Global Summit on Regulatory Science 2019
Nanotechnology and Nanoplastics

Perspectives on nonotechnotogy and nanoplastics

Jacqueline E M Allan
Birgit Sokull-Kluettger.
Anil K Patri

JRC120318
2020

This publication is a Technical report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this publication. For information on the methodology and quality underlying the data used in this publication for which the source is neither Eurostat nor other Commission services, users should contact the referenced source. The designations employed and the presentation of material on the maps do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Union concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

Contact information

Birgit Sokull-Kluettgen, European Commission, Joint Research Centre

Anil K. Patri, U.S. Food and Drug Administration KJ-NA-30195-EN-N

JRC-NANOTECHNOLOGY@ec.europa.eu

EU Science Hub

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc

The European Commission’s science and knowledge service

Joint Research Centre

JRC Mission

As the science and knowledge service of the European Commission, the Joint Research Centre’s mission is to support EU policies with independent evidence throughout the whole policy cycle.

Foreword

The Global Summit on Regulatory Science (GSRS) is organised yearly by the Global Coalition for Regulatory Science Research (GCRSR). This international coalition was established in 2013, with the aim of facilitating education, scientific training, and scientific exchanges in the field of regulatory science with an impact on public health. Partner organisations of the GCRSR come from Argentina (ANMAT), Australia / New Zealand (TGA/FSANZ), Brazil (ANVISA), Canada (HC), China (CFDA), European Union (EFSA, EMA & JRC), Japan (MHLW & FSCJ), Republic of Korea (MFDS), Singapore (AVA), and the USA (FDA).

The 2019 Global Summit on Regulatory Science (GSRS19) on Nanotechnology and Nanoplastics was co-organised by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the GCRSR, and hosted by the JRC at Ispra and Stresa (Italy), from 24-26 September 2019. The GSRS19 attracted almost 200 scientists from 36 countries around the world, representing regulatory agencies, academia and industry, to discuss global regulatory science perspectives on medical products, food, and standards related to nanotechnology with a special session on emerging challenges with nanoplastics. This summit provided a venue for regulators, policy makers, and scientists to exchange views on innovative technologies, methods and regulatory assessments, as well as harmonising strategies to address emerging challenges via global collaborations.

The organisers thank those that contributed to the success of the GSRS19, in particular, the invited speakers and poster presenters for their excellent scientific contributions, the session chairs and panellist for the fruitful discussions, and participants coming from all over the world that brought diverse perspectives of global importance. The organisers recognise the contributions and dedication of the Scientific Programme Committee and the immense amount of planning and hard work by the Local Organising Committee from the JRC in Ispra that contributed to the success of the summit. We also thank the professional and friendly staff from Hotel La Palma in Stresa (Italy) for their excellent hospitality.

The GSRS20 on “Emerging Technologies and Their Application to Regulatory Science”, is scheduled to be held 28-30 September 2020, at NIH Campus in Bethesda, Maryland, USA (more information: http://aralliance.org/gsrs/). We hope to see you at this summit and contribute to its success.

Summary and Conclusions

The 2019 Global Summit on Regulatory Science (GSRS19) on Nanotechnology and Nanoplastics at Ispra and Stresa (Italy), 24-26 September 2019, was co-organised by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the Global Coalition for Regulatory Science Research (GCRSR). The GSRS19 attracted almost 200 scientists from around the world, and provided a platform for interaction between those researching, producing and regulating nanomaterials, to exchange views and experiences on policies and practices in regulation, standards, definitions and methodologies for nanomaterials and nanoplastics.

Global regulatory science perspectives on nanotechnology and nanoplastics

Nanotechnology is an area of product innovation that is developing – to enhance properties, reduce consumption of materials, alleviate waste, and help the environment, etc. – faster than regulatory frameworks. Participants in GSRS19 stressed the importance of discussion, collaboration and mutual learning in regulatory science for nanotechnology. International and national forums are helping to bring stakeholders together in dialogues to address areas of shared interest and concern. Sharing of research results and research facilities is strengthening the science base for regulation of nanomaterials and nanotechnology-based products.

The growing and diverse area of nanomaterials needs to have robust research and development, and appropriate, independent and rigorous regulation, with good linkages between the components of the system and partnerships between their actors – academia, industry and governments.

Regulatory research needs for new and follow-on nanomedicines

There is a gradual increase in medical products that utilize nanomaterial. In addressing the many challenges of regulation and regulatory science to ensure that the nanomedicines that come onto the market are of high quality, safe and efficacious, the importance of international collaboration on standards, definitions, reference materials and regulations was stressed many times during the summit. A more holistic view of the benefits and potential risks, especially of complex nanomedicines, is needed and can be achieved if scientific and regulatory communities work more closely together. There should be increased efforts to ensure that testing of nanomaterials and nanomedicines is rigorous, reproducible, and comparable between samples and situations, throughout the development pipeline. Suitable novel tests and analysis methods must be developed (and be complementary) specific to complex medical products if there is to be a robust regulation of nanomedicines and to update existing guidance, as applicable. Sharing of data and research methods and infrastructures will be an important part of this effort.

Nanotechnology does not present a one-size-fits-all situation, there being many possible variants and associated characteristics of any single type of material. Only by working together can the vast potential of nanomedicines be realised to benefit public health, not least by ongoing interface between developers and regulators, throughout the lifecycle of a product. The challenges are further compounded by the growing number of different types of novel materials with increased complexity, merging nanotechnologies with other emerging technologies, which are incorporated into novel medical products. Simplification of the regulatory system is being sought, including approvals of platform drugs and incorporating the use of novel methods for clinical trials, which should lead to reduction in the costs of bringing much needed nanomedicines to the patient.

Safety assessment of Nanomaterials

Many factors determine the safety of nanomaterials. Data is at the core of rigorous assessment of the risks of nanomaterials and their management. In a wide-ranging session on nanosafety, the main points centred on the complexity of nanosafety assessment and the difficulties of making robust measurements across such a plethora of sizes and types of nanomaterials, with their many diverse characteristics and physical forms.

The assessment of nanosafety needs additional (and sometimes nano-specific) harmonised methods, standards and reference materials. International efforts are ongoing to address potential hazards of nanomaterials for health and the environment, but there is still much to achieve and understand. The importance of collaborations was stressed and continuing communication on nanomaterials regulatory science research, and appropriate harmonisation of legal and regulatory structures. Collaborations in the field of medicinal products was identified as a model for future progress in advanced nanomaterials.

Nanotechnology in the agri/food/feed sector

Nanotechnology has many potential agri/food/feed applications but the rapid growth in the number and diversity of materials will increasingly challenge the regulatory system. Potential benefits of using nanomaterials include safer products, lesser waste generation, leading to a cleaner environment and better quality of life. The current risks are largely unknown as data is either lacking or not comparable, despite the high level of public funding given to research in the area over the last two decades. Future risks are unpredictable as nanotechnology is offering a plethora of complex and diverse materials that are incorporated in additive and continuous manufacturing whose behaviour is, as yet, difficult even to model. The regulatory system also needs to be able to cope with the many new materials and potential applications that are on the horizon, in order to enable access to possible benefits while mitigating risk. In some cases, the area of agri/food/feed faces particularly severe challenges as the nanomaterials have a biological component, similarly in this regard to pharmaceutical and medical applications.

To address these challenges, communication is essential - on data and methods, on testing to ensure quality and comparability of results, on regulation and risk assessment - as is collaboration and the building of trust between stakeholder groups at national and international levels, within and across sectors.

Documentary standards and reference materials

There are many complementary efforts in documentary standards (such as OECD and ISO) and reference materials but also a lack of international coordination, which give raise to some duplication. It was stressed that the OECD test guidelines are regulatory recognised methods used for the risk assessment of chemicals and the OECD is currently focussing on test guidelines targeting nanomaterials. There are deficiencies in inter-laboratory comparisons, and robust comparable results are in short supply. Lack of reference material for different measurand complicates this situation further. Within the rapidly-developing domain of nanotechnology, it is particularly important that the work on reference materials and standards be accelerated through better communication and collaboration. Actions need to be taken at multiple levels to develop and validate simple methods that can be easily applied by industry. To make progress in this important and exacting area, it was proposed to establish a standards interest group under the Global Coalition to better coordinate and communicate among regulatory science and regulation bodies.

Challenges concerning nanoplastics

Research into (micro- and) nanoplastics has started only recently and thus, there are many unresolved issues of terminology, definitions, sampling, characterisation and the assessment of hazard and exposure that, in combination, make it difficult, even impossible, to evaluate and regulate the potential risks of nanoplastics. While some information on microplastics is available, research data on nanoplastics is virtually non-existent. Coordinated effort is needed across all these areas in order to produce reference materials, robust standards, guidance and legislation. Since it is a global issue, such efforts can and should build upon the existing knowledge, lessons learned from nanomaterial, and with existing national and international mechanisms, including governmental and intergovernmental bodies. A platform for information exchange on nano- and microplastics is needed, along with the global coordination of activities on methods, documentary and reference material standards towards hazards, exposure and risk assessment to ascertain effects on environment and human health.

Concluding remarks

In GSRS19, it was stressed that increased collaboration is needed to achieve consensus on terminology, definitions, sampling and characterisation of nanomaterials and the assessment of hazards and exposures. The challenges for regulators and scientists are further compounded by the growing number of different types of materials that contribute through their nano-size dimension.

Enhanced communication across all parts of the system is essential – between researchers on data and methods, those undertaking testing to ensure quality and comparability of results, regulators and those being regulated.

Increased collaboration between stakeholder groups can be achieved through, for example, closer collaboration between agencies – at international level, between the international system and national systems, across different domains (food, medical, chemical, etc.) and within sectors. Achieving comparable datasets is a key global issue. A better structure for regulatory science can be created by developing trust between individuals and organisations through data transparency. No matter what the approach or combination of approaches, the key to success will be the involvement of all stakeholders in creating a better, fit-for-purpose system.

Report author: Jacqueline E M Allan¹
Editors: Birgit Sokull-Kluettgen and Anil K Patri

¹ Joint Institute for Innovation Policy, Brussels.

1 Introduction

The Global Summit on Regulatory Science 2019 (GSRS19) brought together scientists from government, industry, and academic research communities from around the world to address regulatory-research questions concerning nanotechnology and nanoplastics. It provided a platform for regulators, policy makers, and bench scientists to exchange views on innovative methodologies and regulatory assessments, as well on harmonising strategies on regulatory science via global collaboration. Nanotechnology research has an important role in enabling science-based regulatory decision-making across a wide range of scientific and technical disciplines by providing essential and fundamental background information.

Nanomaterials offer a wide range of diverse functionalities due to their specific physical and chemical properties, which promote their use to meet the needs of a wide range of applications. They offer new avenues in diagnostics and therapeutics in healthcare, for example, and open up the opportunity to address previously unmet medical needs. They also find applications across food and agriculture, transport and logistics, energy and the built environment, etc. The number and variety of new and modified nanomaterials that are being developed and the range of applications has significantly increased over the last ten years. It is therefore of prime importance that regulatory science can keep pace with new developments. This conference provided an opportunity for the regulatory science community to consider areas including regulatory research needs for nanomedicines, safety assessments for nanomaterials, nanotechnology in the agri/food/feed sector and challenges in the domain of nanoplastics. The discussion of documentary standards and reference materials was central to all areas.

1.1 GSRS19 Programme Overview

Focus of GSRS19

The Summit focussed on knowledge gaps and research priorities in regulatory science in nanotechnology and nanoplastics. It also considered how these can be addressed and what platforms, mechanisms, communities of practice, and networks exist (or need to be developed) to facilitate effective collaborations between international partners.

Programme

The first day of GSRS19 began with Welcome Remarks by the Global Coalition for Regulatory Science Research (GCRSR) and the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (EC JRC, EU). The first plenary session addressed Global regulatory science perspectives on nanotechnology and nanoplastics with presentations both on national activities (for example, from the USA, Canada and Japan) and on the importance of collaboration and research in regulatory science.

Parallel sessions took place on both days of the Global Summit. Each parallel session concluded with a moderated discussion with the panel of the speakers, questions from the audience and brainstorming discussions on the session topic with panel and audience participation.

The parallel sessions on the first day addressed the topics of Regulatory research needs for new and follow-on nanomedicines and Safety assessment of nanomaterials. The day concluded with a poster session and social dinner.

The second day began with parallel sessions on Nanotechnology in the agri/food/feed sector and on Documentary standards and reference materials. The closing plenary session addressed Challenges concerning nanoplastics.

The programme for the two days is found in Annex 1, together with the biographies of speakers and session chairs (Annex 2), and the list of participants (Annex 3).

The GSRS, including the social events, provided networking opportunities, and brought the community together to work towards greater common understanding of the topics of the Global Summit and shared future goals.

Satellite Visits

The EC JRC offered the participants both training opportunities and laboratory visits at its Ispra site:

Hands-on training on determining size distributions of nanomaterials gave participants the opportunity to deepen their knowledge on how to measure nanoparticle size distributions using different measurement techniques (such as single particle inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, transmission electron microscopy, centrifugal particle sedimentation). Furthermore, the NanoDefiner e-tool, a decision support framework, was presented, and the participants could familiarise themselves with it.

There was an introductory course on the Use of Reference Materials and the estimation of measurement uncertainty.

Also visits to the EC JRC Nanobiotechnology Laboratory and ECVAM (EU Reference Laboratory for alternatives to animal testing) were offered, as was a tour to the EC JRC Visitors’ Centre that included a presentation of EC JRC activities on Food Contact Materials.

Satellite Meetings

Apart from the excellent networking opportunities at the Global Summit, additional formal satellite meetings included:

A meeting of the Nanomedicines Working Group of the International Pharmaceutical Regulators Programme (IPRP),

The Annual Meeting of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Nano Network; and

A Workshop on Standards for Regulatory Science of the ASTM International E56 Committee on Nanotechnology.

1.2 Committees and Attendance

Global Coalition for Regulatory Science Research (GCRSR) Co-Chairs

William Slikker, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA, USA)

Marta Hugas, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA, EU)

Scientific Programme Committee

Anil K. Patri, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA, USA) (Co-chair)

Birgit Sokull-Kluettgen, European Commission Joint Research Centre (EC JRC, EU) (Co-chair)

Susanne Bremer-Hoffmann, European Commission Joint Research Centre (EC JRC, EU)

Marta Hugas, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA, EU)

Reinhilde Schoonjans, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA, EU)

Dolores Hernán Pérez de la Ossa, European Medicines Agency (EMA, EU)

Michael Johnston, Health Canada (HC, Canada)

Deborah Moir, Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA, Canada)

Neil Vary, Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA, Canada)

Nick Fletcher, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ, Australia/New Zealand)

Xingchao Geng, National Institute for Food and Drug Control (NIFDC, China)

Attendance

The Global Summit attracted around 200 participants from government agencies, industry, and academia. Participants came from 36 countries representing wide geographical areas, including the USA, Canada, Argentina, Chile, China, Japan, Singapore, Republic of Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and Egypt, as well as from many EU Member States. During the two days of the Global Summit, there were over 50 presentations by invited speakers, five panel discussions and 28 poster presentations by scientists and students on the latest research related to the session topics.

In addition to the two days of the Summit, hands-on training on determining size distribution of nanomaterials was provided to 28 participants from 12 countries including EU Member States, Chile, India, Mexico and Singapore. An introductory course on the use of reference materials and the estimation of measurement uncertainty had 29 participants, and around 40 delegates visited the EC JRC facilities at Ispra.

2 Global regulatory science perspectives on nanotechnology and nanoplastics

Co-chairs: Anil K. Patri (FDA, USA) and Birgit Sokull-Kluettgen (EC JRC, EU)

Following a welcome to participants by both Session Co-chairs, Ms Birgit Sokull-Kluettgen explained that the goal of the Global Summit is to address the questions:

What needs to be accomplished and what are the research gaps and/or priorities in regulatory science in nanotechnology in the areas being discussed? and

How can these priorities be addressed (e.g. through platforms, mechanisms, communities of practice, and networks (existing, or that need to be developed)) to facilitate effective collaborations between international partners?

Reflecting on this context for the Summit, opening remarks were made by William Slikker (FDA, USA) on behalf of the Global Coalition for Regulatory Science Research (GCRSR). The working groups of the Coalition cover nanotechnology as a topic as well as bioinformatics and emerging technologies, with a focus on regulatory priorities. The goal of the Coalition is to support research for regulatory science, which it achieves by facilitating education, scientific training, and scientific exchanges in the field of regulatory science with an impact on public health. The GCRSR sees nanotechnology as an area of significant expansion. The importance of learning from one another across the domains of regulatory science was stressed, as well as the importance of the topic of nanoplastics.

Elke Anklam (EC JRC, EU) welcomed participants on behalf of the EU’s Joint Research Centre (JRC)². The JRC is a policy neutral body of the European Commission, one part of the institutional triangle of the European Union, a triangle consisting of the European Parliament, the Council of Europe and the European Commission. As a service of the European Commission (EC), the JRC is responsible for providing both a science and knowledge service, supporting EU policies with independent advice throughout the whole policy cycle. This encompass knowledge production and knowledge management.

² https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en

³ https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/research-facility/open-access

With six locations in five EU Member States (Italy, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain), the JRC is responsible for 42 large scale research facilities that house 1,500 core research staff, half of its total workforce, across a broad range of science and technologies. The research staff of the JRC produce over 1,400 scientific publications per year, with 83% of core staff possessing a doctoral degree. While the JRC started in the area of nuclear science, it works now on many themes, one of which is Health, Consumers and Reference Materials. The activities include production of reference materials at the JRC Geel site (Belgium) and work in support of EU policy on nanomaterials/nanotechnology, health technology, consumer products and micro- and nanoplastics in Ispra.

The JRC aims to support innovation in Europe in many ways, including through Open Access to JRC Research Infrastructures by external users³. Since the start of open access in June 2017, there have been 19 calls enabling such open access. These have resulted in 87 user institutions being involved across 24 countries in 58 projects (six having been completed), with 199 individual users.

Anil K. Patri (FDA, USA) presented Nanotechnology regulatory science at US FDA. The FDA’s approach to the regulation of production of nanotechnology is to accept that promise, risk and uncertainty accompany all new technologies. Therefore, the FDA took the decision not to introduce new regulations for nanomaterials, believing that its existing framework is sufficient to regulate nanomaterials and products containing nanomaterials.

Horizon scanning and internal reviews of product submissions are key components of regulatory science research on nanotechnology at FDA. Nanotechnology Core Facilities provide laboratory testing capacity at FDA, enabling the development of testing methods and standards related to the safety assessment of products that contain nanomaterials or otherwise involve nanotechnologies. The CORES (Collaborative Opportunities for Research Excellence in Science) programme has been established by the FDA to foster collaborative and interdisciplinary research on product characterisation and safety. FDA also has a programme to train staff to evaluate scientific data for regulatory applications involving nanotechnologies. The FDA conducts gap analyses and establishes collaborative research to address those gaps, the outcomes being used for staff training, guidance documents (particularly those to help industry⁴), and works with stakeholders on the development and recognition of standards.

