Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Definition Framework for the Terms Nanomaterial and Nanoparticle

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

Abstract

Scientific writings and policy documents define the terms nanomaterial and nanoparticle in various ways. This variation is considered problematic because the absence of a shared definition is understood as potentially hindering nanomaterial knowledge production and regulation. Another view is that the existence of a shared definition may itself cause problems, as rigid definitions arguably exclude important aspects of the studied phenomena. The aim of this paper is to inform this state of disagreement by providing analytical concepts for a systematic understanding of how, and even whether, nanomaterial and nanoparticle could and should be defined. To do this, we review definitions of nanomaterial and nanoparticle presented in research articles and policy documents. Definitions were identified by first conducting a Scopus search and then tracing cited definitions back to their sources. In total, 36 definitions were identified. Theories of definition from philosophy and linguistics provide analytical guidance for structuring and categorizing the identified definitions, and the main analytical dimensions of the definitions are then identified and discussed. Finally, we propose a framework for understanding the process of defining nanomaterial and nanoparticle. This framework considers both the generality needed for a shared understanding (by suggesting proto-definitions of nanomaterial and nanoparticle) and the level of precision required for different purposes (by allowing for various explications of the proto-definitions).

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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. Note that in the case of the A problem, it is not usually the morpheme nano itself that causes concern [8]. It is typically understood as a prefix of the SI system, and as such, its definition is uncontroversial, nano simply meaning a billionth part (i.e., 10−9). Rather, what are considered problematic are terms such as nanotechnology, nanoscience, nanomaterial, and nanoparticle.

  2. As noted by Hempel [25], definitions do not have to have this structure but can also be construed without a class. For example, consider the definition of the relationship harder than as in “x is harder than y = Df x scratches y, but y does not scratch x” [25]. This definition does not mention any class but is still perfectly legitimate as a definition of harder than. Also, note that Flowerdew identifies, in academic discourse, “semi-formal definitions” that do not contain a class. Semi-formal definitions contain key characteristics that “may well be sufficient to distinguish the term from other members of its class, [but] the class is not mentioned” [22].

  3. In turn, Næss’s notion of “precization” is very similar to Carnap’s notion of explication [26, 41, 42]; here, we focus on Carnap’s more widely recognized term.

  4. As one of the anonymous reviewers pointed out, those who advance explicata along the lines of novelty may face problems. For one thing, a phrase such as “novel characteristics” is itself vague, so although this explicatum restricts interpretation in excluding entities that not exhibit novel characteristics, what this terms exactly mean is unclear.

References

  1. Quine WV (1951) Two dogmas of empiricism. Philos Rev 60(1):20–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bromley DA (2002) Science, technology, and politics. Technol Soc 24(1–2):9–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Maynard AD, Aitken RJ, Butz T, Colvin V, Donaldson K, Oberdörster G, Philbert MA, Ryan J, Seaton A, Stone V, Tinkle SS, Tran L, Walker NJ, Warheit DB (2006) Safe handling of nanotechnology. Nature 444(16):267–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Oberdörster G, Stone V, Donaldson K (2007) Toxicology of nanoparticles: a historical perspective. Nanotoxicology 1(1):2–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Renn O, Roco MC (2006) Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. J Nanoparticle Res 8:153–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bowman DM, Hodge GA (2008) A big regulatory tool-box for a small technology. NanoEthics 2:193–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Joachim C (2005) To be nano or not to be nano? Nat Mater 4(2):107–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kjølberg K, Wickson F (2007) Social and ethical interactions with nano: mapping the early literature. NanoEthics 1(2):89–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Loeve S (2010) About a definition of nano: how to articulate nano and technology. HYLE - International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry 16(1):3–18

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lövestam G, Rauscher H, Roebben G, Klüttgen BS, Gibson N, Putaud J-P, Stamm H (2010) Considerations on a definition of nanomaterial for regulatory purposes. JRC Reference Reports European Commission, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  11. Saner M, Stoklosa A (2013) Commercial, societal and administrative benefits from the analysis and clarification of definitions: the case of nanomaterials. Creativity and Innovation Management 22(1):26–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bowman DM, D’Silva J, van Calster G (2010) Defining nanomaterials for the purpose of regulation within the European Union. European Journal of Risk Regulation 1(2):115–122

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kreyling WG, Semmler-Behnke M, Chaudhry Q (2010) A complementary definition of nanomaterial. Nano Today 5:165–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Marchant GE, Sylvester DJ, Abbott KW (2008) Risk management principles for nanotechnology. NanoEthics 2:43–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Marrani D (2013) Nanotechnologies and novel foods in European law. NanoEthics 7(3):177–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Auffan M, Rose J, Bottero J-Y, Lowry GV, Jolivet J-P, Wiesner MR (2009) Towards a definition of inorganic nanoparticles from an environmental, health and safety perspective. Nat Nanotechnol 4(10):634–641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hamburg MA (2012) FDA’s approach to regulation of products of nanotechnology. Science 336(6079):299–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Maynard AD (2011) Don’t define nanomaterials. Nature 475

