journal article·2018-12

Assessment of information availability for environmental impact assessment of engineered nanomaterials

Michelle Romero-Franco, Muhammad Bilal, Hilary A. Godwin, Yoram Cohen

Journal of Nanoparticle Research· Volume 20· Issue 12
Publisher page

Abstract

Environmental impact assessments of engineered nanomaterials can be hampered by the lack of data/information and thus delay the development of effective regulatory policies. To address this issue, a systematic approach (termed here “IANano”) was developed and demonstrated for assessing information availability for environmental impact assessment (EIA) of engineered nanomaterials. In IANano, following the typical EIA process, the required information elements for exposure and hazard potential assessments are classified based on major categories, sub-categories, and attributes. Scores for the different information attributes are then assigned, based on a selected scoring scale and weights, and aggregated up to the level of exposure and hazard potential information (EPI and hazard potential information [HPI], respectively), considering both available and unavailable information, via the Dempster-Shafer algorithm. The utility of IANano was demonstrated for several specific EIA scenarios for nano-TiO2, nano-Cu-CuO, and nano-ZnO. For the three nanomaterials, in each of the different EIA scenarios, the EPI scores were lower than the HPI scores, consistent with the more abundant information available for hazard attributes. For nano-TiO2, the exposure potential information (EPI) scores were in the range of 0.33–0.72 and higher by 60–50% and 42–46% relative to nano-Cu-CuO and nano-ZnO, respectively, for all EIA scenarios. For the scenario of direct release of engineered nanomaterials to the aquatic environment, the HPI scores for nano-Cu-CuO and nano-ZnO were greater by factors of 2.6 and 1.3, respectively, relative to the EPI scores. Results of the present study suggest that information screening, as illustrated via IANano, can be valuable for ranking the adequacy of the available information for conducting specific EIAs and for identifying information needs.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Nanoparticles: synthesis and applications · Environmental and Social Impact Assessments · Environmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (100+)

Show source-provided references
1. Abbott LC, Maynard AD (2010) Exposure assessment approaches for engineered nanomaterials. Risk Anal 30:1634–1644. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01446.x10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01446.x ↗
2. Adam N, Schmitt C, De Bruyn L, Knapen D, Blust R (2015) Aquatic acute species sensitivity distributions of ZnO and CuO nanoparticles. Sci Total Environ 526:233–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.04.06410.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.04.064 ↗
3. Adeleye AS, Oranu EA, Tao M, Keller AA (2016) Release and detection of nanosized copper from a commercial antifouling paint. Water Res 102:374–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.06.05610.1016/j.watres.2016.06.056 ↗
4. Al-Kattan A, Wichser A, Vonbank R, Brunner S, Ulrich A, Zuin S, Nowack B (2013) Release of TiO2 from paints containing pigment-TiO2 or nano-TiO2 by weathering. Environ Sci Process Impacts 15:2186–2193. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3em00331k10.1039/c3em00331k ↗
5. Alvarez PJ, Colvin V, Lead J, Stone V (2009) Research priorities to advance eco-responsible nanotechnology. ACS Nano 3:1616–1619. https://doi.org/10.1021/nn900683510.1021/nn9006835 ↗
6. Amde M, Liu JF, Tan ZQ, Bekana D (2017) Transformation and bioavailability of metal oxide nanoparticles in aquatic and terrestrial environments. A review. Environ Pollut 230:250–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.06.06410.1016/j.envpol.2017.06.064 ↗
7. Arts JHE et al (2015) A decision-making framework for the grouping and testing of nanomaterials (DF4nanoGrouping). Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 71:S1–S27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.03.00710.1016/j.yrtph.2015.03.007 ↗
8. Aschberger K, Micheletti C, Sokull-Kluttgen B, Christensen FM (2011) Analysis of currently available data for characterising the risk of engineered nanomaterials to the environment and human health—lessons learned from four case studies. Environ Int 37:1143–1156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2011.02.00510.1016/j.envint.2011.02.005 ↗