⁴ https://www.fda.gov/science-research/nanotechnology-programs-fda/nanotechnology-guidance-documents

⁵ http://www.nano.gov/

⁶ https://www.iso.org/committee/381983.html

⁷ https://www.astm.org/COMMITTEE/E56.htm

⁸ http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/aboutefsa

The FDA cooperates with other US government departments and agencies via the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI)⁵ and asks industry to seek a dialogue with it early in the development phase. It also works with other countries bilaterally on nanotechnology topics including capacity building, for example, through joint and collaborative workshops (e.g. with Health Canada, and with regulation organisations in India).

The FDA collaborates globally on regulatory topics, one priority being the question of how to consistently characterise nanomaterials globally. It participates, for example, in ISO/TC 229⁶, ASTM E56⁷ and similar groups to develop standards suitable for use by industry.

The speaker identified progress in regulatory science in nanotechnology as including high levels of publication, however leading only, so far, to a low number of products being developed. There are many reports of positive findings in cancer research and the active targeting of cancer using nanotechnology-based agents, but, despite this vast effort, there is much still to be achieved to bring solutions to the point of their being a significant number of products on the market. On a positive note, the FDA is receiving increasing numbers of submissions of nanomaterial-containing products in this area, many being now in clinical trials and others having been approved for future drugs and devices.

Marta Hugas (EFSA, EU, and Co-chair of GCRSR) spoke about The importance of collaboration and research in regulatory science. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)⁸, an independent agency of the EC, assesses risks associated with food and the feed chain. Its remit covers food and feed safety; nutrition (including additives); animal health and welfare; and plant protection (including pesticides) and plant health. EFSA provides fit-for-purpose scientific advice to inform policy and regulation and their implementation for human and food/plant health. It also uses environmental risk assessments to explore the possible impact of the food chain on the biodiversity of plant and animal habitats.

In close collaboration with national authorities and in open consultation with its stakeholders, EFSA provides independent and transparent scientific advice and clear communication on existing and emerging risks associated with the food chain. It aims to provide, both for experts and for the general public, accurate and timely information on food safety issues, to raise awareness and explain the implications of scientific results.

EFSA operates through a Scientific Committee and Panels composed of independent scientific experts who undertake scientific assessments and develop related assessment methodologies. Its ten Panels cover areas including contaminants in the food chain; food contact materials, enzymes and processing aids; and food additives and flavourings. To address the use of nanotechnologies and nanomaterials, it established the EFSA Scientific Network for Risk Assessment of the use of Nanotechnologies in Food and Feed⁹, to facilitate the exchange of information between EFSA and Member States, and for the prioritisation of risk assessment activities. It also has a Working Group on Nanotechnologies in Food and Feed.

⁹ https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/Nanonetwork.pdf

¹⁰ https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/nih-almanac/national-cancer-institute-nci

¹¹ https://www.nih.gov

¹² https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada.html

¹³ https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/corporate/about-health-canada/branches-agencies/healthy-environments-consumer-safety-branch.html

¹⁴ https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change.html

¹⁵ http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/home/?id=1395690825741

Mauro Ferrari (University of St. Thomas, USA and incoming President of the European Research Council) addressed The clinical translation of nanomedicines, with the sub-title of “Many valleys, one death … by regulatory failure”.

The speaker highlighted many positive aspects of the clinical translation of nanomedicines. Regulation is an essential part of the process of product development and release to the market and must be considered as early as possible and continuously in the value chain, to think of it “upfront and all the way through”. What are viewed as regulatory ‘constraints’ can also be seen as key opportunities to use competitive know-how and intellectual property. Being wise about regulation is a key part of the mission of researchers and developers in nanomedicine as well as being their ethical responsibility to society.

Basic science is increasingly a part of all stages of innovation and product development in nanomedicines, meaning that changes can be made at many points in the creation of a product. Every such change may have a regulatory implication so there needs to be clarity in drug design and production to ensure that the process can proceed. In science, change can be ongoing but, in product development, once the needs are met no further change should be made.

Nanotechnology is the means to concentrate treatments and reduce the amount of harm done to other parts of the body than the target site. Recently, there have been many developments in the area of nanomedicines, from the concerns about biodistribution to the continuation of the highly successful National Cancer Institute (NCI)¹⁰ of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)¹¹ and high visibility corporate setbacks in clinical trials. However, there has also been the emergence of fourteen new nanodrugs since 2005 and the emergence of new fields based on nanotechnology or enabled by it, such as RNAi therapeutics.

Key to the future success of nanomedicines is the ability of researchers, industry and regulators to work together to bring potential products to the market. In this, establishing the right partnerships between the regulator and regulatory scientists is paramount.

In addition to working on scientific aspects – such as the need to have nanomaterials that dissolve harmlessly in body, to be able to better concentrate a treatment in a specific location and to achieve sequential multiple actions of drugs using nanotechnology – there needs to be a greater focus on establishing teams to address the whole value chain, with regulatory aspects being dealt with on an ongoing basis and in parallel throughout research, development and deployment to markets. There is also a need for new, not-for-profit mechanisms to bring the research funded by taxpayers through development and to the wider population as new diagnostics and therapeutics to benefit everyone who needs them.

Primal Silva (Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Canada) presented Current research and regulatory approach for nanomaterials and nanoplastics in Canada. Several Canadian departments and agencies work to ensure safe use of nanotechnology, including Health Canada (HC)¹², with its Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch (HECSB)¹³; Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC)¹⁴; Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)¹⁵; and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)¹⁶. They adopt a regulatory focus in order to mitigate risk, building an inventory of nanomaterial products on the market, determining how nanomaterial products are used or consumed, considering lifecycle and exposure and assessing biological effects of specific nanomaterials. Health Canada and ECCC also implement the Canadian Government’s Chemical Management Plan (CMP) by taking any necessary “action on potentially harmful new and existing substances, including nanomaterials”.

¹⁶ http://www.inspection.gc.ca/

¹⁷ http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/oecd-countries-address-the-safety-of-manufactured-nanomaterials.htm

¹⁸ https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0400 ;

¹⁹ https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/f-27/

²⁰ https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-1.68/

²¹ https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/p-9.01/page-1.html

²² https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/f-9/

²³ https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/f-10/

²⁴ https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-3.3/

²⁵ https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/science-research/reports-publications/nanomaterial/policy-statement-health-canada-working-definition.html

²⁶ http://www.nano.gov/

The Canadian nanomaterial regulatory approach follows the OECD Council Recommendation on the Safety Testing and Assessment of Manufactured Nanomaterials¹⁷ ¹⁸ “to apply existing international and national chemical regulatory frameworks or other management systems adapted to take into account the specific properties of manufactured nanomaterials”, largely regulating under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA, 1999). The Canadian Food and Drugs Act¹⁹, Consumer Product Safety and Hazardous Products Act²⁰, Pest Control Products Act²¹, Feeds Act²², Fertilisers Act²³, and Health of Animals Act²⁴ can also be applied as relevant to nanomaterials. Tools within the CMP include Health Canada’s Working Definition for Nanomaterials²⁵.

Comparability between the Canadian and US approaches to nanotechnology includes the similarity of their definitions of a nanomaterial and their shared activities on regulation via the Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) through its nanotechnology work plan. This highlights the importance of developing a common approach to prioritizing and conducting nanomaterial risk assessments and on data gathering to advance the understanding of exposure to nanomaterials. They are also working together on the development of a classification scheme for nanomaterials based on their chemical composition and unique properties. This scheme would allow for the identification of nanomaterials that behave differently from non-nanoscale forms to help prioritise risk assessments. The RCC is also working on the creation of a nanomaterials use matrix to identify commercial nanomaterials that are in use.

The speaker highlighted the importance of data to enable the assessment of the risks of nanomaterials and the management of any risks, data on composition and morphology, particle size and size distribution, electrical, mechanical and optical properties, surface-to-volume ratios, chemical reactivity, and agglomeration and aggregation properties.

Collaboration was seen as very important in enabling the potential of nanotechnology to be realised through safe products. Canadian agencies work with the OECD as well as regulatory agencies in Europe and the RCC to harmonise approaches to safety assessments of nanomaterials, to share information and to address challenges. It also works with stakeholders to foster research and promote the responsible development of nanomaterials. In the domain of standards, Canadian agencies work with organisations at national, multinational and global levels (ISO/TC229, OECD) to harmonise approaches to safety assessment, and to share information on products and labelling, methods, definitions and terminology and standardised methods to characterise nanomaterials.

The US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI)²⁶ is Leveraging advances in nanotechnology and international collaboration to address emerging contaminants, as presented by Lisa Friedersdorf (National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO), USA).

The NNI is a collaborative effort of more than twenty US Departments and agencies²⁷. It operates under the National Science and Technology Council of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Executive Office of the President. One of its coordination mechanisms, the Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET) has a Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI)²⁸ Working Group co-ordinating Federal research and development directed at understanding the environmental, health, and safety (EHS) implications of nanotechnology. With members including regulatory and research agencies, it focuses on the six core topics of nanomaterial measurement infrastructure; human exposure assessment; human health; environment; risk assessment and risk management; informatics and modelling. The agencies involved in NEHI have developed guidance documents covering topics including worker safety and provide webinars on nanotechnology EHS. Information is disseminated by (approximately monthly) webinars on topics such as Characterisation and Quantification of Engineered Nanomaterials: Drivers of NanoEHS Research; Nanotechnology-Related Standards; and Working Safely with Nanomaterials in the Laboratory. The webinars are archived on the nano.gov website²⁹, together with resources for nanotechnology laboratory safety.³⁰

²⁷ https://www.nano.gov/partners

²⁸ https://www.nano.gov/nehi

²⁹ http://nano.gov/nanoEHSwebinars

³⁰ https://nano.gov/LabSafety

³¹ http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/digital-innovation-hubs-tool

³² http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/guides_for_applicants/h2020-supp-info-innotestbeds-18-20_en.pdf

Collaboration between the US and other countries include the RCC mentioned above and EU-US Nanotechnology Communities of Research (CoRs), which are scientist-led and globally open to all. Nanotechnology CoR EHS topics include characterisation; databases and computational modelling; human and ecotoxicity; exposure through product life; risk assessment; and risk management and control. Participants work together on co-authored papers, workshops and webinars. There are ongoing activities to build a CoR on nanomedicine based on growing existing collaborations.

On nanoplastics, it was noted that there is an informal US Nanoplastics Interest Group of 15 agencies, interested in leveraging advances in nanotechnology, building on relationships and mechanisms for collaboration, and focussing on addressing current concerns and preventing future contamination.

An increasingly important approach to nanosafety is Safe by design: creating nanomaterials of tomorrow to be safe for use and across their lifecycle from production to waste, or recycling and reuse, as presented by Carlos Eduardo Lima da Cunha (EC Directorate General for Research and Innovation, EU). Through a change of mind-set, adopting a safe-by-design approach, the nanomaterials of tomorrow can have the required advanced properties and being both safe and carbon neutral to support the circular economy and safety throughout the lifecycle of a product. Safe by design can be a means to drive innovation forward.

In the EU context, support mechanisms include Digital Innovation Hubs and Open Innovation Test Beds. With technical universities or research organisations at the core, Digital Innovation Hubs³¹ are one-stop-shops for companies - especially SMEs, start-ups and mid-caps - to access technology-testing, financing advice, market intelligence and networking opportunities, supporting companies to achieve a digital transformation. Open Innovation Test Beds³² offer access to the physical facilities, capabilities and services need in the development, testing and upscaling of advanced materials in industrial environments, helping to bring them within the reach of companies. Open Innovation Test Beds (OITBs) upgrade existing (or support the setting of new) public and private test beds, pilot lines, and demonstrators to develop, test and upscale nanotechnologies and advanced materials for new innovative products and services in specific domains.

The speaker noted that there are different mind-sets in the US and the EU around regulation and that the EU could benefit from more regulation as a means to drive innovation, also advocating the development and agreement on international standardised methods to characterise particles to support work on standards and support regulation.

Haruhiro Okuda (National Institutes of Health Science (NIHS), Japan) described the Progress of regulatory science in Japan. Regulatory science in Japan focuses on achieving the best outcome for human health and society. Japan’s society is ageing ahead of other countries globally and its policies aim to ensure the longest, good-quality life for its people. The healthcare policy of Japan aims to provide the best level of medical care in the world by promoting integrated medical R&D activities and by seamlessly transferring research outcomes into practical applications.

Responsibility for regulation and regulatory science in the area lie with the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW)³³; the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA)³⁴; the National Institute of Health Sciences (NIHS)0³⁵; and the Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED)³⁶. Japan aims to lead the world in regulatory innovation based on regulatory science. Regulatory science is seen as a science to enable accurate assessment, evaluation and decision-making based on robust (scientific) evidence.

³³ https://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/

³⁴ https://www.pmda.go.jp/english/

³⁵ http://www.nihs.go.jp/english/index.html

³⁶ https://www.amed.go.jp/en/

The PMDA established a Regulatory Science Centre in 2018, one of its roles being to promote innovative approaches to advanced therapies and technologies. Its activities include the horizon scanning needed to enable regulators to keep pace with new developments. It also supports collaboration between university research institutes, medical institutions and the PDMA Science Board. It is also working towards actively using clinical trial data and real world data (electronic healthcare records). Patient information from hospital databases is being analysed to identify adverse events and to help in product development and evaluation in large populations (e.g. by pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies).

Research is at the core of all activities in the integrated system being created in Japan to support health and long life, with research on innovative pharma, medical devices and regenerative medical products, combined with research on regulatory fields, and on avoidance of dangers and on ensuring the quality and safety of food and lifestyle based on scientific evidence.

In summary, in Japan, regulatory science research on cutting-edge pharmaceutical products has been intensified by the Act on Promotion of Healthcare Industries and Advancement of Healthcare Technologies as well as the establishment of the Agency for Medical Research and Development. Reforms are being sought (by MHLW/PMDA) to develop a rational and efficient regulatory system, based on regulatory science, and a combination of horizon scanning and data mining are being used to inform new and better healthcare and healthcare products.

3 Regulatory research needs for new and follow-on nanomedicines

Co-chairs: Susanne Bremer-Hoffmann (EC JRC, EU), Dolores Hernán Pérez de la Ossa (EMA, EU) and Michael Johnston (Health Canada, CA)

The parallel session on nanomedicines began with perspectives from the USA, India, the EU, Singapore and Norway, and concluded with industry views and a panel discussion.

Katherine Tyner (FDA, Office of Pharmaceutical Quality, USA) presented Regulatory research supporting the development of drug products containing nanomaterials: A US-FDA perspective.

At the FDA Centre for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), the focus is on ensuring that safe and effective drugs of high quality are available to improve the health of Americans. CDER regulatory science programmes operate in areas including applied regulatory science, clinical pharmacology, biomarkers, clinical trial methodology, drug safety monitoring, generic drugs and bioequivalence, manufacturing innovation, prescription drug advertising and risk communication, product quality assessment and radioactive drug research. It also undertakes and leads activities to streamline the drug development process and ensure drugs are safe and effective.

Approvals sought through submissions to the CDER typically fall into one of four categories: (1) Investigational New Drug Applications (INDA): a request to administer an investigational drug or biological product to humans; (2) New Drug Applications (NDA): approval for a new pharmaceutical for sale and marketing; (3) Biologic License Applications (BLA): comparable to NDA, but for biologics (e.g. monoclonal antibodies, proteins); and (4) Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA): the application for a US generic drug approval usually refers to generics.

The drugs are evaluated³⁷ by the CDER for safety, efficacy and quality. Submissions to the FDA of drug products in the above categories and containing nanomaterials have being rising significantly³⁸ from 5 to 15 a year in the 1990s, to between 15 and 25 a year since 2010, although this is partly driven by the rise in the number of submissions related to generic drugs.

³⁷ https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm

³⁸ S. D’ Mello et al. “The evolving landscape of drug products containing nanomaterials in the United States Nature.” Nanotechnology DOI: 10.1038/NNANO.2017.67

FDA has defined regulatory science as “the science of developing new tools, standards, and approaches to assess the safety, efficacy, quality, and performance of all FDA-regulated products.” Regulatory science and research forms the foundation for risk-based evaluation of drug products, including review of drug product applications, inspection and surveillance, and standards and policy development. They affect all drug product areas: new drugs, generics, over-the-counter drugs and biotechnology products. In particular, for new technologies, foundational research contributes in the areas of quality and safety (e.g. different toxicity pathways may result from difference agglomeration structures). There is also a need for targeted research on issues and limitations, to support quality (e.g. in vitro release testing for a given system) and for safety (e.g. macrophages are first line of defence against, e.g., listeria – but does their behaviour change if they are full of nanoparticles?). Finally, the presenter spoke about the need for standardisation and presented the FDA activities in the area, including FDA CDER participation at the Joint Sub-committee on Nanotechnology of the United States Pharmacopeia (USP), the ASTM E56 Committee on Nanotechnology, ISO/TC229 Nanotechnologies and the OECD WPMN (Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials). Its goals are to prioritise nanotechnology standards based on FDA needs, assist in development of standards, and consolidate FDA comments for nanotechnology standards that are up for review.

In conclusion, regulatory science in the USA forms the foundation of science-based regulatory decision-making and can be divided into phases that contribute from the basic understanding of a technology to the development of standards. Nanotechnology can serve as an example of how to address and incorporate a new technology into a regulatory setting. Work on nanotechnology standards is long-term and additional nanotechnology-related areas need to be addressed, including medical devices and complex drugs (e.g. multi-stage drugs and drugs with highly complex structures).

Amit K. Dinda (All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS)³⁹, India) spoke about the Challenges in the development of an Indian guideline for nanopharmaceuticals. The market size for nanomedicine and nanodevices in India is small but high growth is predicted, with an expected market of up to USD 2 billion annually by 2023. Several Indian companies have developed nanomedicines that are preclinical development, in clinical trials or marketed. Indian companies have invested strongly in nanopharmaceuticals but national regulation does not yet fully support their manufacture and deployment.

³⁹ https://www.aiims.edu

⁴⁰ They do not apply, for example, to medical devices, tissue engineered products or cell-based therapies.

⁴¹ Commission Recommendation of 18 October 2011 on the definition of nanomaterial http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:275:0038:0040:EN:PDF

⁴² Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR). Scientific Basis for the Definition of the Term “nanomaterial”, https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_032.pdf ISBN 978-92-79-12757-1; doi:10.2772/39703. 2010.

To address this issue, “Guidelines for evaluation of nanopharmaceuticals in India” were put forward by the Indian Government in 2019 for finished formulation nanopharmaceuticals and active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) of a new (or an already approved) molecule with “altered dimensions, properties or phenomenon due to nanotechnology”⁴⁰. The guidelines cover the scientific rationale for developing the nanopharmaceuticals and a comparison with existing drugs to show, via in vitro and in vivo studies, improved safety, efficacy, reduction in toxicity profile, reduction in required dose or frequency of administration, improvements for patients, cost benefit or other benefits.

