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

NanoSafetyCluster ‐ Compendium 2012
can affect the bioavailability of the nanomaterials. One cannot in
this field expect the scientifically idealized outcome of perfectly
stable dispersed materials, but one can at least insist that
nominally identical dispersions used by different groups of
scientists are indeed identical. Therefore, uncertainties in this
arena may impact on the framing of poor, or poorly defined,
dispersion protocols in which insufficient parameters are fixed to
ensure reproducible dispersion and dispersion kinetics. In all these
cases the lack of application of known characterisation methods,
and the limited manner in which these have so far been translated
for use in this field are currently limiting factors in the onward
development and the implementation of regulation. There is also
an overarching challenge regarding dissemination of this need for
in situ characterisation techniques into the User community.
Poorly understood, poorly characterized, without agreed standards
or experimental formats for presenting nanomaterials in biological,
toxicological, environmental and occupational exposure studies
means that dose, and dose rates are poorly understood, rarely
uniform, and can lead to widely different ‘actual’ doses.
The problem of how to present the nanomaterials in a meaningful,
reproducible, and bioavailable manner is challenging. Without
5 QNano activities
QNano is founded on three functionally distinct elements to
promote high quality and reproducible research on nanomaterials
in contact with biological and environmental systems, and build
the knowledge on nanosafety. Each of the (three) functional
elements is essential, as are the linkages (both in process, and in
people) that have been designed into them. The three elements
are closely interlinked from an operational and management point
specific measures, and when combined with issues of poorly
controlled aggregation may lead the intracellular concentration for
nominally identical nanomaterial concentrations and biological
materials to differ by several orders of magnitude. Though less
well understood, similar issues are believed to be relevant in vivo
and in the environment, where different modes of preparation and
delivery combine to lead to different ‘presentation’ of the
nanomaterials. Occupational exposure scenarios are no different in
the challenges presented, and (for example) implications for
different modes of delivery, and measurement, of carbon
nanotubes (CNTs) are poorly understood, and lack any agreed
approach.
Poorly structured and poorly supported by infrastructures.
This challenge ranges from the lack of common set of laboratory
practices and facilities from which the most expert can support
those (often highly expert) biologists and toxicologists that lack
expertise in system preparation and characterisation. The
challenge is, however, deeper. In the absence of infrastructure, the
community is fragmented, and is only slowly forming a vision of
what it wishes to be.
of view, in addition to the close scientific linkages shown in Figure
1. The functional elements are as follows:
Transnational Access (TA): Physical access to 15 of the major
nanomaterials processing and characterisation for health, safety
and environmental application sites in Europe. Collectively, these
sites enable Users to access small to medium scale equipment and
facilities (with the appropriate knowledge to apply them in this
246 Compendium of Projects in the European NanoSafety Cluster