The European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC) 'Nano Task Force' proposes a Decision-making framework for the grouping and testing of nanomaterials (DF4nanoGrouping) that consists of 3 tiers to assign nanomaterials to 4 main groups, to perform sub-grouping within the main groups and to determine and refine specific information needs. The DF4nanoGrouping covers all relevant aspects of a nanomaterial's life cycle and biological pathways, i.e. intrinsic material and system-dependent properties, biopersistence, uptake and biodistribution, cellular and apical toxic effects. Use (including manufacture), release and route of exposure are applied as 'qualifiers' within the DF4nanoGrouping to determine if, e.g. nanomaterials cannot be released from a product matrix, which may justify the waiving of testing. The four main groups encompass (1) soluble nanomaterials, (2) biopersistent high aspect ratio nanomaterials, (3) passive nanomaterials, and (4) active nanomaterials. The DF4nanoGrouping aims to group nanomaterials by their specific mode-of-action that results in an apical toxic effect. This is eventually directed by a nanomaterial's intrinsic properties. However, since the exact correlation of intrinsic material properties and apical toxic effect is not yet established, the DF4nanoGrouping uses the 'functionality' of nanomaterials for grouping rather than relying on intrinsic material properties alone. Such functionalities include system-dependent material properties (such as dissolution rate in biologically relevant media), bio-physical interactions, in vitro effects and release and exposure. The DF4nanoGrouping is a hazard and risk assessment tool that applies modern toxicology and contributes to the sustainable development of nanotechnological products. It ensures that no studies are performed that do not provide crucial data and therefore saves animals and resources.

No abstract

Case studies covering carbonaceous nanomaterials, metal oxide and metal sulphate nanomaterials, amorphous silica and organic pigments were performed to assess the Decision-making framework for the grouping and testing of nanomaterials (DF4nanoGrouping). The usefulness of the DF4nanoGrouping for nanomaterial hazard assessment was confirmed. In two tiers that rely exclusively on non-animal test methods followed by a third tier, if necessary, in which data from rat short-term inhalation studies are evaluated, nanomaterials are assigned to one of four main groups (MGs). The DF4nanoGrouping proved efficient in sorting out nanomaterials that could undergo hazard assessment without further testing. These are soluble nanomaterials (MG1) whose further hazard assessment should rely on read-across to the dissolved materials, high aspect-ratio nanomaterials (MG2) which could be assessed according to their potential fibre toxicity and passive nanomaterials (MG3) that only elicit effects under pulmonary overload conditions. Thereby, the DF4nanoGrouping allows identifying active nanomaterials (MG4) that merit in-depth investigations, and it provides a solid rationale for their sub-grouping to specify the further information needs. Finally, the evaluated case study materials may be used as source nanomaterials in future read-across applications. Overall, the DF4nanoGrouping is a hazard assessment strategy that strictly uses animals as a last resort.

The grouping of substances serves to streamline testing for regulatory purposes. General grouping approaches for chemicals have been implemented in, e.g., the EU chemicals regulation. While specific regulatory frameworks for the grouping of nanomaterials are unavailable, this topic is addressed in different publications, and preliminary guidance is provided in the context of substance-related legislation or the occupational setting. The European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals Task Force on the Grouping of Nanomaterials reviewed available concepts for the grouping of nanomaterials for human health risk assessment. In their broad conceptual design, the evaluated approaches are consistent or complement each other. All go beyond the determination of mere structure-activity relationships and are founded on different aspects of the nanomaterial life cycle. These include the NM's material properties and biophysical interactions, specific types of use and exposure, uptake and kinetics, and possible early and apical biological effects. None of the evaluated grouping concepts fully take into account all of these aspects. Subsequent work of the Task Force will aim at combining the available concepts into a comprehensive 'multiple perspective' framework for the grouping of nanomaterials that will address all of the mentioned aspects of their life cycles.