The speaker highlighted the challenges in developing regulatory guidelines for nanoformulations. There is the need to clearly define the critical attributes of the product, to undertake testing using many different techniques to establish physicochemical, biological (immunological) and pharmacological properties, to have available appropriate and validated in vitro and in vivo models, to ensure regulatory alignment (e.g. across potential markets) and to ensure pharmacovigilance throughout the life cycle of the nanopharmaceuticals.

Dolores Hernán Pérez de la Ossa (European Medicines Agency (EMA), EU) and Susanne Bremer-Hoffmann (EC JRC, EU) presented Nanomedicines: EU regulatory experience, challenges and regulatory research work. The speakers highlighted that nanotechnology is still an emerging science with great potential in a wide range of applications including drug delivery, diagnostics, theranostics and regenerative medicine.

Dolores Hernán Pérez de la Ossa reported that in 2011 the EC published a Recommendation on the definition of nanomaterial⁴¹ with size as the critical factor (1-100 nm) although acknowledging that that upper limit of 100 nm is not scientifically justified across the whole range of nanomaterials. The ‘special circumstances prevailing in the pharmaceutical sector’ were noted and the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks stated that the Recommendation should ‘not prejudice the use of the term “nano” when defining certain pharmaceuticals and medical devices’⁴².

The EMA operates a working definition of nanomedicines as medicinal products that are purposely designed systems for clinical applications and have at least one component at the nano-scale, leading to definable specific properties and characteristics providing clinical advantages, the nanotechnology offering specific benefits in, for example, dosage, drug targeting or reduced toxicity.

The nanomedicines evaluated by EMA include liposomes (Caelyx®, Myocet), iron nanoparticles, nanocrystals, albumin nanoparticles (Abraxane) and lipid nanoparticles but there are many other types of systems under research⁴³ ⁴⁴. It was highlighted that the term ‘nanomedicine’ covers a wide variety of materials and structures, with unique and distinct features and therefore no “one size fits all” and it is important to consider the unique characteristics of each product during its evaluation. The presenter provided an overview of the major deficiencies identified by EMA during the evaluation of marketing authorisation applications for nanomedicines. These pertained to insufficient product characterisation (chemistry, manufacturing and control (CMC)), inadequate specifications and pharmacokinetic studies for the so-called “nanosimilars” (products developed with reference to an innovator product).

⁴³ Other nanopharmaceuticals mentioned in this and other GSRS19 presentations included: Myocet (doxo), DepoCyte (cytarabine) and AmBisome (amphotericin B) (liposomes), CosmoFer and MonFer (iron nanoparticles), Abraxane (albumen nanoparticles), Rapamune (nanocrystals), LipidilTM (fenofibrate), Foscan® and Foslip®.

⁴⁴ G.G. Genchi et al.. Smart Materials Meet Multifunctional Biomedical Devices: Current and Prospective Implications for Nanomedicine. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 2017.

⁴⁵ https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/research-development/scientific-guidelines/multidisciplinary/multidisciplinary-nanomedicines

⁴⁶ https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/research-development/scientific-advice-protocol-assistance

⁴⁷ https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/research-development/innovation-medicines#ema's-innovation-task-force-(itf)-section

⁴⁸ https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/regulatory-procedural-guideline/ema-regulatory-science-2025-strategic- reflection_en.pdf

⁴⁹ http://www.iprp.global/working-group/nanomedicines

⁵⁰ https://www.pmda.go.jp/english/

⁵¹ https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/761104

⁵² http://www.euncl.eu

The presenter also provided an overview of the support offered by EMA to developers to help them to launch safe and beneficial products onto the market. This includes guidance documents⁴⁵ (i.e. reflection papers on liposomes, iron oxide nanoparticles, block copolymer micelles and nanoparticle coatings); provision of scientific advice⁴⁶; and meetings with the Innovation Task Force⁴⁷, a multidisciplinary group with scientific, regulatory and legal competences that works on coordination across the EMA and provides a forum to discuss scientific, legal and regulatory issues of emerging therapies and technologies with applicants, especially SMEs, academics and researchers. The EMA also supports its stakeholders through policy (including the EMA Regulatory Science Research Strategy 2025⁴⁸) and by ongoing liaison on nanomedicines with international partners including the International Pharmaceutical Regulators Programme (IPRP)⁴⁹, the EC JRC, the US FDA and Japan’s Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA)⁵⁰.

As nanomedicines are complex, attention needs to be paid during their early development to the critical quality attributes that are essential for the drug’s activity and safety; the identification of appropriate analytical characterisation methods; and ensuring that scale-up to a reproducible large-scale manufacturing process can be achieved. To support developers in achieving these, they are encouraged to remain in contact with the EMA from the early stages of development to the applications for marketing authorisation.

Continuing the joint presentation, Ms Susanne Bremer-Hoffmann (EC JRC, EU) highlighted the activities of the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) in the field of Nanomedicine, which aims to provides researchers with a transdisciplinary testing infrastructure for preclinical characterisation assays (physical, chemical, in vitro and in vivo biological testing) of nanoparticles used for medical applications. The JRC offers open access to its laboratory infrastructure to both academia and SMEs (with 14 projects to date) and is a partner in European research consortia such as REFINE (H2020: Regulatory science framework for Nano(bio)material-based medicinal products and devices)⁵¹ and EU-NCL (the EU Nanomedicine Characterisation Laboratory)⁵². The international policy collaborations of the JRC in this field include contributing to the IPRP Working Group on Nanomedicines⁴⁹ and bilateral collaboration with NIST. It also works with EU regulators (e.g. the EU Innovation Network, EU-IN53) and contributes to work on standards, interacting with international bodies including ISO, CEN and ASTM.

⁵³ https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/presentation/presentation-session-1-what-eu-innovation-network_en.pdf

⁵⁴ B. Halamoda et al. “Mapping of the available standards against the regulatory needs for nanomedicines”. WIREs Nanomed Nanobiotechnol, 2019; DOI:10.1002/wnan.1531 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29923692

As a partner of the REFINE consortium, the JRC, lead the tasks to identify and summarize current challenges in the regulation of nanomedicines. The systematic analysis of regulatory documents, standards, guidance documents, conference and workshop reports as well as peer-reviewed publications is now available as a white paper aiming to guide research efforts including European projects in the field-. In particular, the lack of relevant and reliable methods/tools for quality and safety assessments as well as the need to develop new approaches supporting the regulation of borderline products and nanosimilars were identified as top priorities necessary to advance the regulatory science of nanomedicines. The JRC is currently investing significant efforts in the review of existing methods that can deliver necessary information to regulate nanomedicines⁵⁴. However, even if formal standards exist, they have often been developed for a different category of nanomedicines or nanomaterials used in other industrial sectors. Additional efforts are needed to assess their performance for the huge variety of nanomedicines. Other areas suffer from a complete absence of standardised methods. The evaluation of existing methods for their potential to become a formal standard is now crucial for progressing the field. Especially methods addressing information gaps such as i) effects on the blood and immune system; ii) the kinetic properties in biological media (including drug release kinetics, degradation mechanisms and products and agglomeration, aggregation and adhesion characteristics); iii) ADME (absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion) and biodistribution; iv) surface properties; and vi) drug loading and release are needed. The challenge of an international acceptance of documentary standards deriving from various standardisation bodies that often differ in their composition, working modalities etc. requires more attention in particular since regulatory acceptance of standards is often laid down in respective legislations.

In conclusion, the speaker summarised priorities in regulatory science for nanomedicine as including: developing a better evidence base for priority setting for standard development (e.g. through collection of case studies from agencies) and agreeing a standardisation path that can be accepted by all agencies. These progressive steps can be supported through horizon scanning activities in order to detect quality and safety issues (e.g. using text mining of the burgeoning scientific literature) and work on the similarity of follow-on products. The Nanomedicines Working Group of the International Pharmaceutical Regulators Programme was identified as an appropriate mechanism to tackle these challenges.

Matthias G. Wacker (National University, Singapore) presented on Translational nanomedicine – How to predict clinical performance?, focussing on the importance of ensuring that clinical data is complemented by laboratory-based information and, as necessary, animal testing. The work at his laboratory at the University of Singapore is primarily focussed on identifying the critical quality attributes (CQAs) of the nanomedicines from the clinical data sets; determining which in vitro and in vivo methods can provide relevant markers for clinical performance. Further, he is developing a toolbox of ways to reliably characterise the CQAs, and explaining pharmacokinetics of previous formulations and designing new ones with improved properties. Elimination of nanomedicines from blood circulation is a key area of activity of many research groups globally, because of the complexity of mechanisms involved in tissue accumulation and degradation. In this context, he highlighted the drug release rate as a key parameter to predict the clinical performance. For some formulations, drug release testing in combination with particle characterization methods can also be applied for determining and reducing the risks to the aquatic environment of drugs found in wastewater. This application is rarely explored and requires further research in the future.

Significant scientific challenges include the accurate prediction for the elimination of long-circulating liposomes (not even from vivo studies); that even increasingly complex in vitro models do not yet improve predictions of clinical performance; and that currently the data in the literature is very limited with regard to characterisation of nanocarriers. Overall, a more holistic view on the benefits and potential risks of nanomedicine will be achieved if scientific communities work more closely together.

Sven Even Borgos (SINTEF⁵⁵, Norway) stressed the importance of Joining transatlantic forces via the EU-US Communities of Research and the EU-NCL.

⁵⁵ https://www.sintef.no/en/

⁵⁶ https://ncl.cancer.gov

⁵⁷ https://etp-nanomedicine.eu

⁵⁸ Including H2020 REFINE (http://refine-nanomed.com/home/about/) and H2020 NOBEL (https://nobel-project.eu).

The EU Nanomedicine Characterisation Laboratory (EU-NCL) is a decentralised institution composed of multiple European key reference laboratories combining diverse core competences and offering open access to the research community, including companies. The EU-NCL undertakes trans-disciplinary research on the development and clinical applications of nanotechnology, disseminating lessons-learned, best practices, knowledge, tools and methods to the scientific community in an environment that protects any proprietary information. Its mission is to perform pre-clinical characterisation of nanomedicines, identify and characterise critical parameters of nanomaterials in biological systems and develop improved analytical methods.

Through the EU-US Communities of Research (CoRs) and specifically the NanoEHS CoR, the EU-NCL is a partner in international collaboration efforts. The US equivalent of the EU-NCL is the US National Cancer Institute’s Nanotechnology Characterisation Laboratory⁵⁶ (NCI-NCL). The reasoning for action on nanomedicines is that accelerated development of nanotechnology based innovative therapeutic and diagnostic products is needed to benefit patients across the globe. With the CoR, stakeholders from academia, government, industry, NGOs and third parties have a shared platform to address health and safety concerns about nanomaterials for medical applications and to collaboratively advance the field. There is no designated funding for the CoR, the communities being largely self-run with the European Technology Platform on Nanomedicine (ETPN)⁵⁷ coordinating the participation of EU stakeholders and the US National Nanotechnology Coordination Office providing administrative support.

The focus areas of the NanoEHS CoR are the characterisation of nanomedicines (including harmonizing standard operating procedures), standardisation of assays (with active engagement with ASTM, ISO and OECD), interaction with regulators on guidance and regulations in nanomedicine, and ongoing activities related to bringing the relevant communities together on nanosafety (e.g. exchanges on methods and protocols and focusing on the full lifecycle of nanomedicines) and cooperation with current H2020 research projects⁵⁸. Overall, stakeholders need robust and relevant reference materials and methods that are sensitive to the biologically relevant properties of nanomaterials. The speaker advocated independent, science-first structures (like NCI-NCL and EU-NCL) as the means to achieve these targets, provided they have robust and effective links to the regulators.

Pieter Cullis (National Centre of Excellence in Nanomedicines, Canada) presented the Nanomedicines Innovation Network (NMIN): Canada’s National Centre of Excellence in Nanomedicines. The research themes of the NMIN - targeted drug delivery, gene therapy and diagnostics – target the capacity of nanomedicines to improve small molecule drugs for chemotherapy and enable macromolecular genetic drugs for gene therapy. Canada has long been at the forefront in the development of nanomedicines for chemotherapy and gene therapy, with several approved drugs developed/co-developed in Canada to treat cancers (e.g. Myocet and Marqibo), macular degeneration (e.g. Visudyne) and fungal infections (e.g. Abelcet).

The history of gene therapies has been one of slow progress as viral vectors have limited capacity for delivering genetic information, are difficult to manufacture, provoke an immune response, may result in mutagenesis or viral transmission and can be extremely expensive, while non-viral vectors have none of these problems but have a history of poor transfection efficiency, have a history of being large, unstable systems, and can be toxic.

Non-viral lipid nanoparticle systems are now starting to overcome these problems and are being used to enable gene therapies, former problems having been overcome. Applications include delivery of siRNA to silence pathological genes, mRNA to express therapeutic genes or gene editing techniques. The presentation focused on Onpattro, a non-viral lipid nanoparticle (LNP) formulation used to deliver siRNA into hepatocytes to treat Hereditary Amyloid Transthyretin (hATTR) Amyloidosis, which has been recently approved in the USA, EU and Canada. These nanoparticles facilitate the intracellular delivery of the siRNA and evade the uptake by immune cells. Once in the cell, the siRNA knocks down (silences) mutant⁵⁹ and wild-type⁶⁰ TTR production, while thus reducing the amount of unstable transthyretin in the circulation and preventing further deposition of amyloid fibrils. The low circulation levels of transthyretin can promote amyloid plaque dissolution and promoting elimination from the body, which results in stabilisation of the patient and recovery from the toxicities seen in the heart and nervous systems. The Onpattro gene therapy approved by the US FDA in August 2018 - the first approval for this class of drug -– appears to only to halt the progression of the hereditary disease but also to reverse the accumulated damage. The key innovation is the encapsulation of the active components (siRNA) so that they reach their target inside hepatocytes. Gene therapies enabled by LNPs are now being developed to treat a wide variety of diseases and for vaccine applications. Research in the area is gaining significant interest from large pharmaceutical companies. However, there will be many regulatory challenges, particularly where drugs are individualised to patients or small groups of patients. It is of paramount importance that regulatory science and the regulatory system keep pace with such developments in nanomedicine.

⁵⁹ Mutant production (during the process of ageing)

⁶⁰ Wild-type production (at an early age) ATTRwt

⁶¹ https://www.lygature.org/about-us; http://www.lygature.org/NBCD

⁶² The partners of Lygature work on NBCDs are the US NCI Nanotechnology Characterisation Lab, the University of Geneva, Allergan Plc and Vifor International Inc., the last two of which provide funding for the work.

⁶³ H. Schellekens et al: “The therapeutic equivalence of complex drugs” in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology: Vol. 59(1):176-83, 2011. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20951177

Jon de Vlieger (Lygature⁶¹) spoke of his not-for-profit organisation’s experiences of Science-based regulations for non-biological complex drugs (NBCDs), nanomedicines and their similars. Lygature manages public-private partnerships for the development of new medical solutions for patients. Its five main areas of activity are neglected diseases, sharing resources, regulatory innovation, patient engagement and data infrastructure. Based in the Netherlands, it brings together people from academia, industry and society, in many different disciplines and organisations to pioneer solutions in medical technology and pharmacotherapy.

The rise of bio- and nano-technologies has accelerated the development of complex medicines based, for example, on polynuclear ferric hydroxide carbohydrate complexes, glatiramoids and liposomes. Lygature has a working group⁶² on non-biological complex drugs (NBCDs), with the mission to ensure that appropriate science-based approval and post-approval standards are created and globally introduced to ensure patient safety and benefit. NBCDs are used to treat a variety of medical conditions including cancer, auto-immune diseases, infectious diseases and anaemia.

One complexity of NBCDs is that, while for small molecule drugs identical copies can be made, for NBCDs it is impossible to ensure identical copy versions. This affects the development of follow-on drugs and their evaluation for marketing authorisation⁶³. In the case of NBCDs (and biologics), their characteristics are defined by the manufacturing process, resulting in heterogeneity. The complexity of the product may complicate the demonstration of therapeutic equivalency between the originator and the follow-on version. Evaluations may result in different outcomes and affect the decision to approve or not approve directly or to approve only after clinical trial, which impacts patients, insurers and researchers. It has been reported that some nanosimilars have had different regulatory outcomes in different regions and some NBCDs have been approved through different pathways (generic vs hybrid)⁶⁴. Such complexity leads to different regulatory approaches worldwide and even differences in the EU from one follow-on product to another. At present, NBCDs are not being defined as a separate product class and there therefore no specific regulatory pathway for NBCD follow-on products exists⁶⁵ ⁶⁶. The speaker presented a study showing the variation in the regulatory approaches for NBCDs and their follow-on products in the EU, predominantly relying on non-centralised procedures⁶⁵ and suggested to make the centralised procedure mandatory for this product class to guarantee consistency in the scientific evaluation of follow-on products.

⁶⁴ J.S.B. de Vlieger et al.: “Report of the AAPS Guidance Forum on the FDA Draft Guidance for Industry: “Drug Products, Including Biological Products, that Contain Nanomaterials”” in AAPS Journal 21: 56, 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30997588

⁶⁵ K. Klein et al. “The EU regulatory landscape of non-biological complex drugs (NBCDs) follow-on products: Observations and recommendations” in the European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences Vol 133. 228-235, 2019. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0928098719301381

⁶⁶ F. Ehmann et al. “Next generation nanomedicines and nanosimilars: EU regulators’ initiatives relating to the development and evaluation of nanomedicines” in Nanomedicine: 8 (5): 1-8, 2013. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23656268

⁶⁷ The CMDh was established (under Directive 2004/27/EC) for the examination of any question relating to marketing authorisations of a medicinal product in two or more Member States in accordance with the mutual recognition procedure or the decentralised procedure. https://www.hma.eu/cmdh.html

⁶⁸ http://www.iprp.global/home

The main regulatory challenges are the lack of standardisation of nomenclature, test methods or characterisation, which can lead to divergence in regulatory approaches globally. This could be addressed through regulation, legislation, alignment and harmonisation but, no matter what the approach or combination of approaches, the key to success will be the involvement of all stakeholders (scientists, regulators, standards bodies, industry, patient representatives, etc.) in creating a fit-for-purpose system.

Following the presentation, the audience was informed about the EMA’s Coordination Group for Mutual Recognition and Decentralised Procedures - human (CMDh)⁶⁷, which examines questions relating to the marketing authorisation of human medicines under evaluation in two or more EU Member States under the mutual recognition or decentralised procedure to facilitate harmonisation in those procedures.

