Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

“Nanostandardization” in Action: Implementing Standardization Processes in a Multidisciplinary Nanoparticle-Based Research and Development Project

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nanomaterials have attracted much interest in the medical field and related applications as their distinct properties in the nanorange enable new and improved diagnosis and therapies. Owing to these properties and their potential interactions with the human body and the environment, the impact of nanomaterials on humans and their potential toxicity have been regarded a very significant issue. Consequently, nanomaterials are the subject of a wide range of cutting-edge research efforts in the medical and related fields to thoroughly probe their potential beneficial utilizations and their more negative effects. We posit that the lack of standardization in the field is a serious shortcoming as it has led to the establishment of methods and results that do not ensure sufficient consistency and thus in our view can possibly result in research outputs that are not as robust as they should be. The main aim of this article is to present how NanoDiaRA, a large FP7 European multidisciplinary project that seeks to investigate and develop nanotechnology-based diagnostic systems, has developed and implemented robust, standardized methods to support research practices involving the engineering and manipulation of nanomaterials. First, to contextualize this research, an overview of the measures defined by different regulatory bodies concerning nanosafety is presented. Although these authorities have been very active in the past several years, many questions remain unanswered in our view. Second, a number of national and international projects that attempted to ensure more reliable exchanges of methods and results are discussed. However, the frequent lack of publication of procedures and protocols in research can often be a hindrance for sharing those good practices. Subsequently, the efforts made through NanoDiaRA to introduce standardized methods and techniques to support the development and utilization of nanomaterials are discussed in depth. A series of semi-structured interviews were conducted with the partners of this project, and the interviews were analyzed thematically to highlight the determined efforts of the researchers to standardize their methods. Finally, some recommendations are made toward the setting up of well-defined methods to support the high-quality work of collaborative nanoparticle-based research and development projects and to enhance standardization processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Partners of project DaNa are DECHEMA e.V. Frankfurt/Main, Fraunhofer Institute for Ceramic Technologies and Systems Dresden, Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research Leipzig, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Independent Institute for Environmental Issues Berlin (Germany), and Empa St. Gallen (Switzerland).

References

  1. European Commission (2011) Commission recommendation of 18 October 2011 on the definition of nanomaterial. Off J Eur Union 275:38–40

  2. Koodali RT, Klabunde KJ (2012) Nanotechnology: fundamental principles and applications. In: Kent JA (ed) Handbook of industrial chemistry and biotechnology, vol 1. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  3. Boddoes CM, Case CP, Briscoe WH (2015) Understanding nanoparticle cellular entry: a physicochemical perspective. Adv Colloid Interf Sci 218:48–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Georgieva JV, Hoekstra D, Zuhorn IS (2014) Smuggling drugs into the brain: an overview of ligands targeting transcytosis for drug delivery across the blood–brain barrier. Pharmaceutics 6(4):557–583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wang H, Thorling CA, Liang X, Bridle KR, Grice JE, Zhu Y, Crawford DHG, Xu ZP, Liu X, Roberts MS (2015) Diagnostic imaging and therapeutic application of nanoparticles targeting the liver. J Mater Chem B 3:939–958

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Xu C, Sun S (2013) New forms of superparamagnetic nanoparticles for biomedical application. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 65(5):732–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Jin R, Lin B, Li D, Ai H (2014) Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles for MR imaging and therapy: design considerations and clinical applications. Curr Opin Pharmacol 18:18–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. EMEA (2006) Reflection paper on nanotechnology-based medicinal products for human use. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Regulatory_and_procedural_guideline/2010/01/WC500069728.pdf. Accessed 13 Dec 2015

  9. EFSA (2009) The potential risks arising from nanoscience and nanotechnologies on food and feed safety. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/de/efsajournal/pub/958. Accessed 13 Dec 2015

  10. FDA (2007) Nanotechnology task force report. Commisioner of food and drugs. http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/Nanotechnology/UCM2006659.htm.

