First results are presented which indicate that the topic 'ecotoxicity and environmental effects of nanoparticles' should not be neglected. In testing photocatalytic nanoparticles, there are still many topics that need clarification or improvement, such as the cause for an observed toxicity, the improvement of the test design, the elaboration of a test battery and an assessment strategy. On the basis of optimized test systems, it will be possible to test nanoparticles systematically. If a potential risk by specific photocatalytic particles is known, a risk-benefit analysis can be performed and, if required, risk reducing measures can be taken.

Interactions within natural soils have often been neglected when assessing fate and bioavailability of engineered nanomaterials (ENM) in soils. This review combines patchwise ENM research using natural soils with the much wider literature on ENM performed in standard tests or on the fate of colloids in soils, and an analysis of the diverse ENM characteristics determining availability from the soil organisms' perspective to assess the main soil characteristics that determine the fate, speciation, and ultimately bioavailability of ENM in natural soils. Predominantly salinity, texture, pH, concentration, and nature of mobile organic compounds and degree of saturation determine ENM bioavailability.

The unique or enhanced properties of manufactured nanomaterials (MNs) suggest that their use in nanoenabled products will continue to increase. This will result in increased potential for human and environmental exposure to MNs during manufacturing, use, and disposal of nanoenabled products. Scientifically based risk assessment for MNs necessitates the development of reproducible, standardized hazard testing methods such as those provided by the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Currently, there is no comprehensive guidance on how best to address testing issues specific to MN particulate, fibrous, or colloidal properties. This paper summarizes the findings from an expert workshop convened to develop a guidance document that addresses the difficulties encountered when testing MNs using OECD aquatic and sediment test guidelines. Critical components were identified by workshop participants that require specific guidance for MN testing: preparation of dispersions, dose metrics, the importance and challenges associated with maintaining and monitoring exposure levels, and the need for reliable methods to quantify MNs in complex media. To facilitate a scientific advance in the consistency of nanoecotoxicology test results, we identify and discuss critical considerations where expert consensus recommendations were and were not achieved and provide specific research recommendations to resolve issues for which consensus was not reached. This process will enable the development of prescriptive testing guidance for MNs. Critically, we highlight the need to quantify and properly interpret and express exposure during the bioassays used to determine hazard values.

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 endpoints, 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.

BackgroundTo assess the risk of all nanomaterials (NMs) on a case-by-case basis is challenging in terms of financial, ethical and time resources. Instead a more intelligent approach to knowledge gain and risk assessment is required.MethodsA framework of future research priorities was developed from the accorded opinion of experts covering all major stake holder groups (government, industry, academia, funders and NGOs). It recognises and stresses the major topics of physicochemical characterisation, exposure identification, hazard identification and modelling approaches as key components of the current and future risk assessment of NMs.ResultsThe framework for future research has been developed from the opinions of over 80 stakeholders, that describes the research priorities for effective development of an intelligent testing strategy (ITS) to allow risk evaluation of NMs. In this context, an ITS is a process that allows the risks of NMs to be assessed accurately, effectively and efficiently, thereby reducing the need to test NMs on a case-by-case basis.For each of the major topics of physicochemical characterisation, exposure identification, hazard identification and modelling, key-priority research areas are described via a series of stepping stones, or hexagon diagrams structured into a time perspective. Importantly, this framework is flexible, allowing individual stakeholders to identify where their own activities and expertise are positioned within the prioritisation pathway and furthermore to identify how they can effectively contribute and structure their work accordingly. In other words, the prioritisation hexagon diagrams provide a tool that individual stakeholders can adapt to meet their own particular needs and to deliver an ITS for NMs risk assessment. Such an approach would, over time, reduce the need for testing by increasing the reliability and sophistication of in silico approaches.The manuscript includes an appraisal of how this framework relates to the current risk assessment approaches and how future risk assessment could adapt to accommodate these new approaches. A full report is available in electronic format (pdf) at http://www.nano.hw.ac.uk/research-projects/itsnano.html.ConclusionITS-NANO has delivered a detailed, stakeholder driven and flexible research prioritisation (or strategy) tool, which identifies specific research needs, suggests connections between areas, and frames this in a time-perspective.