Agnès Pottier (Nanobiotix) presented work on NBTXR3, a first-in-class hafnium oxide nanoparticle radio-enhancer: Journey from concept to clinical application. She highlighted that discussions with regional and local regulatory authorities were essential not only in the late stages of product development but also in the early stages and throughout the process. The focus should be on discussing and identifying all regulatory requirements for product designation and registration. Some products, such as Nanobiotix’s NBTXR3, may be designated differently in different regulatory systems. As an example, NBTXR3 is classified as a medical device in the EU but as a drug in the US.

Nanobiotix has learnt that collaboration with regulatory, ethical systems and clinicians are all essential in delivering its products to the market. In-depth collaboration among different scientific domains is also needed within Nanobiotix. Interactions with hospitals and clinicians are essential to explain and identify medical and patient needs. The speaker identified the interactions as also providing for eventual modifications and improvements of the product. Having undertaken product development in a largely EU-centred environment, it will need to have a wider view on regulation, ethics and clinical aspects as its NBTXR3 moves into global product development.

Michael Johnston (Health Canada, Canada) presented The IPRP Nanomedicines Working Group: current and potential future activities. The International Pharmaceutical Regulators Programme (IPRP)⁶⁸ is under the umbrella of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH)⁶⁹. The role of the IPRP is in identifying and addressing emerging issues of shared interest in pharmaceutical regulation, sharing regulatory perspectives on ICH work, discussing challenges and promote consistent implementation of ICH guidelines, promoting greater convergence in regulatory approaches based on international standards and best practices, facilitating inter-agency collaboration, enhancing communications and supporting capacity building (e.g. training). Nanomedicines is the theme of one of its eight working groups⁷⁰.

⁶⁹ https://www.ich.org

⁷⁰ Bioequivalence for Generics, Biosimilars, Cell Therapy, Gene Therapy, Identification of Medicinal Products, Information Sharing for Generics, Quality for Generics, and Nanomedicines.

⁷¹ Membership: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Europe (EC and EMA), Japan, Mexico, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Switzerland, Taiwan, United Kingdom, United States, as well as the Netherlands - Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment and the Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research.

⁷² A. Tropsha et al. Reproducibility, sharing and progress in nanomaterial databases”. Nature Nanotechnology volume 12, pages 1111–1114, 2017. https://www.nature.com/articles/nnano.2017.233

⁷³ https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/selected-amendments-fdc-act/21st-century-cures-act

The membership of the Nanomedicines Working Group⁷¹ (NWG) includes government and agency representatives from countries in the Americas, Asia, Europe and Oceania. Its objectives are non-confidential information sharing, regulatory harmonisation, collaboration between international regulators on the organisation of training, and outreach to communities of innovators in nanomedicine and other stakeholders. Its scope covers nanomedicines, nanomaterials in drug products, borderline and combination products, and methodologies used during development and evaluation. Activities of the NWG have included Mapping Nanomedicine Terminology in the Regulatory Landscape and a Survey of liposome regulation among IPRP NM WG members.

The Nanomedicines Working Group has been developing a framework for the NWG to promote regulatory research collaboration between its members, given the increasing need for documentary test method standards and reference materials and the rapid advances in the field of nanomedicine. Many regulatory agencies are facing limitations in resources and collaboration can help them to jointly develop the necessary tools to support the efficient regulation of nanotechnology-enabled products, the NWG seeing itself as a suitable platform to facilitate those efforts. The first phase would be to generate, distribute to members and keep updated an inventory of research laboratories/groups interested in participating in collaborative regulatory research projects. Follow-up activities would aim to ensure productive research collaborations and exchanges of good practice and training within the regulatory research community.

Panel discussion

The purpose of the panel discussion was to explore Regulatory research needs for new and follow-on nanomedicines, in particular addressing the questions of gaps and priorities and how they can be addressed. Simplification, communication and standardisation of approaches were highlighted.

The discussion initially focused on standardisation of research methods for nanomedicines and other complex systems with the parallel development of suitable analytical methodologies. The methodologies being used are highly complex and not always comparable between different laboratories, resulting in a need for harmonisation in analytical procedures and in data requirements for nanomaterials.⁷² The panel also saw a need for reference materials and for theoretical modelling of nanomaterials to better understand their characteristics and behaviours, particularly in complex systems. Characterisation was identified as a somewhat neglected topic and one participant put the possibility of establishing an independent organisation to oversee characterisation of nanostructures forward. Participants highlighted the need for a way of defining critical quality attributes and methods to correlate physiological properties with biological effects.

On clinical trials, it was noted that, for rare diseases there is a move away from standard double-blind clinical trials to ones based on a small and select group. On this subject, reference was also made to the emergence of flexible and novel clinical trial designs and the US FDA 21st century cures⁷³ and Drug Monetisation Act. The issue of patient pressure was highlighted as potentially becoming extreme (including the rejection of placebos in clinical trials) and leading to the need to develop a different clinical trial structure. Concerns were expressed that the medicines are emerging but the regulatory processes are not.

Platform approvals were seen as being an important regulatory innovation, involving approval of the development process for a drug platform (for example as used by some companies to manufacture synthetic peptides) that can be used differently for each patient.

Access to clinical data and the ways in which it is reported was found to be not sufficiently standardised and it was not always clear how much should be shared in a regulatory context. Benefits could result from increasing the analysis of clinical data and making it more available to the scientific community. However, the quality of some data was also questioned.

It was noted that the regulator needs to understand the science that gives a specific nanomaterial its unique nature and the special attributes that make the product act as it does. In relation to this, it was seen that researchers want to interact with regulators while enabling the regulatory authorities to keep their independence.

On the question of how to work better to address gaps and challenges, the importance of sharing information and experiences was stressed. It was noted that some mistakes of the past twenty years are being repeated, and a specific EU or international ‘lessons learned’ activity was proposed⁷⁴. For collaboration, the EU-US Communities of Research and the International Pharmaceutical Regulators Programme were seen as useful mechanisms.

⁷⁴ It was noted that the U.S. NCI-NCL runs technical ‘lessons learned’ workshops as webinars and that U.S. FDA shares papers on nanomedicines where there have been particular issues identified when enough of a certain class of products exists https://www.fda.gov/media/110689/download

4 Safety assessment of Nanomaterials

Co-chairs: Peter Goering (FDA, USA) and Juan Riego Sintes (EC JRC, EU)

The session focussed on the fate of nanomaterials in the environment and in biomedical and consumer products, and the efforts of some US, EU and international agencies and organisations addressing nanomaterials as a potential hazard in the environment.

Robert Burgess (EPA, USA) provided an Overview of ecological studies on the fate and effects of nanomaterials in the marine environment from the perspective of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and specifically from its Marine Research programme.

Nanomaterials are found in an increasing number of products on the market and, inevitably, some of them, or their degradation products, make their way into the environment. Information is needed for risk assessment on the fate and effects of nanomaterials in the marine environment, particularly for economically important species. As the mission of the EPA includes protecting human health and the environment and ensuring safety of chemicals (including nanomaterials) in the marketplace, it has established a Nanomaterials Research Program within the EPA Office of Research and Development to support the scientific needs of EPA policy offices and regions. All the laboratories under the EPA Office of Research and Development have participated in this research programme. The National Health and Environmental Effects laboratory (NHEERL) conducts systems-based, effects research for sustainable human health and ecological integrity, which includes work on nanomaterials and nano/microplastics.

There are two main US environmental legislative acts that govern nanomaterials regulation and data collection: the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Marine nanomaterials research performed by NHEERL is focussed on the fate of nanomaterials in marine systems and the effects of nanomaterials on the marine system (such as levels of toxicity and bioaccumulation). A specific study of five nanomaterials (nanoparticles of silver and titania as well as graphene, quantum dots and SWCNTs (Single-walled carbon nanotubes)) presented by the speaker showed that salinity is a key driver, with larger nanoparticles found where salinity is high, probably due to agglomeration effects. Dissolved salts affect nanomaterial stability in solution and affect their bioavailability and the environmental exposure levels. Overall, it seems that large agglomerated nanoparticles tend to settle out of the water column in the sediment, resulting in a low concern about toxicity from these particles in the marine ecosystem. However, toxic ions are seen to leak into water from some types of nanoparticles, resulting in adverse effects.

There is still only limited information on the fate and effects of nanomaterials in the marine environment. Analytical methods to isolate, extract and identify nanomaterials from the marine ecosystem are still needed. The situation is complicated as manufactured nanomaterials (MNMs) are often mixed with natural materials, making it difficult to assess the MNMs present in the marine environment compared to the quantity of naturally occurring nanomaterials. In addition, the toolbox for measuring adverse effects in the marine environment is limited and methods generally focus on acute toxicity, while sub-lethal toxicological methods are also needed. The expansion of community-level method development and application will also help to strengthen the knowledge base for risk assessment on nanomaterials in the marine environment.

Abdel Sumrein (ECHA, EU) explained the role of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in Safety assessment of nanomaterials under REACH. Since 2007, the REACH legislation has laid down the system within the European Union for registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals, including nanomaterials. There are many important aspects of the system, for example, the registration of chemicals based on the information provided by companies, and the evaluation of those chemicals by Member States. REACH is just one part of the legislation that address also nanomaterials as they may also fall under legislation for occupational safety, food packaging and biocides, for example.

In 2018, the annexes of REACH were amended with the introduction of nano-specific information requirements and new provisions for their chemical safety assessment and downstream user obligations⁷⁵. ECHA is finalising guidance documents, tools and methods in support of the legal text amending REACH. Guidance relies on available (and ideally, standardised) methods that can be used to fulfil the requirements of the REACH regulation.

⁷⁵ https://echa.europa.eu/regulations/nanomaterials ; https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2017-4925011_en

⁷⁶ Working Party on Nanomaterials https://www.safenano.org/knowledgebase/standards/working-party-on-manufactured-nanomaterials/

⁷⁷ European Committee for Standardisation https://www.cen.eu

⁷⁸ International Organization for Standardization https://www.iso.org/about-us.html

⁷⁹ https://euon.echa.europa.eu

⁸⁰ https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety_en

⁸¹ See, for example, for testing SCCS/1602/18, safety assessment SCCS/1484/12, checklists SCCS/1588/17 and data SCCS/1524/13. Some are these are under revision given the 2013 ban on animal testing.

⁸² https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_o_142.pdf

⁸³ SCCS/1516/13

The new REACH requirements affect substances that comprise nanoforms and, to date, 37 substance registration dossiers contain information on nanoforms. There is no transition phase for the implementation of the new requirements, even though fully harmonised or standardised test methods may not be available yet. Accordingly, the development of tests methods is of highest importance. ECHA relies on OECD⁷⁶ as well as CEN⁷⁷ and ISO⁷⁸ working in this area, further development of test methods and standardised measurements being a key priority for the application of legislation to nanomaterials. ECHA will assess the incoming dossiers case by case to understand the robustness of the data included and its completeness.

In addition to its regulatory role, ECHA hosts the European Union Observatory for Nanomaterials (EUON)⁷⁹ that aims to provide objective and reliable information to the public and others on innovation and safety aspects of nanomaterials on the EU market.

Wim de Jong (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS)⁸⁰, EU) spoke about the Safety assessment of nanomaterials as ingredients for cosmetic products, remarking that the general problem with nanomaterials is that the safety assessment lags behind products on the market. The use of nanomaterials as ingredients (e.g. colorants or UV filters) in cosmetic products (such as sunscreens and toothpastes) is specifically covered under the EU Cosmetics Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009, which provides a high level of protection for human health. There are specific regulatory provisions for nanomaterials, including requirements for notification to the authorities six months before market release, labelling and the possibility of referral to the SCCS if safety concerns are identified. Concerns could relate to the crossing of membrane barriers in the body, accumulation and bio-persistence, for example.

The SCCS has produced guidance notes, checklists and memoranda⁸¹ to improve safety and safety assessments. Despite the production of a memorandum on “Relevance, Adequacy and Quality of Data in Safety Dossiers on Nanomaterials”⁸², there are no complete safety dossiers addressing nanomaterials so far. The SCCS itself has produced opinions on many nanomaterials evaluated as cosmetic ingredients for various applications, including zinc oxide, titania, carbon black, silica, hydroxyapatite, styrene, acrylates and silver.

The example of nanoscale titania as UV-filter in sunscreens, the most common application in cosmetics, was presented. The information provided in the safety dossier and evaluated by SCCS covered a selection of fifteen different materials from different manufacturers, the incomplete and patchy information provided by the companies complemented with literature searches by SCCS. The conclusion of the SCCS Opinion⁸³ was that the use of the evaluated (nano)titania as a UV-filter in sunscreens, at a concentration up to 25 % w/w, can be considered to not pose any risk of adverse effects in humans after application on healthy, intact or sunburnt skin, but that the use of (nano)titania in spray products that might lead to consumer exposure to (nano)titania by inhalation cannot be considered safe.

The highlighted challenges for risk assessment of cosmetic nano-ingredients were the uncertainties and knowledge gaps with regard to physicochemical properties, environmental behaviour and toxicological effects. It was noted that the testing included in dossiers is often done early in the product development process, and the material in the final product may be very different. The data therefore do not cover all three stages of the processing of the nanomaterials: as produced, as used, and as formulated. In addition, for group submissions, it is not always clear whether all the nanomaterials included in a submission are the same material. There are also limitations in the validated methods for detection and characterisation of nanomaterials and for exposure assessment via dermal, inhalation and ingestion routes. Additional issues are emanating from the ban on animal testing of cosmetic ingredients in the EU.

The most recent revision of the SCCS Guidance on the safety assessment of nanomaterials in cosmetics was published in 2019⁸⁴. It focusses on safety concerns about nanomaterials that are insoluble or poorly soluble and bio-persistent, the need for high quality characterisation of nanomaterials, risk assessment in case of the possibility of systemic exposure, and the use of non-animal testing. The Guidance will take a weight of evidence approach, rather than a margin of safety approach given the absence of in vivo data and the limited number of validated or scientifically sound in vitro methods for nanomaterials. The presenter identified the dossier requirements for nanomaterials as cosmetic ingredients, the relevant methods available for their testing and the elements of the checklist for safety evaluations. The available replacement methods form an important part of the toolbox for the safety assessment of nanomaterials in cosmetics.

⁸⁴ Note: the revised Guidance was published on November 4, 2019 (https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_o_233.pdf)

In summary, the main challenges for dossier evaluation of nanomaterials as cosmetic ingredients include the need for high quality characterisation, uncertainties about whether the material described and presented in the dossier is the same as material that was actually evaluated and tested, the need for risk assessment to take into account the possibility for internal exposure due to translocation of the nanomaterial, the need for non-animal testing methods, and the move to what needs to be a robust weight of evidence approach to safety assessment.

The presentation of Kumiko Ogawa (National Institute of Health Sciences (NIHS), Japan) highlighted research on Size-dependent toxicity of silver nanoparticles. Silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) are commonly used in many kinds of consumer products, including food containers, textile fabrics, and cosmetics, due to their antimicrobial properties and they can exhibit different toxicity and distribution effects due to their size. The factors determining the level of toxicity (for a fixed weight of particles) include the number of particles, their diameter and their surface area.

During experiments on mice with AgNPs of diameter 10nm, 60nm and 100nm, severe lesions were found in the livers of mice exposed to AgNP10 (10nm). When correcting for the surface area, in order to obtain exposure to the same total surface area for each particle size, it was determined that the degree of toxicity was not defined by the total surface area but by the size of particles, with only AgNP10 being significantly toxic to mice. Looking also at the distribution of the nanoparticles in the body, large amounts of AgNPs and ionic silver were observed in the liver of mice treated with 10 nm AgNPs. In order to have a clear picture of the risks of such AgNPs, work is needed with doses that relate to the real environment (much lower than were used in this research), as well as data on excretion and accumulation of these nanomaterials.

There are many routes for international cooperation on regulatory science, one of which was described by Ritu Nalubola (FDA - Europe Office, USA) who presented The FDA - Europe Office – Our role and how you can engage with us.

The goal of the FDA Europe Office⁸⁵ (located in Brussels and Amsterdam) is to foster collaboration and share knowledge and information with the Food and Drug Administration’s counterpart regulatory authorities in Europe, including but not limited to the EU, and much of Russia and central Asia. It supports overall regulatory cooperation between the US and EU, focussing on policy coherence, regulatory dialogue, policy analysis and strategic engagement.

⁸⁵ https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/office-global-operations/europe-office

⁸⁶ A genetic engineering technology that propagates a particular set of genes through a population by altering the probability of their transmission to the next generation.

The main work areas of the Office in 2019 have been on the EU-US Mutual Recognition Agreement on pharmaceutical GMP (Good Manufacturing Practice) inspections, Brexit, emerging technologies, antimicrobial resistance, collaboration with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) (one of its closest contacts), food (EFSA partnerships, assessments by the Centre for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition assessments, agencies for US government collaboration with other US government agencies on export certifications) and medical devices. Recent accomplishments include the implementation of the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) between the USA and EU on pharmaceutical GMP inspections. This was the culmination of five years of close collaboration between FDA, EC, EMA and EU Member States, with FDA capability assessments of all 28 EU Member States being completed in July 2019 to match the EU capability assessments of the FDA in 2017. The MRA means that the US and EU can now rely on each other’s pharmaceutical GMP inspections in their respective territories, reducing the demand on resources for inspections at the FDA and its EU equivalent, the European Medicines Agency, allowing both sides to avoid duplication and reallocate resources towards inspection of drug manufacturing facilities with potentially higher public health risks across the globe. There is the potential for extending the MRA also in the area of veterinary drugs.

Ritu Nalubola also presented a recent publication comparing the drug marketing authorisations of the FDA and EMA. The authors found a high level of concordance (91-98%) in decisions on marketing approvals. Divergence in regulatory decisions were primarily due to differences in agencies’ conclusions about efficacy and based on review of the same or differing clinical data submissions.

In September 2019, the FDA and US Department of Agriculture (USDA) launched the Seeds-for-Sprouting Export Certification Programme re-opening US access to the EU market for the first time since 2012. Under the programme, it is verified that the food safety management systems of exporters comply with EU requirements. The FDA, as the competent authority, provides oversight of the programme, while the US Department of Agriculture conducts the audits and issues the EU health certificate.

In terms of future priorities, the FDA Europe Office will continue to encourage active international engagement, especially on emerging technologies on areas such as digital health, real-world data, genome editing (and gene drives⁸⁶) and artificial intelligence, and to strengthen the cooperation with European counterparts on food safety (e.g. on whole genome sequencing for pathogen detection) and risk communication. Increased regulatory cooperation at international level on medical devices should also be a priority. Another important theme will be US/EU equivalence determination to resume trade in bivalve molluscan shellfish. Finally, the Office will be looking to leverage partnerships to help build stronger pharmaceutical regulatory systems in third countries.

Peter Goering, (FDA, USA) presented a priority area for the FDA Centre for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), Nanotechnology and medical devices: A regulatory science approach involving research, standards, and risk assessment. The FDA defines regulatory science as “the science of developing new tools, standards, and approaches to assess the safety, efficacy, quality, and performance of all FDA-regulated products”, thereby including medical devices.