9. Baeza-Squiban A, Lacroix G, Bois FY (2011) Experimental models in nanotoxicology. In: Houdy P, Lahmani M, Marano F (eds) Nanoethics and nanotoxicology. Springer, Berlin, pp 63–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20177-6_310.1007/978-3-642-20177-6_3 ↗
10. Beegam A et al (2016) Environmental fate of zinc oxide nanoparticles: risks and benefits. In: Larramendy ML, Soloneski S (eds) Toxicology—new aspects to this scientific conundrum. INTECH. https://doi.org/10.5772/6526610.5772/65266 ↗
11. Bilal M, Liu H, Liu R, Cohen Y (2017) Bayesian network as a support tool for rapid query of the environmental multimedia distribution of nanomaterials. Nanoscale 9:4162–4174. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6nr08583k10.1039/c6nr08583k ↗
12. Bondarenko O, Juganson K, Ivask A, Kasemets K, Mortimer M, Kahru A (2013) Toxicity of Ag, CuO and ZnO nanoparticles to selected environmentally relevant test organisms and mammalian cells in vitro: a critical review. Arch Toxicol 87:1181–1200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-013-1079-410.1007/s00204-013-1079-4 ↗
13. Bos PMJ et al (2015) The MARINA risk assessment strategy: a flexible strategy for efficient information collection and risk assessment of nanomaterials. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12:15007–15021. ​ https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph12121496110.3390/ijerph121214961 ↗
14. Boverhof DR, David RM (2010) Nanomaterial characterization: considerations and needs for hazard assessment and safety evaluation. Anal Bioanal Chem 396:953–961. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-009-3103-310.1007/s00216-009-3103-3 ↗
15. Brar SK, Verma M, Tyagi RD, Surampalli RY (2010) Engineered nanoparticles in wastewater and wastewater sludge—evidence and impacts. Waste Manag 30:504–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.10.01210.1016/j.wasman.2009.10.012 ↗
16. Burello E (2014) Predictive nanotoxicology: in silico approaches. In: Fadeel B (ed) Handbook of safety assessment of nanomaterials. Pan Stanford Series on Biomedical Nanotechnology, Pan Stanford, pp 221–242. https://doi.org/10.1201/b15668-810.1201/b15668-8 ↗
17. Caballero-Guzman A, Nowack B (2016) A critical review of engineered nanomaterial release data: are current data useful for material flow modeling? Environ Pollut 213:502–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.02.02810.1016/j.envpol.2016.02.028 ↗
18. Card JW, Magnuson BA (2010) A method to assess the quality of studies that examine the toxicity of engineered nanomaterials. Int J Toxicol 29:402–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/109158181037072010.1177/1091581810370720 ↗
19. Chang XH, Zhang Y, Tang M, Wang B (2013) Health effects of exposure to nano-TiO2: a meta-analysis of experimental studies. Nanoscale Res Lett 8:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1556-276x-8-5110.1186/1556-276x-8-51 ↗
20. Cohen Y, Rallo R, Liu R, Liu HH (2012) In silico analysis of nanomaterials hazard and risk. Acc Chem Res 46:802–812. https://doi.org/10.1021/ar300049e10.1021/ar300049e ↗
21. Colvin VL (2003) The potential environmental impact of engineered nanomaterials. Nat Biotechnol 21:1166–1170. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt87510.1038/nbt875 ↗
22. Council NR (2009) Science and decisions: advancing risk assessment. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/1220910.17226/12209 ↗
23. Council NR (2012) Critical questions for understanding human and environmental effects of engineered nanomaterials. In: Committee to Develop a Research Strategy for Environmental H, and Safety Aspects of Engineered Nanomaterials (ed) A Research Strategy for Environmental, Health, and Safety Aspects of Engineered Nanomaterials. vol 3. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/1334710.17226/13347 ↗
24. Crane M, Handy RD, Garrod J, Owen R (2008) Ecotoxicity test methods and environmental hazard assessment for engineered nanoparticles. Ecotoxicology 17:421–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-008-0215-z10.1007/s10646-008-0215-z ↗
25. ECHA (2011) Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment. Part B: Hazard Assessment European Chemicals Agency. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13643/information_requirements_part_b_en.pdf/7e6bf845-e1a3-4518-8705-c64b17cecae8 . Accessed February 2017
26. ECHA (2016) Practical guide—how to use and report (Q)SARs. https://doi.org/10.2823/8181810.2823/81818 ↗