  19. Handy RD, von der Kammer F, Lead JR, Hassellöv M, Owen R, Crane M (2008) The ecotoxicology and chemistry of manufactured nanoparticles. Ecotoxicology 17(4):287–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Carnap R (1950) Logical foundation of probability. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  21. Flowerdew J (1991) Pragmatic modifications on the ‘representative’ speech act of defining. J Pragmat 15:253–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Flowerdew J (1992) Definitions in science lectures. Applied Linguistics 13(2):202–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gupta A (2015) Definitions. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 Edition), ed. by EN Zalta http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/definitions. Retrieved January 10, 2016

  24. Hansson SO (2006) How to define–a tutorial. Princípios, Revista de Filosofia 13(19–20):5–30

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hempel CG (1952) Fundamentals of concept formation in empirical science. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  26. Næss A (2005) Precization and definition. In: Drengson A (ed) The selected works of Arne Næss, vol 7. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 25–54

    Google Scholar 

  27. Robinson R (1950) Definition. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  28. OED (n.d.) definition, n. Oxford English Dictionary, Online edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  29. Smith R (2014) Aristotle’s Logic. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

  30. Ajdukiewicz K (1960) Three concepts of definition. Philos Today 4(3):182–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bird, A, Tobin E (2015) Natural Kinds. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2015 Edition), ed. by Edward N. Zalta; http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/natural-kinds. Retrieved January 10, 2016

  32. Kripke SA (1980) Naming and necessity. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  33. Putnam H (1973) Meaning and reference. J Philos 70(19):699–711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Schwartz SP (1977) Introduction. In: Schwartz SP (ed) Naming, necessity and natural kinds. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp 13–41

    Google Scholar 

  35. Laurence S, Margolis E (1999) Concepts and cognitive science. In: Margolis E, Laurence S (eds) Concepts: core readings. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 3–81

    Google Scholar 

  36. DePaul MR, Ramsey W (eds) (1998) Rethinking intuition: the psychology of intuitions and its role in philosophical inquiry. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lakoff G (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  38. Margolis E, Laurence S (eds) (1999) Concepts: core readings. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  39. Rosch E, Mervis CB (1975) Family resemblances: studies in the internal structure of categories. Cogn Psychol 7(4):573–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Murphy G (2004) The big book of concepts. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  41. Næss A (1949) Toward a theory of interpretation and preciseness. Theoria 15(1–3):220–241

    Google Scholar 

  42. Næss A (2005) Basic terms. In: Drengson A (ed) The selected works of Arne Næss, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 5–82

    Google Scholar 

  43. Oberdörster G, Maynard A, Donaldson K, Castranova V, Fitzpatrick J, Ausman K, Carter J, Karn B, Kreyling W, Lai D, Olin S, Monteiro-Riviere N, Warheit D, Yang H, the ILSI Research Foundation/Risk Science Institute Nanomaterial Toxicity Screening Working Group (2005) Principles for characterizing the potential human health effects from exposure to nanomaterials: elements of a screening strategy. Part Fibre Toxicol 2(1):8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Barlow S, Chesson A, Collins JD, Flynn A, Hardy A, Klaus-Dieter J, Knaap A, Kuiper H, Larsen JC, Le Neindre P, Schans J, Schlatter J, Silano V, Skerfving S, Vannier P (2009) Scientific opinion. The potential risks arising from nanoscience and nanotechnologies on food and feed safety. Scientific opinion of the scientific committee. The EFSA Journal 958:1–39

    Google Scholar 

  45. European Parliament (2009) Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 25 March 2009 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EC) No …/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on novel foods, amending Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 258/97. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, Brussels

  46. SCENIHR (2007) Opinion on the scientific aspects of the existing and proposed definitions relating to products of nanoscience and nanotechnologies. The European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  47. CCA (2008) Small is different: a science perspective on the regulatory challenges of the nanoscale. Report of the expert panel on nanotechnology. Council of Canadian Academies, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  48. US EPA (undated) Concept Paper for the Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program under TSCA. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

  49. DEFRA (2006) Defra consultation on a voluntary reporting scheme for engineered nanoscale materials. Summary of findings and Government’s response. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London

    Google Scholar 

  50. NICNAS (2009) Introduction of new nanomaterials, chemical gazette. National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme - NICNAS, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  51. BSI (2007) Terminology for nanomaterials. British Standards Institution, London

    Google Scholar 

  52. CPSC (2005) CPSC nanomaterial statement. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda

    Google Scholar 

  53. Environment Canada (2007) New substances program advisory note 2007–06: requirements for nanomaterials under the new substances notification regulations (chemicals and polymers). Environment Canada, Gatineau QC

    Google Scholar 

  54. European Commission (2011) Recommendations: commission recommendation of 18 October 2011 on the definition of nanomaterial. The European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  55. European Parliament (2009) Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products. Official Journal of the European Union. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  56. Hansen SF, Larsen BH, Olsen SI, Baun A (2007) Categorization framework to aid hazard identification of nanomaterials. Nanotoxicology 1(3):243–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Health Canada (2010) Interim policy statement on Health Canada’s working definition for nanomaterials. Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario

    Google Scholar 

  58. ISO (2010) Nanotechnologies—vocabulary—part 1: core terms. ISO, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  59. NCI (2009) Cancer nanotechnology pattform partnership. US National Cancer Institute, Rockville

    Google Scholar 

  60. SCCP (2007) Opinion on safety of nanomaterials in cosmetic products. The European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Products, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  61. UK Advisory Group on Nanotechnology Applications (2002) New dimensions for manufacturing: a UK strategy for nanotechnology. Department of Trade and Industry and Office of Science and Technology, London

    Google Scholar 

  62. Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London

    Google Scholar 

  63. ISO (2008) Nanotechnologies—terminology and definitions for nano-objects—nanoparticle, nanofibre and nanoplate. ISO, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  64. US Office of Pesticide Programs (2010) Nanotechnology and pesticides. Office of Pesticide Programs, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

  65. ASTM (2012) E2456-06, standard terminology relating to nanotechnology. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  66. House of Lords (2010) Nanotechnologies and food, vol 1–2. House of Lords, Science and Technology Commiitee, London

    Google Scholar 

  67. Rauscher H, Roebben G, Amenta V, Sanfeliu AB, Calzolai L, Emons H, Gaillard C, Gibson N, Linsinger T, Mech A, Pesudo LQ, Rasmussen K, Sintes JR, Sokull-Klüttgen B, Stamm H (2014) Towards a review of the EC Recommendation for a definition of the term “nanomaterial”, Part 1: Compilation of information concerning the experience with the definition. JRC Scientific and Policy Report. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  68. Klaessig F, Marrapese M, Abe S (2011) Current perspectives in nanotechnology terminology and nomenclature. In: Murashov V, Howard J (eds) Nanotechnology standards. Springer, New York, pp 21–52

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  69. Roebben G, Rauscher H, Amenta V, Aschberger K, Sanfeliu AB, Calzolai L, Emons H, Gaillard C, Gibson N, Holzwarth U, Koeber R, Linsinger T, Rasmussen K, Sokull-Klüttgen B, Stamm H (2014) Towards a review of the EC recommendation for a definition of the term “nanomaterial”, Part 2: Assessment of collected information concerning the experience with the definition. JRC Scientific and Policy Report. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  70. Barnard AS, Guo H (eds) (2012) Nature’s nanostructures. Pan Stanford, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  71. Heymann D, Jenneskens LW, Jehlička J, Koper C, Vlietstra E (2003) Terrestrial and extraterrestrial fullerenes. Fullerenes, Nanotubes, Carbon Nanostruct 11(4):333–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. IWGC (1999) Nanotechnology research directions: IWGN workshop report. Vision for nanotechnology R&D in the Next decade. National Science and Technology Council Committee on Technology Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology (IWGN), Washington

    Google Scholar 

  73. Grice HP (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Cole P, Morgan JL (eds) Syntax and semantics, 3rd edn, Speech acts. Academic Press, New York, pp 41–58

    Google Scholar 

  74. Sperber D, Wilson D (1995) Relevance: communication & cognition, 2nd edn. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  75. Allhoff F (2007) On the autonomy and justification of nanoethics. NanoEthics 1(3):185–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Manchikanti P, Bandopadhyay T (2010) Nanomaterials and effects on biological systems: development of effective regulatory norms. NanoEthics 4(1):77–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Preston CJ, Sheinin MY, Sproat DJ, Swarup VP (2010) The novelty of nano and the regulatory challenge of newness. NanoEthics 4:13–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Boholm M, Boholm Å (2012) The many faces of nano in newspaper reporting. J Nanoparticle Res 14(2):722–740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. OED (n.d.) nano-, comb. form. Oxford English Dictionary, Online edn. Oxford University Press

  80. Tomalia DA (2009) In quest of a systematic framework for unifying and defining nanoscience. J Nanoparticle Res 11:1251–1310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Maynard AD, Warheit DB, Philbert MA (2011) The new toxicology of sophisticated materials: nanotoxicology and beyond. Toxicol Sci 120(S1):109–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Research Council Formas, and the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research (Mistra). We wish to thank Åsa Boholm, Rickard Frost, Mikael Johansson, Monica Lindh de Montoya, and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive criticism and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gothenburg Research Institute, University of Gothenburg, Övre Fogelbergsgatan 6, PO Box 603, SE-405 30, Göteborg, Sweden

    Max Boholm

  2. Environmental Systems Analysis, Chalmers University of Technology, SE-412 96, Göteborg, Sweden

    Rickard Arvidsson

Authors
  1. Max Boholm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rickard Arvidsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Max Boholm.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boholm, M., Arvidsson, R. A Definition Framework for the Terms Nanomaterial and Nanoparticle . Nanoethics 10, 25–40 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-015-0249-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-015-0249-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation