The MARINA Risk Assessment Strategy: A Flexible Strategy for Efficient Information Collection and Risk Assessment of Nanomaterials

An engineered nanomaterial (ENM) may actually consist of a population of primary particles, aggregates and agglomerates of various sizes. Furthermore, their physico-chemical characteristics may change during the various life-cycle stages. It will probably not be feasible to test all varieties of all ENMs for possible health and environmental risks. There is therefore a need to further develop the approaches for risk assessment of ENMs. Within the EU FP7 project Managing Risks of Nanoparticles (MARINA) a two-phase risk assessment strategy has been developed. In Phase 1 (Problem framing) a base set of information is considered, relevant exposure scenarios (RESs) are identified and the scope for Phase 2 (Risk assessment) is established. The relevance of an RES is indicated by information on exposure, fate/kinetics and/or hazard; these three domains are included as separate pillars that contain specific tools. Phase 2 consists of an iterative process of risk characterization, identification of data needs and integrated collection and evaluation of data on the three domains, until sufficient information is obtained to conclude on possible risks in a RES. Only data are generated that are considered to be needed for the purpose of risk assessment. A fourth pillar, risk characterization, is defined and it contains risk assessment tools. This strategy describes a flexible and efficient approach for data collection and risk assessment which is essential to ensure safety of ENMs. Further developments are needed to provide guidance and make the MARINA Risk Assessment Strategy operational. Case studies will be needed to refine the strategy.

[1]  Steven K. Gibb Toxicity testing in the 21st century: a vision and a strategy. , 2008, Reproductive toxicology.

[2]  Melvin E Andersen,et al.  Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: Implications for Human Health Risk Assessment , 2009, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[3]  Melvin E Andersen,et al.  Toxicity testing in the 21st century: bringing the vision to life. , 2009, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[4]  J. Bailar,et al.  Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy , 2010, Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews.

[5]  Sylvia Escher,et al.  Exposure-based waiving under REACH. , 2010, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[6]  Robert Landsiedel,et al.  Toxico-/biokinetics of nanomaterials , 2012, Archives of Toxicology.

[7]  Bengt Fadeel,et al.  Interactions of engineered nanoparticles with organs protected by internal biological barriers. , 2013, Small.

[8]  Lang Tran,et al.  ITS-NANO - Prioritising nanosafety research to develop a stakeholder driven intelligent testing strategy , 2014, Particle and Fibre Toxicology.

[9]  Hugh J. Byrne,et al.  Concern-driven integrated approaches to nanomaterial testing and assessment – report of the NanoSafety Cluster Working Group 10 , 2013, Nanotoxicology.

[10]  Reinhard Kreiling,et al.  A critical appraisal of existing concepts for the grouping of nanomaterials. , 2014, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[11]  Jian Wang,et al.  Nano(Q)SAR: Challenges, pitfalls and perspectives , 2015, Nanotoxicology.

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

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

[14]  B. Nowack,et al.  Review of nanomaterial aging and transformations through the life cycle of nano-enhanced products. , 2015, Environment international.