Medical devices are very varied in nature and find real and potential applications in areas from cardiovascular and orthopaedic to gastro-urinary and ophthalmics. CDRH engineers and toxicologists are closely connected with the medical device technology and how devices are manufactured.

CDRH houses a Nanotechnology Regulatory Science Research Programme comprised of three pillars: physico-chemical characterisation methods, in vitro and in vivo models, and (toxicological) risk assessment. These efforts support and contribute to regulatory review, standards and guidance documents, and staff training and communication.

Applications to CDRH for medical devices that incorporate nanotechnology include the types of applications available for all device applications: pre-submission (enabling developers to discuss products with FDA experts before submission and to ensure that testing is on the right track), pre-market notification, pre-market approval, investigational device exemption and requests by device manufacturers to obtain FDA views on a device classification. The types of devices that incorporate nanotechnology include antimicrobial, dental, orthopaedic, neurological and combination devices, and in vitro diagnostics. The devices use various nanomaterials, including silver, zirconia, titanium and titanium, iron oxide, polymers, calcium compounds, gold and graphene.

Challenges and opportunities for nanotechnology research in the medical devices arena include determining the magnitude and rate of release into the body (where improved in vitro release test methods are needed) and whether any release and patient exposure results in adverse health impacts, (driving the need to continue to advance toxicology risk assessment approaches). Another issue is whether nanoparticles affect the accuracy and/or reliability of standard biocompatibility or toxicity test assays, such as for cytotoxicity and genotoxicity. Because of the vast number of sizes, shapes, and chemistries of nanomaterials, there is also a need to develop in vitro models (2D, 3D, organ on a chip, organoids) and in silico models in order to predict human responses and improve in vitro to in vivo extrapolations.

Nadim Akhtar (AstraZeneca) identified some key CMC (Chemistry Manufacturing and Control) challenges of developing commercial nanomedicines and working with commercial nanoparticles for pharmaceuticals in terms of their characterisation, demonstration of bioequivalence, the use of in silico models and the development of biopharmaceuticals. Examples of nanoparticles used by his company include polymeric nanoparticles encapsulating drugs that are released through diffusion (accurins) and polymer-conjugated drugs released via linker chemistry (dendrimers). In characterisation, it is often difficult to find both the right equipment and the expertise in the same place.

It is important to understand the aggregation and solution behaviour of the nanoparticles in order to understand their behaviour in physiological conditions. This is critical for the design of dendrimer drugs, where the active pharmaceutical ingredient and the dendrimer (nanoparticle) are covalently bound, and the release profile of the drug depends on the composition of the dendrimer, and on time.

The drug release profile from encapsulated drugs (e.g. accurins) is more complex and takes place by diffusion. It can be modelled⁸⁷ and the drug molecules in the centre of the nanoparticle are seen to disappear the slowest, as they have the furthest distance to travel to escape the nanoparticle. The size of the nanoparticles is observed to affect the drug release. In silico simulations are used to understand better the release behaviour and optimise it. Controlled release from a particle can change from the initial stages, where there should be a uniform concentration of the active component, to later stages, when some molecules have been released and the concentration and distribution of drugs are different.

⁸⁷ With Fick's 2nd law of spherical symmetry to simulate diffusion-controlled release, “random walk model” (behaviour of individual particles combined)

Key challenges in biopharmaceutics were identified as including the need to deal with drug product changes during clinical development (e.g. changes of manufacturing site, manufacturing process and/or scale). For example, a change in one parameter can affect many different characteristics and fundamentally change the formulation under investigation. In these cases, a strong and scientifically sound bridging strategy is essential. It can also be difficult to establish parameters around the biological end-points, to identify the critical quality attribute (CQA) with the potential to achieve in vivo performance.

In summary, robust characterisation methods are needed to enable bioequivalence to be demonstrated; there needs to be a sound understanding of the impact of process parameters on product attributes; in vitro, in vivo correlations (IVIVCs) and biopharmaceutic bridging strategies are needed to secure flexibility for a complex product.

The presentation of Jan Simak (FDA, USA) looked at the Investigation of blood and endothelial toxicity of engineered nanoparticles using a PAMAM (polyamidoamine) dendrimer model. The focus was on the effects of nanomaterials on blood platelets and the cells lining arteries and veins (vascular endothelial cells) and the question of what assays to use to predict any potential adverse effects. The speaker presented research to show that large cationic PAMAM dendrimers evidence both proinflammatory and proapoptotic effects in endothelial cells and, at high dendrimer concentrations, these effects are accompanied by necrotic cytotoxicity. Size-charge modified PAMAM dendrimers may be a useful model for investigating in vitro toxicity of small (< 10 nm) nanoparticles, and some work on this was presented.

Haemostasis (coagulation of blood within a damaged vessel e.g. in the healing of a wound) is an integral part of the inflammatory response of the body involving blood platelets. The dendrimers used in the presented research had a specific size and a surface that could be modified. PAMAM dendrimers that were hydroxy-terminated, carboxy-terminated and amine-terminated were tested for their potential to induce blood platelet aggregation. The assay was a very simple one involving the counting of platelets before and after treatment. With cationic dendrimers, it was found that there was blood platelet aggregation and fragmentation, the latter the outcome of probable disruption of the integrity of the platelet membrane.

For vascular endothelial cells⁸⁸, the effect of different size-charge modified PAMAM dendrimers on cell viability⁸⁹ and LDH⁹⁰ release (evidence of cell death) was measured at different doses. It was found that, here again, cationic dendrimers have adverse effects on the plasma membrane and mitochondrial membrane, inducing a release of extracellular vesicles. However, it was not clear either if the process was active (the cell trying to remove the dendrimers) or passive (cell death) nor whether the dendrimers were inside or outside the vesicles.

⁸⁸ In this research, cultured human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs)

⁸⁹ WST-8 Assay

⁹⁰ Lactate dehydrogenase

Challenges in the evaluation of the effects of nanomaterials on blood coagulation and the main concerns for these assays were sample preparation, characterisation of the nanomaterial under test conditions (size distribution, particle aggregation, surface charge, etc.), the nanomaterial dosimetry (which should be based on surface area), the selection of assays for different purposes (e.g. screening and mechanism investigation), and the need for standardisation and inter-laboratory studies; obtaining healthy cells for the studies (given that the patients are severely ill) and dealing with the individual variability of donors’ blood (plasma, platelet) samples, resulting in the need for a large sample size to reach satisfactory reproducibility; and the need for “second hit” models in vitro and in vivo.

Luis Velasquez Cumplido (I3CBSEK, Universidad SEK, Chile) presented an International review of micro and nanoplastic regulations in marine environments and their potential impact on Chilean aquaculture. Aquaculture is growing in quantity and diversity globally and the long coastline of Chile is highly productive in valued fish and aquaculture resources, most notably in the south of Chile. However, there is widespread concern that, in parallel to the growth in aquaculture, there may be an increase in the amount of plastic litter in the oceans and seas, to the detriment of ecosystems, biodiversity and potentially human health, making microplastics and nanoplastics a multidisciplinary global issue. Work is being undertaken by international organisations such as GESAMP⁹¹ (the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection) and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO)⁹².

⁹¹ http://www.gesamp.org

⁹² http://www.fao.org/in-action/globefish/fishery-information/resource-detail/en/c/1043135/

Plastic makes up 80-85% of the total number of marine litter items, measured by beach counts. Although definitions may vary, it is generally agreed that microplastics include particles and fibres of plastic measuring less than 5 mm, including nanoplastics (less than 0.1 microns). Primary microplastics are intentionally manufactured (e.g. pellets, powders, scrubbers), while secondary microplastics result from plastic material breakdown (e.g. of fishing gear, cages, buoys, boats and packaging). Microplastics tend to attract persistent and bioaccumulative contaminants that are present in the water, as well as living organisms (marine invertebrates, bacteria, fungi, viruses) that use them as a substrate. Such microplastics can enter the human food chain through the consumption of fish and seafood, particularly those eaten completely without the removal of their digestive tract (e.g. whitebait, crustaceans and molluscs).

The Natural Language Processing (NLP)-based tool IRIS.AI was used to identify 382 research papers or patents related to plastics and microplastics legislation worldwide. These were grouped by themes including plastic, regulation, legislation, etc. Other terms that emerged includes material, pollution, land-based, composite, management and policy.

Solutions using circular economy models are being sought for the plastics issue, not least the recycling of materials and banning of plastic bags (Chile being the first South American country to instate a ban in 2018). In Chile, a form of Extended Producer Responsibility has been proposed; putting the burden of recovery on producers of products, e.g. a producer of beverages bottled in plastic must recover a percentage of their bottles from consumers and the environment. It is expected that producers will be motivated to move to biodegradable materials rather than single-use, throwaway plastic, as recovery may be too expensive. In addition, they will hopefully be encouraged to design their remaining plastic products for end-of-life material recovery and remanufacture, as, once producers recover their plastic product, they must deal with it in some way. Another aspect of plastics management in Chile is education and citizen science. For example, nearly 1000 school-children from 39 schools on mainland Chile and Easter Island were involved in the so-called ‘National sampling of Small Plastic Debris’, via the citizen science project ‘Scientificos de la Bastura’ (Litter Scientists).

Research to address the problem of microplastics and nanoplastics has been minimal thus far in Chile, but the speaker presented a plan for a project to generate a baseline of micro and nanoplastics in the marine environment and their levels in fish close to fish farming centres in the south of Chile. It was noted that standardised protocols and common units are needed.

Panel discussion

The panel discussion focused on gaps and priorities in Safety assessment of Nanomaterials, and how they can be addressed, beginning with a summary by one of the co-chairs (Peter Goering (FDA, USA)).

Risk and safety assessment approaches for nanomaterials are still incomplete due to vast number of nanoparticle sizes, shapes, chemistries and surface functionalities. For risk assessment, the key needs are for robust exposure assessments, dose-response assessments, and in silico modelling and in vitro tests that can be extrapolated to in vivo/human (IVIVE). In risk assessment, current studies can be used to develop tolerable intake values for the clinically relevant routes of exposure (oral, inhalation, IV, dermal). For exposure assessments, the nanoparticle/ion release methods may not be sufficient. Determining the margin of safety remains difficult with the current trend of reducing the number of animal studies. In general, alternative (non-mammalian) methods, such as in vitro organoids, organ on a chip models and in vivo models (e.g., zebrafish, C. elegans) need to be further developed and incorporated into safety testing regimens.

Dosimetrics for nanomaterials were also discussed, including the metrics of mass, surface area and number, and how to use doses that are clinically realistic. It was asked whether more absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) work is needed, e.g., looking at bio-persistence in tissues and excretion kinetics. There are also uncertainties in methods for physico-chemical characterisation (detection in cell culture media and biofluids).

On environmental fate and hazard in the marine environment, it was asked what additional approaches are needed, if any, given that aggregation limits bioavailability and, for released ions, methods are already available. There may be a need for improved methods for solubility, degradation, and toxicity as well as methods for aquaculture and ocean capture assessment of nanomaterials, and microplastics and nanoplastics. It was noted that the EU and US FDA have a high concordance of regulatory decisions.

Moving away from the marine environment, the question of exposure was raised for cosmetics, such as inhalation of powders that are spread on the skin. It was noted that risk assessment concerns systemic exposure, not local exposure. Indeed, the minor modifications to the product, which all manufacturers make, are a bigger problem when it comes to exposure as the consequences are unknown. Studies are not performed on each specific product, and there are no complete dossiers. In addition, testing is done at the early stages of product development but not on the final product. In the USA, no labelling of nanomaterial-containing products is required, but with powders in general both, the dermal and inhalation routes, are considered.

On EU-US collaboration, it was noted that the disappearance of the EU-NCL (Nanomedicine Characterisation Laboratory) would affect collaboration and project-to-project learning. The most value will be created by putting the resources in the right places (e.g., in developing relevant tools). The importance of collaborations and common understanding was raised. It was noted that the difference between academic and regulatory science is that the latter must have a purpose beyond fundamental knowledge (e.g. ensuring safety). A common purpose also helps when different institutions and organisations collaborate. Harmonisation of methodologies (e.g., for micro- and nanoplastics), documenting regulatory science studies and the use of round robins were all highlighted as important future steps.

On round robins, it was noted that they are valued collaborations. Additionally, in the NANoREG⁹³ and NanoReg2⁹⁴ projects, there have been problems with the lack of reference nanomaterials that can serve as positive or negative controls. So far, reference nanomaterials exist only for particle size determination and are not easy to create as they depend on extensive datasets, requiring commitment from testing laboratories from all over the world. In the meanwhile, representative nanomaterials are available from the JRC Nanomaterials Repository. Good quality (validated) data are needed and there have been some efforts made in Europe. The problem is the lack of harmonised protocols, standardised methods and templates for study data (to report the data and metadata). Notably, the JRC hosts a collection of tools and templates for generating and reporting data for nanomaterials, the NANoREG toolbox. The application of FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) principles to data is seen as a step in the right direction.

⁹³ http://www.nanoreg.eu/

⁹⁴ http://www.nanoreg2.eu/about

5 Nanotechnology in the agri/food/feed sector

Co-chairs: Primal Silva (CFIA, CA) and Reinhilde Schoonjans (EFSA, EU)

The session provided both a panoramic view of the current state of nanotechnology in the agri/food/feed sector and an overview of high-potential future products, also considering in detail certain applications of nanotechnology and methods of analysis and characterisation.

Guilhem de Sèze (EFSA, EU) gave a presentation on Nanomaterials in food and feed - Experience and perspective from the European Food Safety Authority.

Nanomaterials are chemical substances according to EU legislation, and are regulated by REACH (EU Regulation 1907/2006). The EC 2011 recommendation⁹⁵ on the definition of a nanomaterial seeks to provide a definition of the term nanomaterial across all EU legislation. The EC Regulation 2018/1881 modifies the annexes of REACH to include nano-specific clarifications and requirements.

⁹⁵ https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32011H0696

⁹⁶ https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/nanotechnology

⁹⁷ As of 1 January 2018, the new Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 on novel foods (the new Regulation) is applicable. It repeals and replaces Regulation (EC) No 258/97 and Regulation (EC) No 1852/2001 which were in force until 31 December 2017.

Regarding nanotechnology in the food chain, which is governed by various food legislations, guidance from EFSA was made available in 2011 and updated in 201896. In the context of food, health and nanomaterials, EFSA both prescribes and evaluates the adequacy of risk assessments in of applications dossiers possibly comprising small particles, including particles in the nanosize.

The application dossiers for nanoscale materials received by EFSA mainly concern the two areas of food contact materials and food additives, but also application for feed additives and novel foods have been received, whereas none having been received for pesticides so far. The majority of materials are substances (potentially) containing a fraction of nanoparticles within, for example, a powder, but not being a “nanomaterial” as defined in the EC 2011 Recommendation that states: “‘Nanomaterial' means a natural, incidental or manufactured material containing particles, in an unbound state or as an aggregate or as an agglomerate and where, for 50 % or more of the particles in the number size distribution, one or more external dimensions is in the size range 1 nm-100 nm”.

Risk assessments are needed for (engineered) nanomaterials in agri/food/feed applications and these are to be based on sound scientific knowledge and methodologies, to produce robust data. EFSA has issued scientific guidance for risk assessment (2011, updated 2018)⁹⁶ and horizon scanning (2014). In the future, EFSA plans to provide more detailed technical guidance on physico-chemical characterisation. This will, inter alia, enable EFSA to provide criteria to establish the presence and to document the nano-fraction in a product. EFSA is also identifying and supporting key research areas to advance future risk assessments.

It was noted that there is a scarcity of data specific and relevant for nanofractions. New products are subject to the current regulatory system, and need to be addressed as recommended in the nano-specific guidance. However, there are products on the market that were released many years ago when no nano-specific guidance was available. The assessment of these products remains difficult with respect to implementing the new guidance in retrospect. For example, for novel foods legislation⁹⁷ has been in place since 2018 but, when such products come up for renewal, the processes to follow can be unclear. EFSA is developing its processes and learning on a case-by-case basis, the priority being that the applicant has to demonstrate the safety of the product. EFSA uses its knowledge to assess the safety, with the scientific and technical aspects being accompanied by many legal discussions and frequent requests for additional information from EFSA to the applicants.

EFSA is advising applicants to build multi-disciplinary teams of technicians, toxicologists, regulatory scientists and consultants to jointly tackle nano-specific assessments of potential risks in agri/food/feed applications of nanotechnology. At present, also in EFSA, its staff and experts are learning by doing and trained to assess information related to nanomaterials and food. EFSA has a crosscutting working group providing expert advice to EFSA staff and panel experts for the topic. It works with stakeholders in Member States through the EFSA nano network and provides workshops on the implementation of its guidance materials. It also works with academia, both procuring research and as members of advisory boards of research consortia.

Reinhilde Schoonjans (EFSA, EU) presented the EFSA “Guidance on the human and animal risk assessment of the application of nanoscience and nanotechnology in agri/food/feed”. The aim of the guidance is to give applicants and assessors the tools they need to prepare complete nanotechnology application dossiers and their review. The guidance covers areas such as novel foods, food contact materials, food and feed additives, and pesticides, and is intended in particular for risk assessors, risk managers and applicants. It was noted that hazard identification and characterisation must take into account that a nanomaterial may lose its nanoform as it goes through the body (e.g. the digestive tract), at which point the nano-specific guidance is no longer required and the conventional guidance according to the envisaged use is sufficient.

Towards grouping of nanomaterials: lessons learnt and remaining challenges was presented by Frank Herzberg (BfR, Germany). Nanomaterials are subject to many regulatory requirements in the EU, including those for chemicals (REACH)⁹⁸, novel foods⁹⁹, food additives¹⁰⁰, plastic food contact materials and active and intelligent food contact materials¹⁰¹, food information provision¹⁰², biocidal products¹⁰³, plant protection products¹⁰⁴ and cosmetic products¹⁰⁵. Nanomaterials are a particular regulatory challenge because they can be synthesised based on many different core materials, and nanomaterials of the same core chemistry can exist in many different forms (i.e. different shapes, surfaces, sizes).

⁹⁸ Regulations (EC) No 1907/2006 and (EU) 2018/1881

⁹⁹ Regulation (EU) 2015/2283

¹⁰⁰ Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008

¹⁰¹ Regulations (EU) No 10/2011 and (EC) No 450/2009

¹⁰² Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011

¹⁰³ Regulation (EU) No 528/2012

¹⁰⁴ Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009

¹⁰⁵ Regulation EC No 1223/2009

¹⁰⁶ See, for example, REACH Annex XI at https://reachonline.eu/REACH/EN/REACH_EN/articleXI.html

Grouping of substances is explicitly mentioned in some of the regulations (e.g. in REACH and for biocidal products) and the use of data from structurally related substances (read-across)¹⁰⁶ is foreseen as a possibility. However, in the food sector (e.g. in novel foods and in food contact material), it is rarely applied. Some regulations also contain guidance for grouping of substances, although REACH is the only one of those mentioned above that has specific guidance for the grouping of nanomaterials.

