No abstract

The volume-specific surface area (VSSA) of a particulate material is one of two apparently very different metrics recommended by the European Commission for a definition of “nanomaterial” for regulatory purposes: specifically, the VSSA metric may classify nanomaterials and non-nanomaterials differently than the median size in number metrics, depending on the chemical composition, size, polydispersity, shape, porosity, and aggregation of the particles in the powder. Here we evaluate the extent of agreement between classification by electron microscopy (EM) and classification by VSSA on a large set of diverse particulate substances that represent all the anticipated challenges except mixtures of different substances. EM and VSSA are determined in multiple labs to assess also the level of reproducibility. Based on the results obtained on highly characterized benchmark materials from the NanoDefine EU FP7 project, we derive a tiered screening strategy for the purpose of implementing the definition of nanomaterials. We finally apply the screening strategy to further industrial materials, which were classified correctly and left only borderline cases for EM. On platelet-shaped nanomaterials, VSSA is essential to prevent false-negative classification by EM. On porous materials, approaches involving extended adsorption isotherms prevent false positive classification by VSSA. We find no false negatives by VSSA, neither in Tier 1 nor in Tier 2, despite real-world industrial polydispersity and diverse composition, shape, and coatings. The VSSA screening strategy is recommended for inclusion in a technical guidance for the implementation of the definition. Graphical abstractWe evaluate the extent of agreement between classification by electron microscopy (EM) and classification by Volume-Specific Surface Area (VSSA) on a large set of diverse particulate substances. These represent the challenges anticipated for identification of nanomaterials by the European Commission recommendation for a definition of nanomaterials for regulatory purposes. Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11051-017-3741-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Identifying nanomaterials (NMs) according to European Union legislation is challenging, as there is an enormous variety of materials, with different physico‐chemical properties. The NanoDefiner Framework and its Decision Support Flow Scheme (DSFS) allow choosing the optimal method to measure the particle size distribution by matching the material properties and the performance of the particular measurement techniques. The DSFS leads to a reliable and economic decision whether a material is an NM or not based on scientific criteria and respecting regulatory requirements. The DSFS starts beyond regulatory requirements by identifying non‐NMs by a proxy approach based on their volume‐specific surface area. In a second step, it identifies NMs. The DSFS is tested on real‐world materials and is implemented in an e‐tool. The DSFS is compared with a decision flowchart of the European Commission’s (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC), which rigorously follows the explicit criteria of the EC NM definition with the focus on identifying NMs, and non‐NMs are identified by exclusion. The two approaches build on the same scientific basis and measurement methods, but start from opposite ends: the JRC Flowchart starts by identifying NMs, whereas the NanoDefiner Framework first identifies non‐NMs.

No abstract