Exploring the development of a decision support system (DSS) to prioritize engineered nanoparticles for risk assessment
Source abstract
Abstract
Engineered nanoparticles (ENPs) have gained huge commercial interest because of their unique and size-related physicochemical properties. The diversity and complexity of ENPs is increasing with the introduction of next generation nanoparticles. The current approaches are not able to assess the safety of all types and applications of ENPs. Therefore, we are developing a decision support system (DSS) that helps to identify those ENPs and applications that should get priority in the risk assessment. This DSS smartly uses existing knowledge in publicly available databases. With the aid of vocabularies, knowledge rules and logic reasoning new knowledge will be derived. In this paper, the procedure for a DSS is described. Since this system is open by design, others can re-use and extend the DSS content, and newly developed DSS tools can be easily accommodated, which will make the DSS more effective over the years. Data of newly emerging studies will be used for the validation of the DSS. The results will benefit regulating authorities and scientists focussing on the development of inherently safe ENPs. © 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Nanoparticles: synthesis and applications · Electrochemical Analysis and Applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (36)
Show source-provided references
1. Beaudrie CEH, Kandlikar M (2011) Horses for courses: risk information and decision making in the regulation of nanomaterials. J Nanopart Res 13(4):1477–1488. doi: 10.1007/s11051-011-0234-110.1007/s11051-011-0234-1 ↗
2. Bouwmeester H, Dekkers S, Noordam MY, Hagens WI, Bulder AS, de Heer C, ten Voorde SECG, Wijnhoven SWP, Marvin HJP, Sips AJAM (2009) Review of health safety aspects of nanotechnologies in food production. Regul Toxicol Pharm 53(1):52–6210.1016/j.yrtph.2008.10.008 ↗
3. Bouwmeester H, Lynch I, Marvin HJP, Dawson K, Berges M, Braguer D, Byrne H, Casey A, Chambers G, Clift M, Elia G, Fernandes T, Fjellsbø L, Hatto P, Juillerat L, Klein C, Kreyling W, Nickel C, Riediker M, Stone V (2011) Minimal analytical characterisation of engineered nanomaterials needed for hazard assessment in biological matrices. Nanotoxicology 5(1):1110.3109/17435391003775266 ↗
4. Brouwer DH (2012) Control banding approaches for nanomaterials. Ann Occup Hyg 56(5):506–514. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/mes039
5. Casals E, Pfaller T, Duschl A, Oostingh GJ, Puntes V (2010) Time Evolution of the nanoparticle protein corona. ACS Nano 4(7):3623–3632. doi: 10.1021/nn901372t10.1021/nn901372t ↗
6. Cedervall T, Lynch I, Foy M, Berggard T, Donnelly SC, Cagney G, Linse S, Dawson KA (2007a) Detailed identification of plasma proteins adsorbed on copolymer nanoparticles. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 46(30):5754–575610.1002/anie.200700465 ↗
7. Cedervall T, Lynch I, Lindman S, Berggard T, Thulin E, Nilsson H, Dawson KA, Linse S (2007b) Understanding the nanoparticle-protein corona using methods to quantify exchange rates and affinities of proteins for nanoparticles. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(7):2050–205510.1073/pnas.0608582104 ↗
8. Cockburn A, Bradford R, Buck N, Constable A, Edwards G, Haber B, Hepburn P, Howlett J, Kampers F, Klein C, Radomski M, Stamm H, Wijnhoven S, Wildemann T (2012) Approaches to the safety assessment of engineered nanomaterials (ENM) in food. Food chem Toxicol 50(6):2224–2242. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2011.12.029 An international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association10.1016/j.fct.2011.12.029 ↗
9. Domingue J, Fensel D, Hendler JA (2011) Handbook of semantic web technologies. Springer reference, Springer, New York10.1007/978-3-540-92913-0 ↗
10. EFSA (2011) EFSA Scientific Committee. Guidance on the risk assessment of the application of nanoscience and nanotechnologies in the food and feed chain. EFSA J 9(5):36. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2140
11. Fauss E, Gorman ME, Swami N (2009) Using expert elicitation to prioritize resource allocation for risk identification for nanosilver. J Law Med Ethics 37(4):770–780. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00447.x10.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00447.x ↗
12. Flari V, Chaudhry Q, Neslo R, Cooke R (2011) Expert judgment based multi-criteria decision model to address uncertainties in risk assessment of nanotechnology-enabled food products. J Nanopart Res 13(5):1813–1831. doi: 10.1007/s11051-011-0335-x10.1007/s11051-011-0335-x ↗
13. Fourches D, Pu D, Tassa C, Weissleder R, Shaw SY, Mumper RJ, Tropsha A (2010) Quantitative nanostructure-activity relationship modeling. ACS Nano 4(10):5703–5712. doi: 10.1021/nn101348410.1021/nn1013484 ↗
14. Groeneveld RE, Willems DJM, Broekstra J, Van den Broek WHAM, Top JL (2009) ERDSS: Emerging risk detection support system—2008 Project report. Agrotechnology and Food Sciences Group, Wageningen
15. Gruber TR (1993) A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/KSL_Abstracts/KSL-92-71.html
16. Hansen SF, Larsen BH, Olsen SI, Baun A (2007) Categories and Hazard Identification scheme of nanomaterials. Nanotoxicology 3:243–25010.1080/17435390701727509 ↗
