Quality of physicochemical data on nanomaterials: an assessment of data completeness and variability

Comandella, Daniele; Gottardo, Stefania; Rio-Echevarria, Iria M.; Rauscher, Hubert

doi:10.1039/c9nr08323e

Cited by 44 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To address these challenges, various national and international initiatives (projects) provide/provided information that can be accessed through specific databases such as eNanoMapper ( Jeliazkova et al, 2015 ). It needs to be stressed that agreement on data quality requirements is key, requiring more research for the development of comparative datasets based on standardised and validated methods ( Comandella et al, 2020 ) and including also next-generation nanomaterials ( Herzberg, 2019 ; Fessard, 2019 ). These challenges associated with grouping and read-across are tackled by the H2020 project GRACIOUS which has already developed a highly innovative framework for grouping and read-across of nanomaterials thereby potentially reducing the need to assess exposure to and toxicity on a case by case basis ( Stone et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Nanotechnology In the Agriculture/food/feed Sectormentioning

confidence: 99%

Regulatory landscape of nanotechnology and nanoplastics from a global perspective

Jacqueline¹,

Belz

Hoeveler

et al. 2021

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

Self Cite

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nanotechnology and more particularly nanotechnology-based products and materials have provided a huge potential for novel solutions to many of the current challenges society is facing. However, nanotechnology is also an area of product innovation that is sometimes developing faster than regulatory frameworks. This is due to the high complexity of some nanomaterials, the lack of a globally harmonised regulatory definition and the different scopes of regulation at a global level. Research organisations and regulatory bodies have spent many efforts in the last two decades to cope with these challenges. Although there has been a significant advancement related to analytical approaches for labelling purposes as well as to the development of suitable test guidelines for nanomaterials and their safety assessment, there is a still a need for greater global collaboration and consensus in the regulatory field. Furthermore, with growing societal concerns on plastic litter and tiny debris produced by degradation of littered plastic objects, the impact of micro- and nanoplastics on humans and the environment is an emerging issue. Despite increasing research and initial regulatory discussions on micro- and nanoplastics, there are still knowledge gaps and thus an urgent need for action. As nanoplastics can be classified as a specific type of incidental nanomaterials, current and future scientific investigations should take into account the existing profound knowledge on nanotechnology/nanomaterials when discussing issues around nanoplastics. This review was conceived at the 2019 Global Summit on Regulatory Sciences that took place in Stresa, Italy, on 24–26 September 2019 (GSRS 2019) and which was co-organised by the Global Coalition for Regulatory Science Research (GCRSR) and the European Commission's (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC). The GCRSR consists of regulatory bodies from various countries around the globe including EU bodies. The 2019 Global Summit provided an excellent platform to exchange the latest information on activities carried out by regulatory bodies with a focus on the application of nanotechnology in the agriculture/food sector, on nanoplastics and on nanomedicines, including taking stock and promoting further collaboration. Recently, the topic of micro- and nanoplastics has become a new focus of the GCRSR. Besides discussing the challenges and needs, some future directions on how new tools and methodologies can improve the regulatory science were elaborated by summarising a significant portion of discussions during the summit. It has been revealed that there are still some uncertainties and knowledge gaps with regard to physicochemical properties, environmental behaviour and toxicological effects, especially as testing described in the dossiers is often done early in the product development process, and the material in the final product may behave differently. The harmonisation of methodologies for quantification and risk assessment of nanomaterials and micro/nanoplastics, the documentation...

show abstract

Section: Nanotechnology In the Agriculture/food/feed Sectormentioning

confidence: 99%

Regulatory landscape of nanotechnology and nanoplastics from a global perspective