Should it be the case that testing does not seem to be scientifically needed, there are additional challenges inherent in grouping nanomaterials, and structural similarity alone does not suffice. A grouping of nanomaterials may also include nanoforms of the same substance with different nano-specific physico-chemical parameters (e.g. morphology and/or surface chemistry). Sets of similar nanoforms can be created, but boundary criteria need to be established.

Specific hurdles to be overcome in putting nanomaterial grouping into practice include the very low number of case studies of nanomaterial grouping; the limited mechanistic information and limited reliable in vivo data; some specific data issues (the absence of systematic, comparative data sets, uncertainties resulting from insufficient data quality and missing benchmark materials); and difficulties in correlating the physico-chemical properties with toxicity (uncertainties about the relevant parameters and variations due to life cycle modifications, e.g. where the material changes during use, resulting in changes in its toxicological behaviour).

Various initiatives (e.g. NANoREG¹⁰⁷, NanoReg2¹⁰⁸, ENPRA¹⁰⁹ and NanoTest¹¹⁰) have provided information that can be accessed in the database eNanoMapper¹¹¹. Inevitably, the usefulness of the database is only as good as its content and it suffers from the low number of grouping case studies, comparability issues, and the other issues mentioned above. For example, the NanoReg2 project assessed regulatory requirements for nanomaterials grouping in different EU chemicals legislations and found the data to be heterogeneous, with dosimetry often insufficiently reported. The data curation needed to fill the gaps was very time-consuming and, where information was lacking (e.g. where positive controls or benchmark materials were missing), the data quality remained poor and not useable for comparison with other studies. The project also concluded that the choice of cell type, assays, and assay conditions is highly important and that the aggregation of individual study data needs to be improved.

¹⁰⁷ https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/107159/factsheet/en

¹⁰⁸ http://www.nanoreg2.eu

¹⁰⁹ http://www.enpra.eu https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/91280/factsheet/en

¹¹⁰ https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/86691/factsheet/en

¹¹¹ www.enanomapper.net

¹¹² http://www.innomatlife.de/index_EN.html

¹¹³ https://www.mri.bund.de/de/home/

A new project funded by the German government¹¹² is aiming to address some of the above issues for polydisperse materials (e.g. metal powders for additive manufacturing/3D printing), materials with specific morphologies (e.g. fibres) and materials with mixed chemical composition (e.g. for laser cutting). One material type under scrutiny will be polymer particles as intermediate products for additive manufacturing (microplastics and nanoplastics). The project, Innovative Materials and new production processes: Safety in Life Cycle and in industrial value chain (InnoMatLife), also aims to develop grouping principles for those materials

The speaker concluded by highlighting the need for a common understanding of data quality requirements; to achieve broad and secure data access; and to succeed in grouping across nano-substances. The research gaps to attain these goals are in developing reliable comparative datasets; standardised and validated methods; mechanistic and long-term information; and data on next-generation materials. Standards, particularly the work of ISO, and comparable data are essential components of a robust regulatory system.

Ralf Greiner (Max Rubner-Institute (MRI)¹¹³, Germany) presented Nano-sized delivery systems for food applications. The benefits of nanotechnology in food ingredients using encapsulation include improved bioavailability and/or absorption; masking an undesirable taste or flavour; achieving controlled release of the encapsulated ingredient (e.g. vitamins or minerals); protect the encapsulated ingredient from the external environment (e.g. protecting it from heat, acidity, moisture); and achieving controlled interaction between the encapsulated ingredient and the food matrix, etc.

There are, however, many variables in nano-sized delivery systems. Some structures function well in water but are not necessarily transferable to other food matrices. The delivery systems need to be food grade and safe (or listed by the relevant regulatory authority), as well as compatible with the food matrix. There needs to be a proper formulation in order to ensure a good distribution of the active ingredient in the product, which can contribute to increased bioavailability. The materials must be robust enough to withstand processing, distribution, handling by the consumer, etc., with no negative effects, sensory or other.

Release mechanisms of nano-sized delivery systems result in various processes of diffusion into the body. There is degradation by digestive enzymes and dispersal triggered by changes in the local environment (e.g. pH, temperature, moisture). The release of the encapsulated ingredient is dependent on many variables, including the shape and dimensions of the delivery system; its chemical composition; the type of ingredient and its diffusivity and solubility in the encapsulant and the environmental; the ingredient ratio in the delivery system and the external medium; the encapsulation load and the loading efficiency.

While there are several products on sale, there is a strong motivation to develop optimal formulations, the aim being to include less of the ingredient and to rely on improved bioavailability. However, this is proving difficult, for example, in the case of iron fortification products. The goal is to mask the unpleasant iron taste and flavour, to deal with the instability of the formulations and problems of precipitation, and to produce an iron fortification that is mild on the stomach with sustained release, high absorption and bioavailability. Even products that are on the market¹¹⁴ have been seen to provide no significant improvement in iron absorption when incorporated in real food matrices compared with ferrous sulphate as a control.

¹¹⁴ For example, SunActive ™

In concluding, the speaker noted that before nano-sized materials find widespread application in the food sector information on potential risks that may arise from their consumption must be available. An important issue is whether the nano-sized material is digested differently from its individual component building blocks. If absorption and bioavailability of the nutrients can be improved, modifications may be needed in the accepted daily intakes for these materials in the nano-form. In vitro and in vivo experiments are necessary to study the efficacy of the delivery systems as well as potential adverse effects.

Nanomaterials for reducing food-related waste was the subject of the presentation by Ken Bosnick (Nanotechnology Research Centre, National Research Council, Canada). The focus of the presentation was on food waste related to processing and at the consumer stage. Nanomaterials are used for example, in spoilage and pathogen sensing, and in the exploitation of renewable materials.

North America wastes over 20% of the meat it produces. This is not only an economic loss due to the waste but also a pollutant as the meat is a producer of greenhouse gas emissions. Quality control measures result in the meat being discarded and spoilage-sensing devices are a better alternative. Early detection of biogenic amines can be exploited for improved quality assurance (QA) and lead to a reduction in food waste. For example, metal oxide semiconductor (MOS) gas sensing technologies could be exploited in portable meat spoilage sensing devices for use in the meat processing industry. The sensitivity of the sensors is enhanced by using nanomaterials as their nanostructured form offers a higher surface area per volume of sensing material. The geometry and composition of the materials can be optimised to improve both the response times and sensitivities. Catalyst particles help to overcome chemisorption barriers and reduce sensor-operating temperatures. Other materials being researched are silicon nanowires and other semiconductors, while heterostructures (e.g. ZnO / NiO) may offer even higher sensitivities.

Nano-enabled devices are also being developed for rapid, sensitive and selective detection of bacterial (e.g. salmonella) and viral (Hepatitis C)) pathogens, which is pivotal to food safety and public health, and to support a competitive food processing industry. Conventional culture-based assays suffer from being time consuming, costly and labour-intensive, but now nano-enabled biosensors are being developed to reduce the time needed from days to a few hours, thereby also reducing costs.

The presenter also provided examples of nanocomposites for renewable food packaging, identifying a potential route towards making renewable-derived packaging that will be competitive with petroleum-derived packaging. The issues of poor mechanical properties of renewable and degradable packaging (compared with petroleum-based materials, i.e. common plastics) can be overcome by compounding compatibilised and pristine cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) with polylactide and casting it into packaging films using a twin-screw extruder.

Smart, renewable and multifunctional food packaging material is also being developed. While blending cellulose nanocrystal (CNC) nanorods with renewable-derived packaging adds only passive reinforcement, smart functionality can be added to the CNC particles by synthesising designer hybrids with active materials. This can, for example, lead to smart, renewable packaging that can sense meat spoilage, using zinc oxide nanoparticles as the means to optically-sense biogenic amines.

In conclusion, nanotechnology can make a significant impact in reducing food and food-related waste, including through spoilage sensing devices for increased quality assurance, pathogen sensing for rapid, point-of-control use, improving the competitiveness of renewable-derived packaging and, in the future, offering renewable, “smart” packaging materials for better safety, human health and both economic and environmental gain.

Valérie Fessard (ANSES, France) presented work on the Genotoxicity of aluminium nanoparticles. Key areas that need to be addressed through regulatory science are to obtain oral exposure data (there currently being mostly inhalation data); to extend the knowledge about the nanoforms used in agri/food/feed; and to establish validated methods adapted to nanomaterials. These will enable better identification of the hazard, if any, of nanomaterials in food and feed and improve related risk assessments. Methods are needed to know more about material behaviour along the digestive tract (e.g. what modifications happen, what are the impacts of crossing the intestinal barrier). Other areas in which work on methodologies is needed is on the link between toxicity and accumulation, and the development of in vitro methods for testing repeated exposure. High throughput methods are needed, as many types of nanomaterials exist, although this may be helped by nanomaterial grouping if that can be robustly achieved. There is also an urgent need to understand why so many discrepancies are found in data that aims to (and ideally should) be comparable, e.g. in round robin testing in different labs. There have been projects to address this last issue but they have been of too short duration to come to robust conclusions.

Aluminium was the chosen topic of the research, and the main subject of this presentation, as it is widely found in direct contact with food as a packaging and it occurs in food additives, flavourings and processing aids. The current data on aluminium-containing nanomaterials is limited and insufficient.

In the reported research on toxicity of different forms of aluminium (Al⁰, Al₂O₃) in rats, it was found that multiple testing methods were needed to establish whether the different forms of aluminium (Al⁰, Al₂O₃) behaved in the same way. These complementary methods included biokinetics modelling, liver immunostaining for the biomarker gamma-H2Ax, histopathology, transmission electron microscopy (TEM) of the liver and brain, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) targeted analysis on key gene expression from brain and intestine. It was found that, in this investigation of behaviour along the digestive tract, in vitro results did not mimic what was seen in vivo. The nature of the link between genotoxicity and accumulation varies according to which organs and tissues are examined and at what point in time the analysis is undertaken, results that cannot yet be explained.

Katrin Löschner (National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark) presented work on the Analysis of inorganic nanoparticles in food and biological matrices. Physico-chemical characterisation is needed to determine whether the material is a nanomaterial, and should consequently be subject to a nano-specific risk assessment, for hazard identification and characterisation in matrices including water, feed, test media, biological tissues and fluids (and in the context of in vitro, in vivo, in silico and ADME studies); and for exposure assessments (quantification of nanomaterial in food/feed, migration from food contact materials/FCMs) in various matrices (e.g. feed, food, food supplements, FCMs, food simulants). Nanomaterial characterisation has to consider a number of parameters, including e.g. particle size, particle shape, elemental composition, crystal structure, surface charge, surface area, and agglomeration or aggregation state. There are also extrinsic (media-dependent) properties to be considered such as physical and chemical stability of nanomaterials and coatings; solubility in relevant media, dispersibility of poorly soluble nanomaterials; and chemical reactivity/catalytic activity. Sample preparation for nanoparticles can also be very challenging¹¹⁵ and, as a combination of analytical techniques must be used to fully characterise them, many different preparations may be required.

¹¹⁵ Correia, M. et al, “Analytical Challenges and Practical Solutions for Enforcing Labeling of Nanoingredients in Food Products in the European Union”, in: Nanomaterials for Food Applications, pages 273–311, 2019. Elsevier.

The speaker finished by noting some general challenges, most significantly that there are no generic methods for nanomaterial characterisation. Methods need to be developed that are specific to certain nanoparticle/matrix combinations and sometimes even for specific nanoparticle characteristics (e.g. surface properties). There are few validated methods for nanoparticles in complex matrices and these have typically only been tested by a single laboratory. There are no certified reference materials with nanoparticles in a matrix. Suitable methods can be further developed if regulatory needs are better known, including the need for clarity on the definition of nanomaterials in, for example, food-labelling regulations.

Nanopesticides and their deliberate application in agriculture was presented by Melanie Kah (University of Auckland, New Zealand). There is a wide variety of different nano-enabled pesticides for agriculture, the first generation including metals and metal oxides and the second generation being nanocarriers loaded with an active substance. The active substances can be, for example, an existing substance such as a pesticide (and the nanopesticide is therefore a reformulation), novel nanopesticides (e.g. using pheromones or RNAi) or nature-inspired nanocarriers. The durability of a nanopesticide is how long it maintains the properties that are specific to its nano-size.

The key driver for applying nanotechnology to develop new plant protection products is to address the weaknesses of existing products. Current pesticides can be improved through three main avenues: more efficient application of stable suspensions giving homogeneous coverage; reduced losses and transportation to non-target areas; and improved interactions with the host or with the target (e.g. improved uptake). Nano-pesticides can have different size distribution or release rate, so adapted protocols have been designed to measure those parameters and evaluate how they can be incorporated in current models used for conventional pesticides. The scientific and technical literature (peer review papers but also patents and websites) can be useful in identifying the most advanced nano-pesticides and to evaluate their performance relative to their non-nano equivalent. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)¹¹⁶ has funded workshops looking at establishing guiding principles for the environment and human health risk assessment, and their possible harmonisation.

¹¹⁶ https://iupac.org

¹¹⁷ https://Cris.nifa.usda.gov/

¹¹⁸ Nanotechnology Applications and Implications of Agrochemicals toward Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems, Special Issue, vol. 66, issue #26, 2018.

The speaker noted that there is a great variety of nano-enabled products with potential applications in agriculture, and some look very promising in being able to improve the efficiency of currently used pesticides. However, there is a disconnect between the published science and agricultural context. Durability criteria can be a very useful and pragmatic approach to determine the specific nano-specific and pesticide properties of the new products. Measurement approaches are currently limited, and more work is needed to characterise nano-pesticides over time after they are applied in the field.

The Observations of nano-agrochemicals and nanoplastics in food and agriculture research by Hongda Chen (National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Department of Agriculture, USA) began with an introduction to the work of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). Its remit is to invest in and advance agricultural research¹¹⁷, 118 and education and thereby to address societal challenges. Topics under its remit include nanoscale delivery of agrochemicals, the benefits of engineered nanomaterials in crop production, sensors and detection for precision agriculture to environment, health and safety (EHS) implications of nanoparticles, economic, legal and social implications (ELSI) of nanotechnology, and communication, education and public perception. Specific projects to improve the efficiency of nutrient use are underway on synchronising nutrient release with uptake and on using nanoscale elements to suppress plant disease and increase crop yields. Researchers are also being funded for work on plant growth regulation, printable nano-based sensors of pathogen residuals in fields, and the different behaviours of human body compared with control animals. Each project must demonstrate the benefits that could result from related developments in agriculture and food. Potential benefits range from high priority (and therefore more likely to be funded) such as reduced pesticides for/in foods, lower amounts of harmful bacteria and less illness from food, to lower priority (and less likely to be funded) such as changed taste (making vegetables taste like chocolate) and altering the colour of foods.

Research gaps in food safety are in material characterisation methods (qualitative and quantitative, standards, etc.) and in risk characterisation (hazard and exposure). A specific issue is the ingestion by marine life of microplastics and nanoplastics, the impact and their fate in the environment, and how they are transformed under various food processing technologies.

The speaker summarised that, for nanotechnology in agricultural and food, the most promising areas of development are in food and nutrition security, there being currently no real-life applications. Development is ongoing and it is expected that, if there is clear evidence of the benefits, consumers will accept nanotechnology in foods. Key issues that need to be addressed to ensure food and feed safety in the future application of nanotechnology are regulation and the harmonisation of international dialogue.

Agnes Oomen (RIVM, The Netherlands) presented Nanobiotechnology – an exploration, as an example of advance materials. There is no clear definition of bionanotechnology¹¹⁹ or nanobiotechnology, but there is a high pace of scientific developments and a convergence of technologies. From the speaker’s viewpoint, the “bionano” refers to biological molecules that are used to design and develop complex structures at the nanoscale for a specific functionality (e.g. the so-called DNA-origami¹²⁰, RNA-origami and designed protein structures) potentially in combination with nanomaterials.

¹¹⁹ https:// www.rivm.nl/publicaties/bionanotechnologie-verkenning (in Dutch)

¹²⁰ See videos ‘Ten years of DNA origami’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Trg2__Lgnc0 and ‘What is DNA Origami?’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_1_pjLd8_8

¹²¹ https://www.tilibit.com

¹²² P. Wang et al., “The Beauty and Utility of DNA Origami”, Chem 2, 359-382, 2017

Dealing with these complex and advanced systems is difficult and brings new challenges. What is important is being able to identify what applications are possible, whether there will be associated risks, which regulatory frameworks are expected to be applied, and if risks will be covered by regulatory frameworks.

Looking more closely at the specific types of bionano, DNA-origami is a self-assembly of DNA-molecules, usually a long DNA-strand to which smaller DNA-strands attach at pre-determined sites to form the desired 2D or 3D structure and size (typically 25-150 nm) onto which molecules and nanomaterials can be coupled at the surface. Open-source computer programmes are being used to design the DNA-origami structures, with a steep decrease in production costs (from USD 200 to USD 0.2 per mg) and sales of commercial kits with the necessary building blocks. There is at least one company that produces customised structures¹²¹, although large-scale production is still difficult. Potential application areas of DNA-origami include tailored encapsulation structures (until now mostly for cancer medication but with agri/food/feed potential), molecular tools and nanoreactors for the fabrication of nanomaterials, building bio-mimicking systems, sensors and nano devices/robots. These could also potentially be expanded into areas such as DNA for data storage¹²².

RNA-origami is similar to, albeit lagging behind, DNA-origami. It could be used to make larger quantities and offers additional possibilities to link substances. Protein-origami would enable larger 3D-structures compared to DNA- and RNA-origami.

The potential risks are not known yet, given the relatively unknown kinetic behaviour of bionano structures (mainly based on information on DNA-origami), with there being no information on its uptake by the body. In vitro it is seen to be taken up by the cells, although its degradation path and products remain unclear. Hazards include that such foreign DNA, RNA and protein will evoke an immune response, although that could be the desired trait for the future design of adjuvants for vaccines. There may also be integration of small DNA-fragments in the DNA. RNA-origami fragments (degradation products) may interfere with naturally occurring RNA in the cell and thereby affect gene regulation and protein production of the cell. Protein structures may lead to protein aggregation. Overall, there are many knowledge gaps that need to be resolved for these new forms of materials.

The relevant regulations will be those dependent on the product type (e.g. food or cosmetics or pharmaceuticals), as well as for chemicals in general (REACH). The genetically modified organisms (GMO) regulation is not applicable as there is no intention to change the DNA of an organism. An important issue for the application of regulations such as REACH is that it is unclear to what category a bionano structure belongs, as it could be considered a chemical substance, a nanomaterial, a UVCB¹²³, or a mixture, for example. Under REACH, notification is only required when the market volume is over 1000 kg (1 tonne) per annum and production volumes of bionano structures is expected to be low as they are highly specific and tailored. They may thus remain unobserved under the legislation. In terms of toxicity, it is not clear that the existing tests are suitable for these new bionano materials, and there is currently no specific test regime in place for RNA interference and protein aggregation.