27. EPA (2004) Overview of the ecological risk assessment process in the office of pesticide programs. Environmental Protection Agency Jones R et al, U.S. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-11/documents/ecorisk-overview.pdf
28. EPA (2017) Registration review proposed interim decisions for several pesticides; notice of availability, 82 FR 44405
29. Gajewicz A, Rasulev B, Dinadayalane TC, Urbaszek P, Puzyn T, Leszczynska D, Leszczynski J (2012) Advancing risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials: application of computational approaches. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 64:1663–1693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2012.05.01410.1016/j.addr.2012.05.014 ↗
30. Gajewicz A, Cronin MT, Rasulev B, Leszczynski J, Puzyn T (2015) Novel approach for efficient predictions properties of large pool of nanomaterials based on limited set of species: nano-read-across. Nanotechnology 26:015701. https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-4484/26/1/01570110.1088/0957-4484/26/1/015701 ↗
31. Gajewicz A, Jagiello K, Cronin MTD, Leszczynski J, Puzyn T (2017) Addressing a bottle neck for regulation of nanomaterials: quantitative read-across (nano-QRA) algorithm for cases when only limited data is available. Environ Sci Nano. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6EN00399K10.1039/C6EN00399K ↗
32. Garner KL, Keller AA (2014) Emerging patterns for engineered nanomaterials in the environment: a review of fate and toxicity studies. J Nanopart Res 16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-014-2503-210.1007/s11051-014-2503-2 ↗
33. Giese B et al (2018) Risks, release and concentrations of engineered nanomaterials in the environment. Sci Rep 8:1565. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-19275-410.1038/s41598-018-19275-4 ↗
34. Girigoswami K (2018) Toxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles. Adv Exp Med Biol 1048:99–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72041-8_710.1007/978-3-319-72041-8_7 ↗
35. Gottschalk F, Nowack B (2011) The release of engineered nanomaterials to the environment. J Environ Monit 13:1145–1155. https://doi.org/10.1039/c0em00547a10.1039/c0em00547a ↗
36. Gottschalk F, Sonderer T, Scholz RW, Nowack B (2009) Modeled environmental concentrations of engineered nanomaterials (TiO2, ZnO, Ag, CNT, Fullerenes) for different regions. Environ Sci Technol 43:9216–9222. https://doi.org/10.1021/es901555310.1021/es9015553 ↗
37. Hansen SF, Baun A (2012) When enough is enough. Nat Nanotechnol 7:409–411. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2012.11510.1038/nnano.2012.115 ↗
38. Hansen S, Michelson E, Kamper A, Borling P, Stuer-Lauridsen F, Baun A (2008) Categorization framework to aid exposure assessment of nanomaterials in consumer products. Ecotoxicology 17:438–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-008-0210-410.1007/s10646-008-0210-4 ↗
39. Hansen SF, Jensen KA, Baun A (2014) NanoRiskCat: a conceptual tool for categorization and communication of exposure potentials and hazards of nanomaterials in consumer products. J Nanopart Res 16:1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-013-2195-z10.1007/s11051-013-2195-z ↗
40. He X, Aker WG, Leszczynski J, Hwang H-M (2014) Using a holistic approach to assess the impact of engineered nanomaterials inducing toxicity in aquatic systems. J Food Drug Anal 22:128–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfda.2014.01.01110.1016/j.jfda.2014.01.011 ↗
41. Hendren CO, Lowry M, Grieger KD, Money ES, Johnston JM, Wiesner MR, Beaulieu SM (2013) Modeling approaches for characterizing and evaluating environmental exposure to engineered nanomaterials in support of risk-based decision making. Environ Sci Technol 47:1190–1205. https://doi.org/10.1021/es302749u10.1021/es302749u ↗
42. Hjorth R, Skjolding LM, Sørensen SN, Baun A (2017) Regulatory adequacy of aquatic ecotoxicity testing of nanomaterials. NanoImpact 8:28–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/17435390.2016.122951710.1080/17435390.2016.1229517 ↗
43. Holden PA et al (2016) Considerations of environmentally relevant test conditions for improved evaluation of ecological hazards of engineered nanomaterials. Environ Sci Technol 50:6124–6145. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b0060810.1021/acs.est.6b00608 ↗
