Timing, hosts and locations of (grouped) events of NanoImpactNet

The first, 19-21 July, was, “Environmental fate and behaviour of
engineered nanoparticles – what’s known and what it would be nice
to know”, prepared and organised by Anders Baun (DTU).
Students learnt how much effort has recently been put into
(eco)toxicological research of NMs, and how risk assessment of
the environmental fate and behaviour of engineered NMs is also
important. This area is less studied and there are important gaps in
knowledge in the fields of transport pathways, distribution,
degradability, and accumulation of engineered NMs in the
environment. This school provided an update on the present state
of knowledge in environmental fate and behaviour of engineered
NMs and enabled the participants to actively contribute to the
ongoing scientific discussions currently taking place in this
important area.
The second school, 21-23 July, was entitled, “Risk assessment for
nanomaterials: How can we integrate data for nanomaterials?”,
prepared and organised by Maria Dusinska (NILU).
The school addressed the basic principles of risk assessment and
further focused on the most important issues necessary for the
development of a framework for the risk assessment of NMs.
Participants obtained an overview of the latest insights on the
integration of exposure estimation, life cycle analysis, hazard
assessment with both human and ecotoxicological data. This is
necessary in the development of risk assessment methodologies
adequate for NMs. The event provided an update on the present
state of knowledge in risk assessment of engineered NMs and also
gave the participants the opportunity to actively contribute to the
ongoing scientific discussions in this important field. Particular
examples were given using presentations of consumer products,
food, asbestos, carbon nanotubes, occupational exposures and
critical evaluations of in vitro and in vivo data.
See below for reports, results and conclusions of these training
schools.
5.1.8 The Dublin Workshops, Ireland
From 6-9 September 2010, University College Dublin hosted three
NanoImpactNet workshops for both young and experienced
researchers.
Workshop 1, 6-7 September, was organised by Richard Handy
(UoP) and was entitled, “Hazard assessment of Nanomaterials in
Biota – Recent advances in methodology and challenges ahead.”
This technical workshop brought together experts with “hands
on” bench experience of NMs to discuss recent advances in
methodology, share current experiences, identify the problems
and potential solutions for studying the biological effects of NMs.
The purpose was to find agreements on details of ecotoxicity
methods for fundamental research, as well as more applied
aspects in regulatory testing, using the OECD as an examplee. The
workshop provided key presentations on issues relating to
ecotoxicity protocols, but lots of time was devoted to creative
scientific discussion. These covered soil and sediment organisms,
microbes, terrestrial plants and vertebrate animals, as well as
aquatic ecotoxicity on algae, invertebrates and fish in freshwater
or marine chemistry.
Results and conclusions of this workshop and its associated training
school in Bratislava (see above), entitled ”Practical Considerations
for Conducting Ecotoxicity Test Methods with Manufactured
NanoSafetyCluster - Compendium 2012
Nanomaterials: What Have We Learnt So Far?” has been submitted
to the peer review journal Ecotoxicology.
Workshop 2, 8 September, was organised by Maria Dusinska
(NILU) and was entitled, “Impact assessment of Nanomaterials –
Nanomedicines and nanotechnology: two sides of the same coin.”
The second workshop addressed the impact of NMs on human and
environmental health, discussing all aspects contributing to the
health and environmental risks and benefits, using the challenges
facing nanomedicine as a frame. This rapidly developing area has
created new tools and methods that significantly affect existing
conservative practices. Students learnt about how nanomedicine
exploits novel physical, chemical and biological properties of
nanometer-scale materials: drug delivery, imaging and diagnostics,
cancer therapy, surgery, tissue engineering, NM interactions with
living tissue, etc. They also learnt about the flip-side: the potential
toxicological problems of NMs. Students discussed the gaps in
existing knowledge and how to improve communication between
pharmacology industry, nanotoxicologists and how to integrate
knowledge from all relevant fields. A technical report of the
workshop is in production and will go towards further deliverables.
Workshop 3, 9 September, was organised by Markus Berges
(DGUV-BGIA) and was entitled, “Nanoparticle metrics in the air,
exposure scenarios and exposure routes.”
Particle number and number-size distribution are the de facto
standard to describe exposure to nano-objects. Students learnt
about current measurement devices like big, bulky SMPS or ELPI
that can only be operated by trained personnel and about smaller
portable monitors close to market. Neither type of instrument
gives information on the morphology or the chemical identity of
the nano-objects, however. A packed programme explained the
use of these NP samplers, sampling and analysis of NPs onto
electron microscopy grids, electrostatic sampling of NPs, and the
challenges of imaging.
An overview of existing and proposed strategies for measuring
exposure was given. Typically grids are sampled for further
electron microscopy analysis to resolve this question and to allow
for background distinction. This presents a challenge in itself as no
standardized methods for the sampling are available.
Given current measurement devices, students learnt the crucial
point of applying a suitable measurement strategy to assess and to
control NP exposure via inhalation and attempts to solve the
problem of missing background distinctions by the instruments via
these strategies. They learnt that there is currently no unified
agreed approach and no international harmonized exposure
database. The advantages of the NP emission assessment
technique were given and the inherent challenges of data
interpretation. A representative of BASF explained his company’s
global strategy for monitoring nanoscale aerosols on its sites.
The workshop and the planned report aimed to close or at least
narrow this gap and work on common documents towards agreed
approaches. The report will contribute to the Work Package’s final
report.
5.1.9 Prague, Czech Republic
As an extra deliverable and in association with the British Embassy
(Science and Innovation Network of the UK Government), IOM and
IST led a high-level meeting on nanotechnology safety in Prague.
Compendium of Projects in the European NanoSafety Cluster 127