  11. Tolaymat T, El Badawy A, Sequeira R, Genaidy A (2015) An integrated science based-methodology to assess potential risks and implications of engineered nanomaterials. J Hazard Mater 298:270–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Reinsborough MT, Sullivan G (2011) The regulation of nano-particles under the European biocidal products directive: challenges for effective civil society participation. Eur J Law Technol 2 (3)

  13. Gaspar R (2007) Regulatory issues surrounding nanomedicines: setting the scene for the next generation of nanopharmaceuticals. Nanomedicine 2(2):143–147. doi:10.2217/17435889.2.2.143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Toy R, Peiris PM, Gaghada KB, Karathanasis E (2014) Shaping cancer nanomedicine: the effect of particle shape on the in vivo journey of nanoparticles. Nanomed Nanotechnol Biol Med 9(1):121–134

    Google Scholar 

  15. Science and technology policy: nanotechnology (2012) OECD. http://www.oecd.org/sti/nano/. Accessed 29 Nov 2014

  16. EC (2011) High-level expert group on key enabling technologies - final report. European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/ict/files/kets/hlg_report_final_en.pdf

  17. OECD (2009) Preliminary review of OECD test guidelines for their applicability to manufactured nanomaterials (series on the safety of manufactured nanomaterials 15). OECD, Paris

  18. Testing of chemicals (2013) OECD. http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/testing/. Accessed 29 Nov 2014

  19. ISO/TC 229 Nanotechnologies (2005) International Organization for Standardization (ISO). http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_technical_committee?commid=381983. Accessed Nov 2014

  20. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2008) Nanotechnologies - terminology and definitions for nanoobjects - nanoparticle, nanofibre and nanoplate, ISO/TS 27687:2008. ISO, Geneva

  21. ICH (2011) Guidance on genotoxicity testing and data interpretation for pharmaceuticals intended for human use. S2(R1), step 4 (harmonised tripartite guideline). International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH), Geneva

  22. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (2013) Guidance on the compilation of safety data sheets, version 2.0, ECHA-13-G-11-EN. ECHA, Helsinki

  23. Bundesamt für Gesundheit (BAG) (2013) Das Sicherheitsdatenblatt in der Schweiz basierend auf der 4. BAG (Federal Office of Public Health), Bern, Revision der ChemV gültig ab 1.12.2012

  24. State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) (2012) Safety data sheet (SDS): guidelines for synthetic nanomaterials. Federal Department of Economic Affairs (DEA) – SECO, Bern

  25. Bleeker EAJ, Cassee FR, Geertsma RE, De Jong WH, Heugens EHW, Koers-Jacquemijns M, van De Meent D, Oomen AG, Popma J, Rietveld AG, Wijnhoven SWP (2012) Interpretation and implications of the European commission recommendation on the definition of nanomaterial (RIVM Letter Report 601358001/2012). RIVM, Bilthoven

  26. Rauscher H (2012) The European Commission’s recommendation on the definition of nanomaterial makes an impact. Nanotoxicology 7(7):1195–1197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Fulda C, Weber-Bruls D, Werth J (2014) Nano is nano is nano or: nanotechnology—a European legal perspective. Nanotechnol Rev 3(4):401–409

  28. Hofmann-Amtenbrink M, Hofmann H, Hool A, Roubert F (2014) Nanotechnology in medicine: European research and its implications. Swiss Med Wkly 144:w14044. doi:10.4414/smw.2014.14044

    Google Scholar 

  29. CORDIS (2015) NANODEFINE periodic report summary 1. European Commission. http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/163274_en.html. Accessed 26 May 2015

  30. Kurath M, Nentwich M, Fleischer T, Eisenberger I (2014) Cultures and strategies in the regulation of nanotechnology in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and the European Union. NanoEthics 8(2):121–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bergkamp L, Michaux G, Herbatschek N (2014) Nanotechnology regulation in Europe: from REACH and nano-registries to cosmetics, biocides, and medical devices. Nanotechnol Law Bus 11(1):93

    Google Scholar 

  32. JRC-IHCP (2009) REACH implementation project on nanomaterials (RIP-oN) (2009) substance identification of nanomaterials, vol 1. European Commission Joint Research Center - Institute for Health and Consumer Protection (JRC-IHCP), Ispra

  33. JRC-IHCP (2011) REACH implementation project on nanomaterials (RIP-oN), specific advice on fulfilling information requirements for nanomaterials under REACH, vol 2. European Commission Joint Research Center - Institute for Health and Consumer Protection (JRC-IHCP), Ispra

  34. JRC-IHCP (2011) REACH implementation project on nanomaterials (RIP-oN), specific advice on exposure assessment and hazard/risk characterisation for nanomaterials under REACH, vol 3. European Commission Joint Research Center - Institute for Health and Consumer Protection (JRCIHCP), Ispra

  35. Louekari K (2011) Integrated testing strategies in REACH. EPAA Workshop IST and their impact on the 3Rs, September 2011, Brussels

  36. NANOREG - A common European approach to the regulatory testing of nanomaterials. (2013) European Commission. http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/107159_en.html. Accessed 13 Dec 2015

  37. CORDIS (2015) PROSAFE - promoting the implementation of safe by design. European Commission. http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/194431_en.html. Accessed 26 May 2015

  38. Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) (2008): Action plan for synthetic nanomaterials. FOPH. http://www.bag.admin.ch/nanotechnologie/12167/?lang=en. Accessed 29 Nov 2014

  39. Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) (2012) Action plan for synthetic nanomaterials, report of the Federal Council dated 25 April 2012. FOPH. http://www.bag.admin.ch/nanotechnologie/12167/?lang=en. Accessed 29 Nov 2014

  40. Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH), Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) (2008) Guidelines on the precautionary matrix for synthetic nanomaterials. FOPH, FOEN, Bern

  41. Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) (2013) Precautionary matrix for synthetic nanomaterials. FOPH. http://www.bag.admin.ch/nanotechnologie/12171/12174/index.html?lang=de. Accessed 29 Nov 2014

  42. EPFL (2013) Directive on the work with engineered nano materials: exposure potential and control measures. vol LEX 1.5.5

  43. Groso A, Petri-Fink A, Magrez A, Riediker M, Meyer T (2010) Management of nanomaterials safety in research environment. Part Fibre Toxicol 7:40

  44. Warheit DB, Borm PJ, Hennes C, Lademann J (2007) Testing strategies to establish the safety of nanomaterials: conclusions of an ECETOC workshop. Inhal Toxicol 19(8):631–643. doi:10.1080/08958370701353080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Stone V, Nowack B, Baun A, van den Brink N, Kammer F, Dusinska M, Handy R, Hankin S, Hassellov M, Joner E, Fernandes TF (2010) Nanomaterials for environmental studies: classification, reference material issues, and strategies for physico-chemical characterisation. Sci Total Environ 408(7):1745–1754. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.10.035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Krug H (2011) Quality handbook—standard procedures for nanoparticle testing. http://www.nanopartikel.info/files/methodik/NANOMMUNE-Quality-Handbook-SOPs.pdf

  47. Aitken RJ, Hankin SM, Tran CL, Donaldson K, Stone V, Cumpson P, Johnstone J, Chaudhry Q, Cash S (2007) REFNANO: reference materials for engineered nanoparticle toxicology and metrology. Research Project Final Report defra

  48. DaNa (2009) Methodology of selection, acquisition and evaluation of publications in the Project DaNa. German Ministry of Education and Research. http://www.nanopartikel.info/files/methodik/DaNa_criteria_checklist_2015_form.pdf

  49. NANOVALID - Developing reference methods for nanomaterials (2013) http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/101043_en.html. Accessed 13 Dec 2015

  50. MARINA - managing risks of nanomaterials (2013) http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/93425_en.html. Accessed 13 Dec 2015

  51. Stone V, Pozzi-Mucelli S, Tran L, Aschberger K, Sabella S, Vogel UB, Poland C, Balharry D, Fernandes S, Gottardo S, Hankin S, Hartl M, Hartmann N, Hristozov D, Hund-Rinke K, Johnston H, Marcomini A, Panzer O, Roncato D, Saber AT, Wallin H, Scott-Fordmand JJ (2014) Prioritising nanosafety research to develop a stakeholder driven intelligent testing strategy. Part Fibre Toxicol 11:9

  52. NANOREG II (2015) http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/197088_en.html. Accessed 13 Dec 2015

  53. Crist RM, Hall Grossmann J, Patri AK, Stern ST, Dobrovolskaia MA, Adiseshaiah PP, Clogston JD, McNeil SE (2013) Common pitfalls in nanotechnology: lessons learned from NCI’s nanotechnology characterization laboratory. Integr Biol 5:66–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Joris F, Manshian BB, Peynshaert K, De Smedt SC, Braeckmans K, Soenen SJ (2013) Assessing nanoparticle toxicity in cell-based assays: influence of cell culture parameters and optimized models for bridging the in vitro-in vivo gap. Chem Soc Rev 42(21):8339–8359. doi:10.1039/c3cs60145e

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Warheit DB, Hoke RA, Finlay C, Donner EM, Reed KL, Sayes CM (2007) Development of a base set of toxicity tests using ultrafine TiO2 particles as a component of nanoparticle risk management. Toxicol Lett 171(3):99–110. doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2007.04.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. National Cancer Institute (2014) Nanotechnology characterization laboratory. http://ncl.cancer.gov. Accessed 29 Nov 2014

  57. Knowledge base nanomaterials (2013) http://nanopartikel.info. Accessed 29 Nov 2014

  58. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (1992) Terms and definitions used in connection with reference materials, ISO Guide 30:1992. ISO, Geneva

  59. Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und –prüfung (BAM) (2009) Nanoscaled reference materials. BAM (German Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing). http://www.nanorefmat.bam.de/en/. Accessed Nov 2014

  60. Kroll A, Pillukat MH, Hahn D, Schnekenburger J (2012) Interference of engineered nanoparticles with in vitro toxicity assays. Arch Toxicol 86(7):1123–1136. doi:10.1007/s00204-012-0837-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Nimesh S (2011) Potential implications of nanoparticle characterization on in vitro and in vivo gene delivery. Ther Deliv 3(11):1347–1356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Donaldson K, Murphy FA, Duffin R, Poland CA (2010) Asbestos, carbon nanotubes and the pleural mesothelium: a review of the hypothesis regarding the role of long fibre retention in the parietal pleura, inflammation and mesothelioma. Part Fibre Toxicol 7:5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. NIA (2015) US and Canada develop classification scheme for nanomaterials. http://www.nanotechia.org/node/18580. Accessed 13 Dec 2015

  64. Hofmann-Amtenbrink M (2010) NanoDiaRA internal deliverable D5.6: guidelines for improving and monitoring research exchange/ethical issues

  65. Hool A, Beuzelin Ollivier M-G, Roubert F (2013) Managing operating procedures in distributed collaborative projects. J Phys Conf Ser 429:012071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Thomas J, Harden A (2008) Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 8(1):45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) (2015) Glossary. NNI. http://www.nano.gov/aboutnni/glossary. Accessed 18 Dec 2015

  68. Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) (2011) Glossary. FOPH. http://www.bag.admin.ch/nanotechnologie/glossar/index.html?lang=en. Accessed 18 Dec 2015

  69. Stefaniak AB, Hackley VA, Roebben G, Ehara K, Hankin S, Postek MT, Lynch I, Fu W-E, Linsiniger TPJ, Thünemann AF (2013) Nanoscale reference materials for environmental, health and safety measurements: needs, gaps and opportunities. Nanotoxicology 7(8):1325–1337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Hirsch C, Roesslein M, Krug HF, Wick P (2011) Nanomaterial cell interactions: are current in vitro tests reliable? Nanomed Nanotechnol Biol Med 6(5):837–847

    Google Scholar 

  71. NANOREG (2014) Factsheets of NANOREG Output. NANOREG—a common European approach to the regulatory testing of nanomaterials. http://nanoreg.eu/index.php/media-and-downloads/factsheets-of-nanoreg-output.html. Accessed 18 Dec 2015

  72. Strehl C, Gaber T, Maurizi L, Hahne M, Rauch R, Hoff P, Häupl T, Hofmann-Amtenbrink M, Poole AR, Hofmann H, Buttgereit F (2015) Effects of PVA coated nanoparticles on human immune cells. Int J Nanomedicine 10:3429–3445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. CCMX (2015) CCMX Winter School 2016. http://www.ccmx.ch/news/news-single/article/269/31/. Accessed 13 Dec 2015

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no. 228929, acronym NanoDiaRA. The authors thank Katharina Mader for proofreading.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessandra Hool.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roubert, F., Beuzelin-Ollivier, MG., Hofmann-Amtenbrink, M. et al. “Nanostandardization” in Action: Implementing Standardization Processes in a Multidisciplinary Nanoparticle-Based Research and Development Project. Nanoethics 10, 41–62 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-015-0248-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-015-0248-8

Keywords

Navigation