Towards a Consensus View on Understanding Nanomaterials Hazards and Managing Exposure: Knowledge Gaps and Recommendations

Materials

Geoffrey Hunt⁴  Iseult Lynch⁷  Flemming Cassee⁸  Richard D. Handy⁵  Teresa F. Fernandes²  Markus Berges⁶  Thomas A. J. Kuhlbusch¹  Maria Dusinska³ 

[1] Air Quality & Sustainable Nanotechnology, Institute of Energy and Environmental Technology e.V. (IUTA), D-47229 Duisburg, Germany; E-Mail:;School of Life Sciences, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, UK; E-Mail:;Health Effects Laboratory, Environmental Chemistry Department, NILU-Norwegian Institute for Air Research, Instituttveien 18, Kjeller 2027, Norway; E-Mail:;Centre for Bioethics & Emerging Technologies, St Mary’s University College, London, TW1 4SX, UK; E-Mail:;Ecotoxicology Research and Innovation Centre, The University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UK; E-Mail:;Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Deutsche Gesetzliche Unfallversicherung (DGUV), Alte Heerstr 111, Sankt Augustin 53757, Germany; E-Mail:;Centre for BioNano Interactions, School of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, UK; E-Mail:;National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven 3720 BA, The Netherlands; E-Mail:

关键词: nanomaterial characterisation;    release;    exposure;    hazard;    nanotoxicology;    nanosafety;    occupational health;    consensus building;    life cycle approach;    monitoring;    protocols;   

DOI  :  10.3390/ma6031090

来源: mdpi

【 摘 要 】

The aim of this article is to present an overview of salient issues of exposure, characterisation and hazard assessment of nanomaterials as they emerged from the consensus-building of experts undertaken within the four year European Commission coordination project NanoImpactNet. The approach adopted is to consolidate and condense the findings and problem-identification in such a way as to identify knowledge-gaps and generate a set of interim recommendations of use to industry, regulators, research bodies and funders. The categories of recommendation arising from the consensual view address: significant gaps in vital factual knowledge of exposure, characterisation and hazards; the development, dissemination and standardisation of appropriate laboratory protocols; address a wide range of technical issues in establishing an adequate risk assessment platform; the more efficient and coordinated gathering of basic data; greater inter-organisational cooperation; regulatory harmonization; the wider use of the life-cycle approaches; and the wider involvement of all stakeholders in the discussion and solution-finding efforts for nanosafety.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© 2013 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.