Jacqueline¹,

Belz

Hoeveler

et al. 2021

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

Self Cite

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It should also be noted that data quality and data completeness, unlike reporting standards, are dependent on the goal of use of the dataset [ 36 ]. For instance, two studies derived expectations related to data completeness as part of their assessment of nanosafety data quality [ 37 , 38 ]. Both include material properties, but Comandella and co-workers specifically included the completeness of metadata for the different methods applied to measure the different nanomaterial physico-chemical properties (chemical composition, size, surface charge, etc.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both include material properties, but Comandella and co-workers specifically included the completeness of metadata for the different methods applied to measure the different nanomaterial physico-chemical properties (chemical composition, size, surface charge, etc. ), because this is important for read-across applications [ 37 ]. The study by Fernandez-Cruz et al limited its assessment to whether these physico-chemical properties were reported, focusing on the data rather than the metadata as relevant for risk assessment [ 38 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Semi-Automated Workflow for FAIR Maturity Indicators in the Life Sciences

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data sharing and reuse are crucial to enhance scientific progress and maximize return of investments in science. Although attitudes are increasingly favorable, data reuse remains difficult due to lack of infrastructures, standards, and policies. The FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) principles aim to provide recommendations to increase data reuse. Because of the broad interpretation of the FAIR principles, maturity indicators are necessary to determine the FAIRness of a dataset. In this work, we propose a reproducible computational workflow to assess data FAIRness in the life sciences. Our implementation follows principles and guidelines recommended by the maturity indicator authoring group and integrates concepts from the literature. In addition, we propose a FAIR balloon plot to summarize and compare dataset FAIRness. We evaluated the feasibility of our method on three real use cases where researchers looked for six datasets to answer their scientific questions. We retrieved information from repositories (ArrayExpress, Gene Expression Omnibus, eNanoMapper, caNanoLab, NanoCommons and ChEMBL), a registry of repositories, and a searchable resource (Google Dataset Search) via application program interfaces (API) wherever possible. With our analysis, we found that the six datasets met the majority of the criteria defined by the maturity indicators, and we showed areas where improvements can easily be reached. We suggest that use of standard schema for metadata and the presence of specific attributes in registries of repositories could increase FAIRness of datasets.

show abstract

“…In eNanoMapper, physicochemical properties such as size distribution, surface area, stability, freezing/melting point, zeta potential, shape, and aspect ratio are included. Furthermore, the availability and completeness of some nanomaterials and their physicochemical properties determined by experiments have been assessed [ 51 ]. eNanoMapper also contains a variety of toxicological experimental data such as cell viability, oxidative stress, immunotoxicity, genetic toxicity, and omics data.…”

Section: Brief Description Of the Databasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nanomaterial Databases: Data Sources for Promoting Design and Risk Assessment of Nanomaterials

Guo

Sakkiah

et al. 2021

Nanomaterials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nanomaterials have drawn increasing attention due to their tunable and enhanced physicochemical and biological performance compared to their conventional bulk materials. Owing to the rapid expansion of the nano-industry, large amounts of data regarding the synthesis, physicochemical properties, and bioactivities of nanomaterials have been generated. These data are a great asset to the scientific community. However, the data are on diverse aspects of nanomaterials and in different sources and formats. To help utilize these data, various databases on specific information of nanomaterials such as physicochemical characterization, biomedicine, and nano-safety have been developed and made available online. Understanding the structure, function, and available data in these databases is needed for scientists to select appropriate databases and retrieve specific information for research on nanomaterials. However, to our knowledge, there is no study to systematically compare these databases to facilitate their utilization in the field of nanomaterials. Therefore, we reviewed and compared eight widely used databases of nanomaterials, aiming to provide the nanoscience community with valuable information about the specific content and function of these databases. We also discuss the pros and cons of these databases, thus enabling more efficient and convenient utilization.

show abstract

Quality of physicochemical data on nanomaterials: an assessment of data completeness and variability

Abstract: An assessment of data availability and completeness for selected physicochemical properties and nanomaterials in support of grouping and read-across.

Cited by 44 publications

References 29 publications

Regulatory landscape of nanotechnology and nanoplastics from a global perspective

Regulatory landscape of nanotechnology and nanoplastics from a global perspective

A Semi-Automated Workflow for FAIR Maturity Indicators in the Life Sciences

Nanomaterial Databases: Data Sources for Promoting Design and Risk Assessment of Nanomaterials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About