17. Hastings J, Chepelev L, Willighagen E, Adams N, Steinbeck C, Dumontier M (2011) The chemical information ontology: provenance and disambiguation for chemical data on the biological semantic web. PLoS one 6(10):e2551310.1371/journal.pone.0025513 ↗
18. Lesniak A, Fenaroli F, Monopoli MP, Aberg C, Dawson KA, Salvati A (2012) Effects of the presence or absence of a protein corona on silica nanoparticle uptake and impact on cells. ACS Nano 6(7):5845–5857. doi: 10.1021/nn300223w10.1021/nn300223w ↗
19. Liu R, Rallo R, George S, Ji Z, Nair S, Nel AE, Cohen Y (2011) Classification NanoSAR development for cytotoxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles. Small 7(8):1118–1126. doi: 10.1002/smll.20100236610.1002/smll.201002366 ↗
20. Lynch I, Dawson KA (2008) Protein-nanoparticle interactions. Nano Today 3(1–2):40–4710.1016/S1748-0132(08)70014-8 ↗
21. Marvin HJP, Kleter GA, Frewer LJ, Cope S, Wentholt MTA, Rowe G (2009) A working procedure for identifying emerging food safety issues at an early stage: Implications for European and international risk management practices. Food Control 20:345–35610.1016/j.foodcont.2008.07.024 ↗
22. Morgan K (2005) Development of a preliminary framework for informing the risk analysis and risk management of Nanoparticles. Risk Anal 25:1621–163510.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00681.x ↗
23. Nel AE, Madler L, Velegol D, Xia T, Hoek EM, Somasundaran P, Klaessig F, Castranova V, Thompson M (2009) Understanding biophysicochemical interactions at the nano-bio interface. Nat Mater 8(7):543–55710.1038/nmat2442 ↗
24. Nel A, Xia T, Meng H, Wang X, Lin S, Ji Z, Zhang H (2012) Nanomaterial toxicity testing in the 21st century: use of a predictive toxicological approach and high-throughput screening. Acc Chem Res. doi: 10.1021/ar300022h10.1021/ar300022h ↗
25. Paik SY, Zalk DM, Swuste P (2008) Application of a pilot control banding tool for risk level assessment and control of nanoparticle exposures. Ann Occup Hyg 52(6):419–428. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/men04110.1093/annhyg/men041 ↗
26. Peters R, Kramer E, Oomen AG, Herrera Rivera ZE, Oegema G, Tromp PC, Fokkink R, Rietveld A, Marvin HJP, Weigel S, Peijnenburg AA, Bouwmeester H (2012) Presence of nano-sized silica during in vitro digestion of foods containing silica as a food additive. ACS Nano 6(3):2441–2451. doi: 10.1021/nn204728k10.1021/nn204728k ↗
27. Puzyn T, Rasulev B, Gajewicz A, Hu X, Dasari TP, Michalkova A, Hwang HM, Toropov A, Leszczynska D, Leszczynski J (2011) Using nano-QSAR to predict the cytotoxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles. Nat Nanotechnol 6(3):175–178. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2011.1010.1038/nnano.2011.10 ↗
28. Sayes C, Ivanov I (2011) Comparative study of predictive computational models for nanoparticle-induced cytotoxicity. Risk Anal 30(11):1723–173410.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01438.x ↗
29. SCENIHR (2007) Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risk SCENIHR. Opinion on: The appropriateness of the risk assessment methodology in accordance with the technical guidance documents for new and existing substances for assessing the risks of nanomaterials European Commission Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General. Directorate C - Public Health and Risk Assessment C7- Risk Assessment
30. Tervonen T, Linkov I, Figueira JR, Steevens J, Chappell M, Merad M (2009) Risk-based classification system of nanomaterials. J Nanopart Res 11(4):757–766. doi: 10.1007/s11051-008-9546-110.1007/s11051-008-9546-1 ↗
31. Van Duuren-Stuurman B, Vink SR, Verbist KJ, Heussen HG, Brouwer DH, Kroese DE, Van Niftrik MF, Tielemans E, Fransman W (2012) Stoffenmanager Nano version 1.0: a web-based tool for risk prioritization of airborne manufactured nano objects. Ann Occup Hyg 56(5):525–541. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/mer113
32. Walczak AP, Fokkink R, Peters R, Tromp P, Herrera Rivera Z, Rietjens I, Hendriksen PJ, Bouwmeester H (2012) Behavior of silver nanoparticles and silver ions in an in vitro human gastrointestinal digestion model. Nanotoxicology. doi: 10.3109/17435390.2012.72638210.3109/17435390.2012.726382 ↗
33. Xia X-R, Monteiro-Riviere NA, Riviere JE (2010) An index for characterization of nanomaterials in biological systems 5(9):671–675
34. Xia XR, Monteiro-Riviere NA, Mathur S, Song X, Xiao L, Oldenberg SJ, Fadeel B, Riviere JE (2011) Mapping the surface adsorption forces of nanomaterials in biological systems. ACS Nano 5(11):9074–9081. doi: 10.1021/nn203303c10.1021/nn203303c ↗
35. Zhang H, Ji Z, Xia T, Meng H, Low-Kam C, Liu R, Pokhrel S, Lin S, Wang X, Liao YP, Wang M, Li L, Rallo R, Damoiseaux R, Telesca D, Madler L, Cohen Y, Zink JI, Nel AE (2012) Use of metal oxide nanoparticle band gap to develop a predictive paradigm for oxidative stress and acute pulmonary inflammation. ACS Nano 6(5):4349–4368. doi: 10.1021/nn301008710.1021/nn3010087 ↗
36. Zuin S, Micheletti C, Critto A, Pojana G, Johnston H, Stone V, Tran L, Marcomin A (2011) Weight of evidence approach for the relative hazard ranking of nanomaterials. Nanotoxicology 5(3):445–45810.3109/17435390.2010.512986 ↗