44. Hou J, Wu Y, Li X, Wei B, Li S, Wang X (2018) Toxic effects of different types of zinc oxide nanoparticles on algae, plants, invertebrates, vertebrates and microorganisms. Chemosphere 193:852–860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.11.07710.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.11.077 ↗
45. Hristozov DR, Gottardo S, Critto A, Marcomini A (2012) Risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials: a review of available data and approaches from a regulatory perspective. Nanotoxicology 6:880–898. https://doi.org/10.3109/17435390.2011.62653410.3109/17435390.2011.626534 ↗
46. Hristozov DR, Zabeo A, Foran C, Isigonis P, Critto A, Marcomini A, Linkov I (2014) A weight of evidence approach for hazard screening of engineered nanomaterials. Nanotoxicology 8:72–87. https://doi.org/10.3109/17435390.2012.75069510.3109/17435390.2012.750695 ↗
47. Hristozov D et al (2016) Frameworks and tools for risk assessment of manufactured nanomaterials. Environ Int 95:36–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2016.07.01610.1016/j.envint.2016.07.016 ↗
48. Hund-Rinke K et al (2016) Regulatory ecotoxicity testing of nanomaterials—proposed modifications of OECD test guidelines based on laboratory experience with silver and titanium dioxide nanoparticles. Nanotoxicology 10:1442–1447. https://doi.org/10.1080/17435390.2016.122951710.1080/17435390.2016.1229517 ↗
49. Kahru A, Ivask A (2013) Mapping the dawn of nanoecotoxicological research. Acc Chem Res 46:823–833. https://doi.org/10.1021/ar300021210.1021/ar3000212 ↗
50. Keller AA, Lazareva A (2013) Predicted releases of engineered nanomaterials: from global to regional to local. Environ Sci Technol Lett 1:65–70. https://doi.org/10.1021/ez400106t10.1021/ez400106t ↗
51. Keller AA, McFerran S, Lazareva A, Suh S (2013) Global life cycle releases of engineered nanomaterials. J Nanopart Res 15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-013-1692-410.1007/s11051-013-1692-4 ↗
52. Keller A, Vosti W, Wang H, Lazareva A (2014) Release of engineered nanomaterials from personal care products throughout their life cycle. J Nanopart Res (2014) 16: 2489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-014-2489-910.1007/s11051-014-2489-9 ↗
53. Keller AA et al (2017) Comparative environmental fate and toxicity of copper nanomaterials. NanoImpact 7:28–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2017.05.00310.1016/j.impact.2017.05.003 ↗
54. Kiaune L, Singhasemanon N (2011) Pesticidal copper (I) oxide: environmental fate and aquatic toxicity. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 213:1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9860-6_110.1007/978-1-4419-9860-6_1 ↗
55. Knudsen TB et al (2015) FutureTox II: in vitro data and in silico models for predictive toxicology. Toxicol Sci 143:256–267. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfu23410.1093/toxsci/kfu234 ↗
56. Koelmans AA, Diepens NJ, Velzeboer I, Besseling E, Quik JT, van de Meent D (2015) Guidance for the prognostic risk assessment of nanomaterials in aquatic ecosystems. Sci Total Environ 535:141–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.02.03210.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.02.032 ↗
57. Koivisto AJ, Jensen ACØ, Kling KI, Nørgaard A, Brinch A, Christensen F, Jensen KA (2017) Quantitative material releases from products and articles containing manufactured nanomaterials: towards a release library. NanoImpact 5:119–132. ​ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2017.02.00110.1016/j.impact.2017.02.001 ↗
58. Krewski D et al (2010) Toxicity testing in the 21st century: a vision and a strategy. J Toxicol Environ Health B 13:51–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2010.48317610.1080/10937404.2010.483176 ↗
59. Kuempel ED, Castranova V, Geraci CL, Schulte PA (2012a) Development of risk-based nanomaterial groups for occupational exposure control. J Nanopart Res 14:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-012-1029-810.1007/s11051-012-1029-8 ↗
60. Kuempel ED, Geraci CL, Schulte PA (2012b) Risk assessment and risk management of nanomaterials in the workplace: translating research to practice. Ann Occup Hyg 56:491–505. https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mes04010.1093/annhyg/mes040 ↗
61. Kuhlbusch TAJ, Wijnhoven SWP, Haase A (2017) Nanomaterial exposures for worker, consumer and the general public. NanoImpact 10:11–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2017.11.00310.1016/j.impact.2017.11.003 ↗
62. Lai D, Warheit D (2015) Nanotoxicology: the case for in vivo studies. In: Fadeel B (ed) Handbook of safety assessment of nanomaterials: from toxicological testing to personalized medicine. Pan Stanford Series on Biomedical Nanotechnology, Pan Stanford, pp 153–219. https://doi.org/10.1201/b15668-710.1201/b15668-7 ↗
63. Lazareva A, Keller AA (2014) Estimating potential life cycle releases of engineered nanomaterials from wastewater treatment plants. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 2:1656–1665. https://doi.org/10.1021/sc500121w10.1021/sc500121w ↗
64. Lee JH, Kwon M, Ji JH, Kang CS, Ahn KH, Han JH, Yu IJ (2011) Exposure assessment of workplaces manufacturing nanosized TiO2 and silver. Inhal Toxicol 23:226–236. https://doi.org/10.3109/08958378.2011.56256710.3109/08958378.2011.562567 ↗
65. Liu HH, Cohen Y (2014) Multimedia environmental distribution of engineered nanomaterials. Environ Sci Technol 48:3281–3292. https://doi.org/10.1021/es405132z10.1021/es405132z ↗
66. Liu HH, Bilal M, Lazareva A, Keller A, Cohen Y (2015) Simulation tool for assessing the release and environmental distribution of nanomaterials. Beilstein J Nanotechnol 6:938. https://doi.org/10.3762/bjnano.6.9710.3762/bjnano.6.97 ↗
67. Lorenz C, Von Goetz N, Scheringer M, Wormuth M, Hungerbühler K (2011) Potential exposure of German consumers to engineered nanoparticles in cosmetics and personal care products. Nanotoxicology 5:12–29. https://doi.org/10.3109/17435390.2010.48455410.3109/17435390.2010.484554 ↗
68. Mackevica A, Foss Hansen S (2016) Release of nanomaterials from solid nanocomposites and consumer exposure assessment—a forward-looking review. Nanotoxicology 10:641–653. https://doi.org/10.3109/17435390.2015.113234610.3109/17435390.2015.1132346 ↗
69. Marvin HP et al (2013) Exploring the development of a decision support system (DSS) to prioritize engineered nanoparticles for risk assessment. J Nanopart Res 15:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-013-1839-310.1007/s11051-013-1839-3 ↗
70. Maynard AD, Aitken RJ (2016) 'Safe handling of nanotechnology' ten years on. Nat Nano 11:998–1000. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2016.27010.1038/nnano.2016.270 ↗
71. Minetto D, Volpi Ghirardini A, Libralato G (2016) Saltwater ecotoxicology of Ag, Au, CuO, TiO2, ZnO and C60 engineered nanoparticles: an overview. Environ Int 92-93:189–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2016.03.04110.1016/j.envint.2016.03.041 ↗
72. Nazarenko Y, Han TW, Lioy PJ, Mainelis G (2011) Potential for exposure to engineered nanoparticles from nanotechnology-based consumer spray products. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 21:515–528. https://doi.org/10.1038/jes.2011.1010.1038/jes.2011.10 ↗
73. Nazarenko Y, Zhen H, Han T, Lioy PJ, Mainelis G (2012) Potential for inhalation exposure to engineered nanoparticles from nanotechnology-based cosmetic powders. Environ Health Perspect 120:885–892. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.110435010.1289/ehp.1104350 ↗
74. NIOSH (2011) Occupational exposure to titanium dioxide. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2011-160/pdfs/2011-160.pdf
75. Nowack B (2014) Emissions from consumer products containing engineered nanomaterials over their lifecycle. In: Wohlleben W, Kuhlbusch TAJ, Schnekenburger J, Lehr C-M (eds) Safety of nanomaterials along their lifecycle. CRC Press, pp 335-354. Doi:doi: https://doi.org/10.1201/b17774-1910.1201/b17774-19 ↗
76. Nowack B (2017) Evaluation of environmental exposure models for engineered nanomaterials in a regulatory context. NanoImpact 8:38–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2017.06.00510.1016/j.impact.2017.06.005 ↗
77. Nowack B et al (2012) Potential scenarios for nanomaterial release and subsequent alteration in the environment. Environ Toxicol Chem 31:50–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.72610.1002/etc.726 ↗
78. Nowack B et al (2013) Analysis of the occupational, consumer and environmental exposure to engineered nanomaterials used in 10 technology sectors. Nanotoxicology 7:1152–1156. https://doi.org/10.3109/17435390.2012.71186310.3109/17435390.2012.711863 ↗
79. Nowack B et al (2015) Progress towards the validation of modeled environmental concentrations of engineered nanomaterials by analytical measurements. Environ Sci: Nano 2:421–428. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5EN00100E10.1039/C5EN00100E ↗
80. NRC (2003) The measure of STAR: review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Research Grants Program. https://doi.org/10.17226/1070110.17226/10701 ↗
