-design NMs , 2014 .

[51]  Mary Gulumian,et al.  Dissolution and biodurability: Important parameters needed for risk assessment of nanomaterials , 2015, Particle and Fibre Toxicology.

[52]  Thomas Kuhlbusch,et al.  Hydroxyl radical generation by electron paramagnetic resonance as a new method to monitor ambient particulate matter composition. , 2003, Journal of environmental monitoring : JEM.

[53]  Karin Aschberger,et al.  Grouping of multi-walled carbon nanotubes to read-across genotoxicity: A case study to evaluate the applicability of regulatory guidance , 2019, Computational Toxicology.

[54]  Adriele Prina-Mello,et al.  Towards a nanospecific approach for risk assessment. , 2016, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[55]  Dana Kühnel,et al.  Grouping concept for metal and metal oxide nanomaterials with regard to their ecotoxicological effects on algae, daphnids and fish embryos , 2018 .

[56]  A. Collins,et al.  Detection of Oxidised Purines and UV-induced Photoproducts in DNA of Single Cells, by Inclusion of Lesion-specific Enzymes in the Comet Assay , 1996 .

[57]  Reinhard Kreiling,et al.  A decision-making framework for the grouping and testing of nanomaterials (DF4nanoGrouping). , 2015, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[58]  Xiang Wang,et al.  Nanomaterial toxicity testing in the 21st century: use of a predictive toxicological approach and high-throughput screening. , 2013, Accounts of chemical research.

[59]  Harry Friedmann,et al.  EPR Study of Visible Light-Induced ROS Generation by Nanoparticles of ZnO , 2009 .