You are here:
Considerations of Environmentally Relevant Test Conditions for Improved Evaluation of Ecological Hazards of Engineered Nanomaterials
Holden, P., J. Gardea-Torresdey, F. Klaessig, R. Turco, M. Mortimer, K. Hund-Rinke, E. Hubal, D. Avery, D. Barcelo, R. Behra, Y. Cohen, L. Deydier-Stephan, B. Herr Harthorn, D. Hristozov, JohnM Johnston, A. Kane, L. Kapustka, A. Keller, H. Lenihan, W. Lovell, C. Murphy, R. Nisbet, E. Petersen, M. Scheringer, M. Sharma, D. Speed, Y. Sultan, P. Westerhoff, J. White, M. Wiesner, E. Wong, B. Xing, M. Steele Horan, H. Goodwin, A. Nel, P. Ferguson, T. Fernandes, Matt Henderson, R. Hoke, AND E. Salinas. Considerations of Environmentally Relevant Test Conditions for Improved Evaluation of Ecological Hazards of Engineered Nanomaterials. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 50(12):6124–6145, (2016).
Invited paper following the March 2015 workshop, Implementing Environmentally-Relevant Exposures for Improved Interpretation of Laboratory Toxicology Studies of Manufactured and Engineered Nanomaterials (M&ENMs).
Engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) are increasingly entering the environment with uncertain consequences including potential ecological effects. Various research communities view differently whether ecotoxicological testing of ENMs should be conducted using environmentally relevant concentrations—where observing outcomes is difficult—versus higher ENM doses, where responses are observable. What exposure conditions are typically used in assessing ENM hazards to populations? What conditions are used to test ecosystem-scale hazards? What is known regarding actual ENMs in the environment, via measurements or modeling simulations? How should exposure conditions, ENM transformation, dose, and body burden be used in interpreting biological and computational findings for assessing risks? These questions were addressed in the context of this critical review. As a result, three main recommendations emerged. First, researchers should improve ecotoxicology of ENMs by choosing test end points, duration, and study conditions—including ENM test concentrations—that align with realistic exposure scenarios. Second, testing should proceed via tiers with iterative feedback that informs experiments at other levels of biological organization. Finally, environmental realism in ENM hazard assessments should involve greater coordination among ENM quantitative analysts, exposure modelers, and ecotoxicologists, across government, industry, and academia.