Defining Criteria for Nanotoxicology

Abstract

<p>The impact of nanoscience and nanotechnology applications and research are well known. Comparative increases are evident in the number of nanomaterials found in consumer products, the number of patent applications and issues, and the National Nanotechnology Initiative's (NNI) funding allocated to its development and research. In just three years (from 2006 to 2009) the number of consumer products containing nanomaterials increased by almost 500%. From 2001 to 2010, the NNI increased its financial support to various nanosector areas of research by three-fold. However, the defining terms and criteria required for nanotoxicological testing are challenging and still evolving. The unique nature of these nanomaterials and the continuously expanding body of knowledge in the nanoscience and nanotechnology areas add to the complexity in defining the terminology appropriate for this burgeoning area. The use of common terminology and substantial physico-chemical characterization is paramount to describe and evaluate the potential risks of nanomaterials. Many groups, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPAL the Minimum Characterization Initiative (MinChar Initiative), and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), defined the minimum criteria for nanotoxicology. In our opinion, EPA has selected the most critical parameters to allow comparisons among various studies. These physico-chemical properties were: composition, crystal structure, shape, average size, size distribution, solubility, surface area, surface treatment, and surface charge. Applying these concepts to a toxicity screening model may provide an efficient, reliable tool to predict nanotoxicity from cellfree to in-vitro to in-vivo test systems.</p><p>This presentation occurred at the Wright State University Campus-Wide Celebration of Research, Scholarship and Creative Activities on April 8, 2011</p>