¹²³ Chemical Substances of Unknown or Variable Composition, Complex Reaction Products and Biological Materials

It was concluded that technological development is moving towards manipulability at the nanoscale, with these developments in bionanotechnology representing only some examples. From a regulatory and policy perspective, the applications are at an early stage and not yet on the market, with the research being currently technologically oriented, without much considerations on potential risks or safety or potential adverse effects. As the field develops, both risks and benefits should be taken into account. For now, the applicable legal frameworks are generic and do not consider the specificities of these new materials and their potential impacts.

Safe-by-design could be an appropriate approach for these new materials, starting early in the innovation process and balancing safety and functionality, taking into account the safety issues mentioned here. Key steps will include dialogue with stakeholders in a trusted environment and to ensure regulatory preparedness.

Panel discussion

The panel discussion focused on the actions needed to progress in the safe use of nanotechnology in agri/food/feed applications, addressing the questions of gaps and priorities. It was noted that, when nanotechnology is used in different sectors (e.g. medical versus food), research, regulatory science and regulation must reflect the application area and cannot be generic. Validated and standardised methods are needed in research and for regulatory purposes, there being few generic methods for nanomaterial characterisation.

In EHS and regulatory science, concerns were expressed about data comparability. It was proposed that public funding should be of longer duration in Europe in order to retain the expertise on a thematic and experimental area and to develop the research further, thereby ensuring that methods would be better developed and to be able to conduct round robin tests over a significant time period. There were also concerns that, although databases have been created, the quality of the content depends on the information provider. Databases are also left to decay at the end of the project if there is no follow-up action, similarly with the many websites created during research projects, e.g. under the EU Framework Programmes. A common database infrastructure was proposed, bringing together information based on end-points rather than materials and provided that industry proprietary information could be protected.

The discussion moved to the topic of how the regulatory agencies, the research community and risk assessment specialists can work together. The regulatory environments differ between countries so early exchanges of information and collaborations are essential. In each regime, it is essential to know the regulatory data needs in order to undertake relevant studies. Guidance is already provided through, for example, EFSA for agri/food/feed, but industry often struggles to find the time to locate and read the information that is available. To help address this issue, there are specific EFSA mechanisms for SMEs to provide pre-submission advice, measures that are to be expanded in the future to enable extensive discussions before a dossier is submitted, similar to what happens in Australia and New Zealand. On communication between regulatory science and industries, a one-stop-shop for information was proposed for responsible industry, especially SMEs, to be easily able to find information about relevant data-gathering methods.

6 Documentary standards and reference materials

Co-chairs: Debra Kaiser (NIST, USA) and Andrea Held (EC JRC, EU)

The session focussed on the challenges of regulation of nanomaterials and the development and use of standards for manufactured nanomaterials, of creating reliable reference materials across the wide variety of current and future nanotechnology-enabled materials and their applications, and on efforts to establish internationally accepted standards and test guidelines within those contexts.

Debra Kaiser (National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), USA) opened the session with a presentation on the topic of Nanotechnology standards: Progress on GSRS16 needs and ASTM International Committee E56. The technical sessions of GSRS16¹²⁴ covered the topics of advances in nanotechnology-derived drug products liposomal drug products, targeted nanomaterials for biomedical applications, advances in nanotechnology-derived medical devices, nanomaterials in food and food contact materials and nanomaterials in personal care products. Regulatory science research and standards needs that were prioritised by participants were reference materials, guidance documents and documentary standards, and it was on the last of these that the speaker focussed.

¹²⁴ 2016 Global Summit on Regulatory Science (GSRS16) Nanotechnology Standards and Applications, https://www.astm.org/COMMIT/GSRS16%20Final%20Report.pdf

¹²⁵ For ASTM E56 standards, see https://www.astm.org/COMMIT/SUBCOMMIT/E56.htm

¹²⁶ Denis Koltsov

From GSRS16, it was concluded that, for regulation, documentary standards are needed for physico-chemical characterisation (identification and quantitation of nanomaterials, critical quality attributes such as size and surface properties, and common methods), in vitro characterisation (interaction of nanomaterials with the immune system, drug loading and release from drug delivery systems) and other considerations such as materials that are already widely used (e.g. liposomes) and biologically-relevant media (e.g. tissue and blood). ASTM E56 standards¹²⁵ are addressing these regulatory needs identified at the GSRS16, albeit with most standards being work in progress (12 to 18 months being needed to draft an ASTM standards document) and most test methods requiring interlaboratory studies. ASTM E56 welcomes any individual or organisation wishing to participate in the development of nanotechnology and nanomaterial standards.

ASTM co-ordinates with other standardisation organisations to avoid duplication. However, as ASTM work is proposed by individual members from, for example, a company or regulatory agency, it can be difficult to avoid duplication if that organisation proposes a standard, even if a similar activity is already ongoing in ISO or OECD, organisations where proposals come from a country. During discussions after the presentation, as ASTM and other organisations including ISO were open to further strengthening of co-ordination (especially at management levels and via a formal mechanism), it was agreed that a co-ordination and information exchange group would be initiated by the organisers of the GSRS19 Summit. The Chairman¹²⁶ of International Organisation for Standardization Technical Committee 229 (ISO/TC 229) stated that ISO works with, and welcomes, official liaisons and expressed his availability for explanation, discussion and, in general, more information on liaising with ISO/TC 229.

The European Pharmacopeia is the preferred European reference for standards in the field of medicine / pharmaceuticals and standards from other organisations are not automatically recognised. However, in cases in which there are no standards from the Pharmacopeia, standards from bodies such as ISO are preferred over no standards. It was noted that the USA Pharmacopeia has a section that works on nano-related issues, on which the U.S. FDA is represented.

One of the complexities of using reference materials, as explained by Andrea Held (EC JRC, EU) in her presentation on Reference materials supporting legislation, is that a single material can be a certified reference material (CRM) for one property, a non-certified reference material (RM) for another property and a representative test material (RTM) for a third property. In reality, many of those who require CRMs, will accept RMs and RTMs as temporary solutions. The reliable measurement of size and shape parameters of (nano)particles is crucial for the implementation of regulations regarding nanomaterials and for their toxicology assessment. RMs and RTMs can play a crucial role in ensuring the reliability of such measurement results. In the legislative context, measurements must be based on reliable methods (to CEN or ISO standards, for example) with well-characterised materials (RTMs, RMs) used for method development and implementation. RMs and CRMs are needed for quality assurance to ensure that measurement results in legal context are comparable and correct (for laboratory accreditation and method validation).

EC JRC CRMs for nanoparticles are available with certified values of particle size (e.g. spherical silica particles in suspension), shape (e.g. TiO2 nanorods in suspension), and surface area (powders). There will soon also be CRMs for surface charge (density) analysis and industrially relevant nanoparticles with a broad particle size distribution (powders). EC JRC RTMs have been produced in support of various activities including the work of the OECD Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials and projects, for example, NanoChOp and NanoDefine. They are available through the JRC Nanomaterials Repository¹²⁷. CRMs are also available from other providers, including BAM¹²⁸ (DE), PTB (DE), NIST (USA), NMIJ (JP), NCNST (CN) and from commercial producers. RMs and RTMs are also available from NIST (USA), from commercial producers and in the context of specific research projects¹²⁹, with time-limited availability¹³⁰.

¹²⁷ https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/scientific-tool/jrc-nanomaterials-repository

¹²⁸ www.comar.bam.de

¹²⁹ NanoDefine, NanoChOp, NanoLyse

¹³⁰ See http://www.nano-refmat.bam.de/en/. This site only lists materials released prior to 2015.

¹³¹ Later in the Summit, it was seen that currently materials considered representative for secondary microplastics are being created, somewhat ad hoc, in the laboratory through methods including ball and bead milling and artificial weathering.

¹³² http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/nanosafety/publications-series-safety-manufactured-nanomaterials.htm; www.oecd.org/env/nanosafety

A survey conducted by the JRC aimed to help establish priorities for nanoscale CRMs, RMs and RTMs.¹³¹ It identified that RMs and RTMs are needed to support policy in many sectors including food and food contact materials, chemicals, cosmetics, medicines and biocides, and for toxicology and eco-toxicology work. Relevant properties sought from respondents that are already partly covered by reference material producers are: size (distribution), surface properties (including area), biological (toxicological) properties, chemical composition and shape. Those also sought but not yet in the JRC work programme include concentration in a matrix; aggregation, agglomeration and structure; particle number (concentration), solubility and stability, dispersibility and dustiness. The types of nanomaterials sought by respondents and available from RM producers include TiO2, silica and other oxides, silver and other metals, and carbon-based materials such as carbon nanotubes and graphene. Also sought and under development by the JRC are (C)RMs for complex matrices, such as food and cosmetics. It was noted that the need for (C)RMs for medicine and medicinal products seem to be underrepresented, although the survey was shared as widely as possible via EU Commission channels (e.g. standardisation committees and industry associations).

Mar Gonzalez (Environment Health and Safety Division, Environment Directorate, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)) presented OECD work supporting the regulation of nanomaterials¹³². The OECD Council Recommendation on Nanomaterials (Sept. 2013) chose to integrate “nano” into the work of the OECD Chemicals Programme which covers test guidelines, exposure assessment methods and risk assessment approaches. Driven by regulatory needs, the aim of the OECD’s Chemicals Programme is to help member and partner countries of the OECD to protect humans and the environment, to gain efficiency in chemicals management by developing and harmonising testing and assessment methodologies, and to avoid duplication of resources used by governments and industries. It does not cover pharmaceuticals¹³³.

¹³³ See, for information, the work of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use

Legally binding on OECD member countries and other adherents, the Mutual Acceptance of Data in the Assessment of Chemicals (MAD) is for industrial chemicals, pharmaceuticals, pesticides, biocides, food and feed additives and cosmetics. It reduces duplication of testing (saving an estimated EUR 350 million annually) and the use of animals, and lowers trade barriers. The OECD Test Guidelines are covered by MAD and aim to meet the regulatory needs of member countries regarding data requirements, while addressing animal welfare issues, and improving the cost-effectiveness of test methods.

At the international level, scientific and regulatory acceptance of a Test Guideline can be helped by having a clear regulatory context across several countries, knowing the regulatory requirements before undertaking data collection (assays). An OECD Test Guideline can be developed and published within a two-year period, but some have taken up to 10 years to finalise. To facilitate the process, there should be early discussions between method developers and regulators, and all stakeholder need to adopt an issue solving attitude. There needs to be clarity about the intended use of the assay or battery of assays and their purposes e.g. for priority setting, hazard identification, or risk assessment. The assay needs to be broadly available and accessible. Scientific acceptance can be fostered by having clarity of experimental data and of the applicability domain covered. There also needs to be clarity and transparency of the protocol, sufficient characterisation of the test system and the guarantee that the protocol will be maintained over time. Clear data prediction and interpretation models are needed as well as fit-for-purpose validation processes. The data needs to be available in the public domain.

The challenges for regulation of nanomaterials include risk assessment approaches and their harmonisation, methods for exposure assessment, dosimetry of nanomaterials, physico-chemical characterisation, and finding alternative methods (e.g. for non-animal testing). The importance of breaking out of regulatory silos was highlighted. Other challenges are achieving policy coherence and regulatory convergence, and how to integrate the new approach of safe-by-design. Progress can only be made with consensus and willing, and change takes time. Although the need (for risk assessment, regulatory advances) is immediate, even Test Guidelines take time. In parallel, clear definitions are needed for existing and new nanomaterials, including those based on converging technologies such as biotechnology and nanotechnology.

On standards for nanomaterials, the OECD mostly works with ISO (International Organization for Standardization), the next presentation being by Denis Koltsov (ISO/TC229, Nanotechnologies) who spoke on Nanotechnology standards for industry, regulators and other stakeholders.

Since the 2000s, the development of nanotechnology has led to an enormous investment in nanomaterials production. Although the original hype has been somewhat tempered, it is still forecast that the market for manufactured nanomaterials will reach up to USD 100 billion by 2025. ISO is engaged in the development of standards for nanomaterials under its technical committee ISO/TC229. An ISO standard is a documentary standard that represents the current best practice and consensus of all stakeholders (countries and organisations). Standards facilitate compatibility and comparison of products, materials and services and, in the case of safety standards for products, facilitate consumer acceptance. While it may at first seem costly to comply with a standard, they save businesses time and money.

The development process for standards begins with a draft developed at national level through consultation with all stakeholders and accepted as best practice at national level, through a process that varies in duration from one month to one year. The next step is an ISO Draft Document that is commented on by all ISO members and accepted by ISO experts (typically taking two to four years).

The final ISO International Document is approved by ISO, accepted by ISO members and becomes a global reference. ISO/TC229 aims through this process to contact as wide a stakeholder group as possible to avoid redundant and duplicated work.

ISO/TC 229 Nanotechnologies was founded in 2005 and has a membership of 33 participating and 19 observing countries. It has developed 61 standards and related informative documents (about one-third of the 61 are Technical Reports), and 37¹³⁴ are under development¹³⁵. The scope of ISO/TC229 is standardisation in the field of nanotechnologies that includes either or both of the following: (1) Understanding and control of matter and processes at the nanoscale, typically, but not exclusively, below 100 nanometres in one or more dimensions where the onset of size-dependent phenomena usually enables novel applications; (2) Utilising the properties of nanoscale materials that differ from the properties of individual atoms, molecules, and bulk matter, to create improved materials, devices and systems that exploit these new properties.

¹³⁴ Includes technical reports, technical specifications and standard test methods.

¹³⁵ In comparison, CEN/TC 352 Nanotechnologies, also founded in 2005, involves 34 European countries, has developed 14 standards and has 13 in development while ASTM International TC E56 Nanotechnology (also 2005) has over 180 individual members, 20 standards published and 19 standards in development.

¹³⁶ International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Technical Committee 113 on Nanotechnology standardisation for electrical and electronic products and systems

¹³⁷ http://www.vamas.org

Specific tasks include developing standards for: terminology and nomenclature; metrology and instrumentation, including specifications for reference materials; test methodologies; modelling and simulation; and science-based health, safety, and environmental practices.

ISO/TC229 liaises and has agreements with a number of other international committees working on nanomaterials including the OECD Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN), CEN/TC352, IEC/TC113¹³⁶ and ASTM E56. In addition to a nanotechnology liaison and coordination group (NLCG) and a sustainability, consumer and societal dimensions group (SCASD), ISO/TC229 has five Working Groups: terminology and nomenclature (5); measurement and characterisation (21); health, safety and environment (11); material specifications (13); and products and applications (2), the number in parentheses being the number of standards and informative documents under development by each group (January 2018). While Working Groups are typically led by one country or organisation, ISO/TC229 also uses a system of study groups to explore areas needing standardisation work, but too big for one country to lead. While most ISO TCs are vertical and address one file, ISO/TC229 is horizontal and therefore is more wide ranging than other TCs.

It was noted that standards are the consolidation of well-established knowledge and their development is funded by the developer, so standardisation is usually not a primary way of sharing new research information. However, inter-laboratory studies can be undertaken within publicly financed research projects (e.g. under the Versailles Project on Advanced Materials and Standards (VAMAS)¹³⁷) and contribute to the information used in the final development of a standard.

Bryant C Nelson (National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), USA) presented some Challenges in standardising in vitro assays for the evaluation of nano-enabled drug products. The two key criteria for in vitro assays to support regulatory decision-making are relevance (the ability of a test method to measure or predict an effect/target of interest as well as the regulatory need, and incorporating fit-for-purpose) and reliability (the extent of reproducibility of results from a test within (intra-) and among (inter-) laboratories over time, when performed using the same standardised protocol or process (SOP)).

Some major challenges in test methods and documentary standards for in vitro assays include that high-quality test methods are difficult, time consuming and costly to develop, while even what is considered high quality may suffer from a variability of source data. There is also a critical shortage of pre-competitive test methods and documentary standards compared to the increasing number of drug product submissions containing nanomaterials and limited availability and application of in vitro assay measurement assurance frameworks. The shortage of test methods and standards affects characterisation of quality attributes and manufacturing efficiency. Transferability of in vitro assays is also difficult. For example, many in vitro assays, even the ‘simple ones’, fail during interlaboratory comparisons.

Measurement assurance frameworks should be more widespread as they are important for ensuring measurement confidence in the results from in vitro, as well as other, assays. To achieve measurement assurance for test methods, NIST is, inter alia, comprehensively identifying and evaluating the sources of variability; carefully designing its experiments to avoid variations; establishing robust in-process controls; performing interlaboratory comparisons; and developing reference materials for traceability.

Normative and pre-normative activities for nanomaterials measurement and characterisation were presented by Charles Clifford (National Physical Laboratory (NPL), United Kingdom). Industrial developments in nanomaterials are leading to the production of both high volume, low cost and highly specialised materials. The former (high volume, low cost materials) present a situation where production volume can outstrip application need and there is competition to sell at the lowest price, which may lead to poor quality materials. Standards are essential for their quality assurance. The latter (highly specialised materials) have properties tailored to each application and highly specific properties such as surface functionalisation, size and shape. As seen in previous presentations at GSRS19, standards are also needed for these novel materials.

The Surface Technology Group of the NPL works on unique reference materials, interlaboratory studies and documentary standards. It engages via VAMAS to provide input to the work on surface chemical analysis, nanoparticle populations, graphene and Raman spectroscopy, that then feeds into the international bodies ISO/TC229 and CEN/TC352. For example, NPL has contributed to VAMAS work on nanoparticle number concentration, the aim being to achieve comparability and reproducibility of the measurement of number concentration of nanoparticles¹³⁸, and to disseminate best practice for sample preparation and measurement. This VAMAS project involved 53 institutions mainly in Europe (over 75%), including National Metrology Institutes (NMIs), companies, research organisations, and academia, and resulted in 73 submitted measurement reports. Such collaborative international work can make a significant contribution in the development of standards of industrial importance and that are based on valid and repeatable results.

¹³⁸ with techniques of UV-Vis, spICPMS, PTA and DCS (plus SAXS)

There is a clear opportunity to improve standards and regulatory science by testing and validating methods using VAMAS interlaboratory studies. In addition to good quality and reproducible data, there needs to be greater clarity in terminology for standards, and the development of specific measurement methods, including methods for specific materials. Overlapping standards from different organisations should be avoided.

There are more than 100 medical device applications containing nanomaterials or related to nanotechnology in China. In his talk on Standards and evaluations of nanomedical devices in China, Liming Xie (National Centre for NanoScience and Technology (NCNST), China) provided specific examples of how the medical regulations applicable to certain materials have changed over time in China.

