↓ Skip to main content

Revising REACH guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment for engineered nanomaterials for aquatic ecotoxicity endpoints: recommendations from the EnvNano project

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Sciences Europe, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
Title
Revising REACH guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment for engineered nanomaterials for aquatic ecotoxicity endpoints: recommendations from the EnvNano project
Published in
Environmental Sciences Europe, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12302-017-0111-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steffen Foss Hansen, Sara Nørgaard Sørensen, Lars Michael Skjolding, Nanna B. Hartmann, Anders Baun

Abstract

The European Chemical Agency (ECHA) is in the process of revising its guidance documents on how to address the challenges of ecotoxicological testing of nanomaterials. In these revisions, outset is taken in the hypothesis that ecotoxicological test methods, developed for soluble chemicals, can be made applicable to nanomaterials. European Research Council project EnvNano-Environmental Effects and Risk Evaluation of Engineered, which ran from 2011 to 2016, took another outset by assuming that: "The behaviour of nanoparticles in suspension is fundamentally different from that of chemicals in solution". The aim of this paper is to present the findings of the EnvNano project and through these provide the scientific background for specific recommendations on how ECHA guidance could be further improved. Key EnvNano findings such as the need to characterize dispersion and dissolution rates in stock and test media have partially been addressed in the updated guidance. However, it has to be made clear that multiple characterization methods have to be applied to describe state of dispersion and dissolution over time and for various test concentration. More detailed information is called for on the specific characterization methods and techniques available and their pros and cons. Based on findings in EnvNano, we recommend that existing algal tests are supplemented with tests where suspensions of nanomaterials are aged for 1-3 days for nanomaterials that dissolve in testing media. Likewise, for daphnia tests we suggest to supplement with tests where (a) exposure is shortened to a 3 h pulse exposure in daphnia toxicity tests with environmentally hazardous metal and metal oxide nanomaterials prone to dissolution; and (b) food abundance is three to five times higher than normal, respectively. We further suggest that the importance of considering the impact of shading in algal tests is made more detailed in the guidance and that it is specified that determination of uptake, depuration and trophic transfer of nanomaterials for each commercialized functionalization of the nanomaterials is required. Finally, as an outcome of the project a method for assessing the regulatory adequacy of ecotoxicological studies of nanomaterials is proposed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Professor 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 6 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 9 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 14%
Chemistry 4 11%
Engineering 3 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 9 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 March 2017.
All research outputs
#2,809,772
of 11,214,196 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Sciences Europe
#53
of 127 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,987
of 256,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Sciences Europe
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,214,196 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 127 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 256,723 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.