The European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC) 'Nano Task Force' proposes a Decision-making framework for the grouping and testing of nanomaterials (DF4nanoGrouping) that consists of 3 tiers to assign nanomaterials to 4 main groups, to perform sub-grouping within the main groups and to determine and refine specific information needs. The DF4nanoGrouping covers all relevant aspects of a nanomaterial's life cycle and biological pathways, i.e. intrinsic material and system-dependent properties, biopersistence, uptake and biodistribution, cellular and apical toxic effects. Use (including manufacture), release and route of exposure are applied as 'qualifiers' within the DF4nanoGrouping to determine if, e.g. nanomaterials cannot be released from a product matrix, which may justify the waiving of testing. The four main groups encompass (1) soluble nanomaterials, (2) biopersistent high aspect ratio nanomaterials, (3) passive nanomaterials, and (4) active nanomaterials. The DF4nanoGrouping aims to group nanomaterials by their specific mode-of-action that results in an apical toxic effect. This is eventually directed by a nanomaterial's intrinsic properties. However, since the exact correlation of intrinsic material properties and apical toxic effect is not yet established, the DF4nanoGrouping uses the 'functionality' of nanomaterials for grouping rather than relying on intrinsic material properties alone. Such functionalities include system-dependent material properties (such as dissolution rate in biologically relevant media), bio-physical interactions, in vitro effects and release and exposure. The DF4nanoGrouping is a hazard and risk assessment tool that applies modern toxicology and contributes to the sustainable development of nanotechnological products. It ensures that no studies are performed that do not provide crucial data and therefore saves animals and resources.

Case studies covering carbonaceous nanomaterials, metal oxide and metal sulphate nanomaterials, amorphous silica and organic pigments were performed to assess the Decision-making framework for the grouping and testing of nanomaterials (DF4nanoGrouping). The usefulness of the DF4nanoGrouping for nanomaterial hazard assessment was confirmed. In two tiers that rely exclusively on non-animal test methods followed by a third tier, if necessary, in which data from rat short-term inhalation studies are evaluated, nanomaterials are assigned to one of four main groups (MGs). The DF4nanoGrouping proved efficient in sorting out nanomaterials that could undergo hazard assessment without further testing. These are soluble nanomaterials (MG1) whose further hazard assessment should rely on read-across to the dissolved materials, high aspect-ratio nanomaterials (MG2) which could be assessed according to their potential fibre toxicity and passive nanomaterials (MG3) that only elicit effects under pulmonary overload conditions. Thereby, the DF4nanoGrouping allows identifying active nanomaterials (MG4) that merit in-depth investigations, and it provides a solid rationale for their sub-grouping to specify the further information needs. Finally, the evaluated case study materials may be used as source nanomaterials in future read-across applications. Overall, the DF4nanoGrouping is a hazard assessment strategy that strictly uses animals as a last resort.

An engineered nanomaterial (ENM) may actually consist of a population of primary particles, aggregates and agglomerates of various sizes. Furthermore, their physico-chemical characteristics may change during the various life-cycle stages. It will probably not be feasible to test all varieties of all ENMs for possible health and environmental risks. There is therefore a need to further develop the approaches for risk assessment of ENMs. Within the EU FP7 project Managing Risks of Nanoparticles (MARINA) a two-phase risk assessment strategy has been developed. In Phase 1 (Problem framing) a base set of information is considered, relevant exposure scenarios (RESs) are identified and the scope for Phase 2 (Risk assessment) is established. The relevance of an RES is indicated by information on exposure, fate/kinetics and/or hazard; these three domains are included as separate pillars that contain specific tools. Phase 2 consists of an iterative process of risk characterization, identification of data needs and integrated collection and evaluation of data on the three domains, until sufficient information is obtained to conclude on possible risks in a RES. Only data are generated that are considered to be needed for the purpose of risk assessment. A fourth pillar, risk characterization, is defined and it contains risk assessment tools. This strategy describes a flexible and efficient approach for data collection and risk assessment which is essential to ensure safety of ENMs. Further developments are needed to provide guidance and make the MARINA Risk Assessment Strategy operational. Case studies will be needed to refine the strategy.

An Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) for nanomaterials (NMs) is outlined in this paper. Contrary to other recent papers on the subject, the main data requirements, models and advancement within each of the four risk assessment domains are described, i.e., in the: (i) materials, (ii) release, fate and exposure, (iii) hazard and (iv) risk characterisation domains. The material, which is obviously the foundation for any risk assessment, should be described according to the legislatively required characterisation data. Characterisation data will also be used at various levels within the ERA, e.g., exposure modelling. The release, fate and exposure data and models cover the input for environmental distribution models in order to identify the potential (PES) and relevant exposure scenarios (RES) and, subsequently, the possible release routes, both with regard to which compartment(s) NMs are distributed in line with the factors determining the fate within environmental compartment. The initial outcome in the risk characterisation will be a generic Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC), but a refined PEC can be obtained by applying specific exposure models for relevant media. The hazard information covers a variety of representative, relevant and reliable organisms and/or functions, relevant for the RES and enabling a hazard characterisation. The initial outcome will be hazard characterisation in test systems allowing estimating a Predicted No-Effect concentration (PNEC), either based on uncertainty factors or on a NM adapted version of the Species Sensitivity Distributions approach. The risk characterisation will either be based on a deterministic risk ratio approach (i.e., PEC/PNEC) or an overlay of probability distributions, i.e., exposure and hazard distributions, using the nano relevant models.