81. NSET (2006) Environmental, health and safety research needs for engineered nanoscale materials. Rusell R, Cresanti R. Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology Subcommittee Committee on Technology. https://www.nano.gov/node/253 . Accessed September 12, 2017
82. O'Brien NJ, Cummins EJ (2011) A risk assessment framework for assessing metallic nanomaterials of environmental concern: aquatic exposure and behavior. Risk Anal 31:706–726. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01540.x10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01540.x ↗
83. OECD (2016) Approaches on nano grouping/ equivalence/ read-across concepts based on physical-chemical properties (GERA-PC) for regulatory regimes http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono(2016)3&doclanguage=en . Accessed July 2018
84. Oh E, Liu R, Nel A, Gemill KB, Bilal M, Cohen Y, Medintz IL (2016) Meta-analysis of cellular toxicity for cadmium-containing quantum dots. Nat Nanotechnol 11:479–486. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2015.33810.1038/nnano.2015.338 ↗
85. Oomen AG et al (2017) Risk assessment frameworks for nanomaterials: scope, link to regulations, applicability, and outline for future directions in view of needed increase in efficiency. NanoImpact 9:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2017.09.00110.1016/j.impact.2017.09.001 ↗
86. Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (2011) Title 7 - Agriculture U.S.C. In: 136 - Definitions
87. Pirela SV et al (2015) Consumer exposures to laser printer-emitted engineered nanoparticles: a case study of life-cycle implications from nano-enabled products. Nanotoxicology 9:760–768. https://doi.org/10.3109/17435390.2014.97660210.3109/17435390.2014.976602 ↗
88. Powers CM et al (2012) Comprehensive environmental assessment: a meta-assessment approach. Environ Sci Technol 46:9202–9208. https://doi.org/10.1021/es302307210.1021/es3023072 ↗
89. Raies AB, Bajic VB (2016) In silico toxicology: computational methods for the prediction of chemical toxicity. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Comput Mol Sci 6:147–172. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcms.124010.1002/wcms.1240 ↗
90. Raunio H (2011) In silico toxicology—non-testing methods. Front Pharmacol 2:33. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2011.0003310.3389/fphar.2011.00033 ↗
91. Romero-Franco M, Godwin HA, Bilal M, Cohen Y (2017) Needs and challenges for assessing the environmental impacts of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs). Beilstein J Nanotechnol 8:989–1014. https://doi.org/10.3762/bjnano.8.10110.3762/bjnano.8.101 ↗
92. SCENIHR (2005) 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 http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_003.pdf
93. SCENIHR (2007) 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 http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_012.pdf
94. SCENIHR (2009) Opinion on: The appropriateness of existing methodologies to assess the potential risks associated with engineered and adventitious products of nanotechnologies http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_003b.pdf
95. Schiff K, Diehl D, Valkirs A (2004) Copper emissions from antifouling paint on recreational vessels. Mar Pollut Bull 48:371–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2003.08.01610.1016/j.marpolbul.2003.08.016 ↗
96. Schulte PA et al (2013) Overview of risk management for engineered nanomaterials. J Phys Conf Ser 429:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/429/1/01206210.1088/1742-6596/429/1/012062 ↗
97. Schulte PA et al (2016) Taking stock of the occupational safety and health challenges of nanotechnology: 2000–2015. J Nanopart Res 18:159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-016-3459-110.1007/s11051-016-3459-1 ↗
98. Shafer G (1992) Dempster-shafer theory. In: Shapiro S (ed) Encyclopedia of artificial intelligence, vol 1, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, pp 330–331
99. Shandilya N, Le Bihan O, Bressot C, Morgeneyer M (2015) Emission of titanium dioxide nanoparticles from building materials to the environment by wear and weather. Environ Sci Technol 49:2163–2170. https://doi.org/10.1021/es504710p10.1021/es504710p ↗
100. Shi H, Magaye R, Castranova V, Zhao J (2013) Titanium dioxide nanoparticles: a review of current toxicological data. Part Fibre Toxicol 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-8977-10-1510.1186/1743-8977-10-15 ↗