One example was that of medical devices containing nano-silver. In 2006, such devices were assigned as Class III medical products. In 2009, there was an initial discussion on the standards and experimental supporting information (characterisation and clinical evaluation) needed for product registration. In 2010, there was a subsequent discussion on more details for product registration. Finally, in 2015, it was decided that products containing nanosilver in the form of a solution or gel would not be considered as medical devices but should be categorised as drugs.

Chinese organisations work with bodies such as ISO as a means to fully support the development, characterisation and regulation of medical devices and drug containing nanomaterials. This includes work on guidance (characterisation and bio-evaluation), technical standards (standardisation of current methods and development of new methods), reference materials and fundamental research (e.g. looking at the molecular mechanism of the biological effect of certain nanomaterials). Collaborations across China have the common goal of creating a national top-level characterisation and evaluation platform for nanomedical devices (later also for nanodrugs). One such collaboration is between the NCNCT and the National Institutes for Food and Drug Control (NIFDC) (including the NCNST-NIFDC Joint Laboratory for Measurement and Evaluation of Nanomaterials in Medical Applications) and the Centre for Medical Device Evaluation (CMDE)¹³⁹. The tasks being undertaken are fundamental research on bio-effects of medical nanomaterials, development of national standards and reference materials, and certified characterisation and evaluation of medical devices containing nanotechnology.

¹³⁹ www.cmde.org.cn

¹⁴⁰ SAC: Standardization Administration of the People's Republic of China (SAC)

¹⁴¹ https://www.fda.gov/drugs/generic-drugs/science-research

Guidance and standards are both needed in regulation, and work on national standards in nano-and biotechnology is being undertaken by SAC¹⁴⁰/TC279 (National Technical Committee 279 on Nanotechnology)), which has developed standards for applications of silver nanomaterials, gold nanoparticles and carbon-based nanomaterials. More than 40 technical protocols have been developed (14 for physico-chemical, 26 for in vitro biological effects and 4 for in vivo biological effects) and some of these protocols can be applied to other nanomaterials.

In the future, it is planned to continue close cooperation with the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) (formerly known as the Chinese FDA), on guidance, standards, reference materials, characterisation and bio-effect evaluations. There will be a joint platform between the NMPA and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) on regulatory science for innovative medicines. More international collaboration is planned on standards, characterisation and other key issues of regulatory science. As there are many documents only in Mandarin, it could be beneficial for international cooperation to translate them into English and send them, for example, to ISO. It was noted that as NCNST is a non-profit organisation, its reference materials can be sent outside China at no cost.

The U.S. FDA’s Office of Research and Standards (ORS) works to make safe and effective generic drugs available to the American public, implementing standards based on the best available science and the results of the regulatory science research. Wenlei Jiang (FDA, USA) gave a brief overview of diverse FDA-approved nanotechnology drug products and introduced the concept of product-specific guidance to support generic nanotechnology product development in her presentation on Regulating generic nanotechnology drug products: Guidances and standards. Approved nanomaterial-containing products are based on liposomes, inorganic nanoparticles, protein nanoparticles, polymer nanoparticles, emulsions, lipid complexes, nanotubes, nanocrystals and micelles. These products are used to combat diseases such as cancer, anaemia, macular degeneration and others.

The ORS implements the FDA’s regulatory science and research programme¹⁴¹, provides pre-submission scientific advice on equivalence standards, consults and reviews complex scientific issues and ensures therapeutic equivalence of approved generic drugs. Generic drugs are “copies” of their respective reference listed drugs (RLDs), generally with the same active ingredient(s), conditions of use, route of administration, dosage form, strength and (with certain permissible differences) labelling, and are therefore bioequivalent.

In the development of standards for nanotechnology, the speaker identified steps from identification of a need, stakeholder engagement, assay development, and validation, to the identification of experts to undertake reviews, the iterative process to address all comments, and the final standard ready for interlaboratory studies. The Nanotechnology Standards Database is hosted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and contains published and government documents, and documents under development. Major gaps in standards for nanomedicines were identified in a recent paper, which includes methods, guidance, reference materials and the evaluation of the suitability and recognition of standards developed in other sectors.54

On characterisation methods for standards development, the speaker highlighted that most methods are highly product-specific and multiple different methods have been developed by different labs. Advanced analytical methods are not always the most readily available ones. In summary, it was seen that documentary standards are complementary to product-specific guidance for generic nanotechnology drug product development and to support generic nanotechnology drug product development and review, there is a need to continue developing product-specific guidance, to promote harmonisation of assessment criteria, and to support characterisation method development into standards.

Shan Zou (National Research Council (NRC), Canada) presented work on the Characterisation of nanomaterials and their cytotoxicity assessment. Significant advances in nanometrology, the science of measurement at the nanoscale, are crucial for the continued development of nanotechnology-based consumer products. The NRC works to enable a better understanding and adoption of new nanomaterials through advanced characterisation methods and the development of standards and certified reference materials (CRMs).

New and integrated measurement approaches with higher spatial resolution, accuracy and sensitivity are essential to fully characterise nanomaterials. NMIs¹⁴² are developing traceable instrumentation and measurement techniques for calibration as well as standards and reference materials and suitable models for uncertainty evaluation. They are also conducting international measurement comparisons via inter-laboratory comparisons to demonstrate repeatability and reproducibility. The speaker highlighted that “Incomplete characterisation of nanomaterials is a major drawback in many studies, making it difficult to reproduce and validate experiments”¹⁴³.

¹⁴² National Metrology Institutes

¹⁴³ Beilstein, J Nanotechnol. 9: 1050–10742018.

Many questions have been raised about the potential impact of nanomaterials on human health and the environment. New measurement methods combined with the monitoring of toxic responses using cellular model and assay systems are expected to provide insights for the risk assessment of nanomaterials. The NRC is looking at the new area of nanocarbon metrology and developing quantitative metrological assessment protocols for the characterisation of nanotubes and graphene related materials. A Special Interest Group (SIG) of NRC Metrology and Canadian companies is facilitating the development of standards for graphene made by exfoliation methods. There are also many Canadian contributions to international standards activities (IEC/TC113, ISO/TC229, ASTM E56) and links to worldwide nanoscale measurements and nanomaterial metrology efforts.

Panel discussion

The discussion focused on the research gaps and/or priorities in regulatory science in test guidelines, documentary standards and reference materials for nanotechnology and how these can be addressed.

One area needing more work in standards development is methods for liposomes. ASTM E56 has one published standard on liposomes and four standard test methods being developed. ISO/TC 229 has ideas on standardisation for measuring liposomes, but this field is challenging as there is still much research being done. It was noted that ISO/TC 229 and ASTM both use metrology checklists to identify the relevance and maturity of proposals for standardisation before initiating any work.

While there are standardisation documents based on the use of specific instrument types and techniques, properties of nanomaterials are method-defined and may be better served by standards that encompass the entire method, starting with the sample preparation, choice of instrument and reference materials. This would remedy the frequent need to use a combination of standards to obtain the desired result. Full standards also require interlaboratory comparisons to confirm the transferability of the method. It was noted that ASTM uses a specific template for reporting research results of interlaboratory studies (ILS) supported by the ASTM’s ILS Programme and that the US Pharmacopeia proposes to develop both general standards and product-specific ones with detailed testing conditions.

As there is a legal requirement to reduce animal testing in the EU (and it is banned for cosmetics), harmonisation, via the OECD to ensure regulatory uptake, and standardisation for in vitro methods is urgently required. Communication across regulatory silos (e.g. different pieces of legislation) and exchange of knowledge could help to promote in vitro testing. Such communication has been implemented in the EU project REFINE under its ‘cross-fertilisation strategy across sectors’. The project EU project Gov4Nano also provides an opportunity in its event for risk assessors to discuss risk assessment for nanomaterials.

The question of having an efficient process for overall standardisation was raised. It was noted that the OECD does not develop standards, but rather Test Guidelines for regulatory testing that are applicable to “all” chemicals or “all” nanomaterials, not to specific ones. When needed, OECD Test Guidelines refer to, for example, ISO standards, which are either applied as such or adapted in order to implement specific steps. ISO and ASTM representatives recognised that there is some duplication of standards between the two standardisation bodies.

To utilise evident synergies, it was proposed to set up a working group to look into the co-ordination of documents under development and to identify priority areas (e.g. standards on liposomes, nanomaterial toxicity) and gaps that could be jointly addressed. The Global Coalition could have a role as a facilitator of communication among different standardisation bodies, which tend to have different priorities and business models. Another suggestion was to collaborate on laboratory activities related to standardisation, for example in inter-laboratory validation, similarly to what has been done by the USA and EU Nanomedicine Characterisation Laboratories. During the discussion, it was also pointed out that nanoscience is still in the development phase: thus some well-established (i.e. fully developed and validated) methods ready to be standardised are not available yet.

It was further remarked that industry needs simple measurement technologies and methods. Therefore, any advanced laboratory methodology is probably better suited to the validation of such simple methods, rather than to being used directly by industry.

A GCRSR Standards Group was proposed to improve communication specifically on international standards, with membership to include GCRSR, ISO, ASTM, CEN, OECD, etc. The panel discussion concluded with a call for volunteers willing to contribute to the proposed group.

7 Challenges concerning Nanoplastics

Co-chairs: Anil K. Patri (FDA, USA) and Arnd Hoeveler (EC JRC, EU)

The final plenary session addressed the challenges of nanoplastics such as definitions, characterisation and measurement, and highlighted some current scientific and regulatory activities.

Based on the SAPEA¹⁴⁴ report¹⁴⁵ Nanna B. Hartmann (DTU, Denmark) discussed Risks of micro- and nanoplastics to humans and the environment. In this regard, terminology is of critical importance is terminology as, without a shared understanding it is difficult to clearly categorise plastic debris and create a framework to tackle environmental problems resulting from plastics, including nanoplastics. The aim should be the establishment of a clear nomenclature and research to provide a scientific foundation for discussions about harmonised regulatory definitions and mitigation policies for plastic debris.

¹⁴⁴ Part of the European Commission’s Scientific Advice Mechanism, SAPEA (Scientific Advice for Policy by European Academies) works closely with the European Commission’s Group of Chief Scientific Advisors.

¹⁴⁵ SAPEA Report (2019) “A scientific perspective on Microplastics in nature and society”

¹⁴⁶ Hartmann, NB, et al. 2019, 'Are We Speaking the Same Language? Recommendations for a Definition and Categorization Framework for Plastic Debris', Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 1039-1047. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b05297

¹⁴⁷ GESAMP Report (2015) “Sources, Fates and Effects of Microplastics in the Marine Environment: A Global Assessment”

¹⁴⁸ UNEP Frontiers (2016) Report “Emerging Issues of Environmental Concern”

In a recent publication Hartmann et al.¹⁴⁶ defined “plastic debris” as objects consisting of synthetic or heavily modified natural polymers as an essential ingredient that, when present in natural environments without fulfilling an intended function, are solid and insoluble at 20°C. Plastic debris can be further categorised according to size, including sub-micron and nanoplastics (i.e. 1-1000 nm), shape, colour, and origin.

There is currently no adequate analytical methodology to detect and characterise nanoplastics. Although the presence of nanoplastics in nature is generally considered highly plausible, there is still little or no information on their presence in freshwater, soil or the atmosphere, in biota, drinking water or food. The SAPEA report states that “exposure to microplastics in the laboratory has a significant, negative effect on food consumption, growth, reproduction and survival, once effect thresholds are exceeded”. Studies have, for example, shown adverse effects in duckweed, algal photosynthesis, marine biota, molluscs and copepods. Nanoplastics and very small microplastics can pass biological barriers such as the gut epithelium. However, the studies used much higher concentrations of plastics than those currently reported in the environment, or very small microplastics for which limited exposure data exists, or spherical particles not representative of real-world particles, or were conducted using relatively short exposure times. Thus, the studies may not apply to the situation in the natural environment.

It is as yet unclear whether nano- and microplastics cause chemical toxicity in marine organisms¹⁴⁷ and whether such plastics may present an attributable risk to human health when they enter the food-chain¹⁴⁸. However, there is a gap is between ‘real’ environmental exposure (in terms of concentrations, sizes, shapes, polymer types, weathering states) and exposure in lab-based studies, making risk assessment theoretical and not reliable. To close this gap, improved analytical methods and sampling procedures are needed to enable the production of reliable data on concentrations and properties of nano- and microplastics in the environment.

Plastics contain not only polymers but also small organic chemicals (additives, residual monomers, polymerisation aids) that can leach out once nano- and microplastics are released into the environment. At the same time, the plastic material can take up other hydrophobic organic chemicals (HOCs) from the environment. Laboratory studies indicate that HOCs can be transferred from plastics to tissues of various organisms, but evidence is weak to support the occurrence of ecologically significant adverse effects on aquatic life because of exposure to microplastics. In addition, there are many other (direct) ways of uptake of chemicals, from food, prey or ambient water, which likely far exceed the uptake of chemicals via plastics.

In summary, current evidence of ecotoxicological effects of microplastics is limited. However, if environmental emission rates remain unchanged, ecological risks of microplastics may be widespread within a century. More (quantitative and qualitative) information is needed on environmental (and human) exposure to nanoplastics, enabled by improved and harmonised measurement methods. While there is ongoing work to improve analytical methods for microplastics, new (and multiple) methods are required for the analysis of nanoplastics. This must be complemented with the production of relevant hazard data and a better understanding of the potential modes of toxicity for different sizes, shapes and types of nano- and microplastics.

Julien Gigault (CR-CNRS, France) also addressed the topic of Nanoplastics in the real world: source, presence and environmental fate. To establish the scale of the potential problem, sources were quoted which estimate that while in 2015 alone eight million metric tonnes of waste plastic ended up in the oceans, the fate of 99% of the material is unknown. Mention was made of a nanoplastics consortium, which is seeking to develop analytical methodologies to characterise nanoplastics and to develop a model for investigating the fate and impact of nanoplastics.

As a starting point, nanoplastics were defined as any plastic from 1 nm up to 1000 nm in size existing as single particle or in homo- and/or hetero-aggregate form, resulting from the degradation of bulk or macroscopic plastic objects. Nanoplastics are difficult to detect. A consequence of their origin from degradation of a variety of plastic objects is that they are highly poly-dispersed in physical properties and heterogeneous in composition. Nanoplastics may present colloidal properties in aqueous media and thus may remain suspended in aqueous systems. A dedicated analytical strategy was developed and revealed the need for models, based on structure, shape, surface, composition, etc., in order to calibrate methods and for use in experimental studies.

While the oceans are typically considered the principle environmental compartment contaminated with microplastics and nanoplastics, large amounts of plastic waste have also been buried in soils and left to decay for many years, thus forming a source of plastic particulates which may be carried by ground water into the aquatic environment. Such plastic-contaminated soils represent a source of naturally generated microplastics. A detailed case study was presented in which the analysis methods and results obtained from plastic-containing soil samples were described. Soil leachates have been found to contain polyethylene (PE), naphthalene, styrene and toluene. It was noted that although styrene may come from plastics, it is also a pyrolysis product of natural organic matter.

Nanoplastics are found to be highly mobile in soil and the organic matter present seems to have a strong influence on the fate of the plastic debris. Additives may increase transportation efficiency while increasing size and asymmetrical shape may be linked to increasing deposition. Shape also has an impact on the manner of the deposition. It is necessary to employ multiple methods for detection and characterisation, and methods for microplastics may not be sufficient to detect and measure nanoplastics. The speaker cautioned against extrapolation from one nanomaterial (a specific nanoplastic) being a potential hazard to all nanomaterials (all nanoplastics) being dangerous. Proper communication is particularly important if the public is to be well informed and if a balanced understanding of the benefits and risks of applications of nanotechnology is to be achieved.

In addition, categorisation of all nanomaterials based on one nanomaterial should be avoided and caution is needed in comparing nanomaterials with other materials. In his presentation: Detecting nanoplastics in the environment: adapting existing methods from nanotechnology, Souhail Al-Abed (EPA, USA) emphasised that it is unlikely that a regulation designed for microplastics, for example, will be applicable to nanoplastics. He raised issues of terminology and comparability of data, particularly for nanoparticles, and round robin testing. Comparing micro- to nanoplastics, it has been found that nanoplastics are physically less likely to settle than microplastics and they will typically be transported over longer distances than larger plastics. Nanoplastics are more likely to enter the food chain and to bioaccumulate. They have a larger surface area than microplastics, facilitating faster leaching of additives and greater adsorption of metals and organic pollutants. Overall, better extraction methods are needed if work on nanoparticles is to be undertaken, including the avoidance of issues of contamination. Current characterisation methods, such as dynamic light scattering (DLS), nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA), and electron microscopy (TEM/SEM), all provide information about size and possibly shape, but are not able to differentiate between diverse polymers. Improved and emerging techniques include pyrolysis-GC/MS; atomic force microscopy - infrared spectroscopy (AFM-IR); and cloud point extraction (CPE).

The dilemma of environmental analyses is that it is not possible to develop a detection method without an adequate extraction method that eliminates interferences e.g. by non-plastic nanomaterials. At the same time, it is not possible to develop an adequate extraction method without a viable detection method to confirm analyte recovery and removal efficiency for interferences. Thus, it would help to establish reference materials for nanoplastics (e.g. polymer nanospheres) and to use such materials to test the efficiency of existing extraction methods for nanoplastics and to improve extraction methods with new filters, flotation media, settling times, etc. This could be a long iterative process and, indeed, may only be suited to near-spherical nanoplastic particles.

In addition, the speaker proposed a new abbreviation for nanoplastics (NPls) to avoid confusion with the abbreviation for nanoparticles (NPs). He encouraged the idea of defining the size range for nanoplastics as being 1 – 1000 nm. Even in studies that focus on microplastics, standards for nanoplastics should be included in evaluating extraction and detection efficiencies. Existing microplastics techniques need to be adapted for nanoplastics – either by coupling them with other techniques (AFM-IR) or by pre-treatment to aggregate the nanoplastics (CPE). Collective regulatory actions should include achieving established and verified methodologies for extraction, detection and characterisation of nanoplastics alongside microplastics.

Douglas Gilliland (EC JRC, EU) considered the question of What can the analytics of nanomaterials bring to the detection of nanoplastics? In his introduction, the speaker outlined the commonly-used classification of nano- and micro-plastic particles based on their origin - either primary particles that have been manufactured at the micro- or nano-scale (e.g. for inks, paints, cosmetics and abrasives) or secondary particles resulting from the breakdown of plastics from bulk materials as a result of being subjected to wear that is mechanical, chemical or light-induced.

Subsequently, when considering whether existing nanoparticle analytical methods could be used for nano- and microplastics, an important issue, which was highlighted, was that many engineered nanomaterials are inorganic in nature and thus more easily distinguished/identified in the presence of a background organic matrix materials via elemental detection methods such as ICP-MS (inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry). In contrast, micro- and nano-plastic being mostly composed of the same elements (carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen) as natural organic materials are more difficult to unambiguously identify and quantify. It was highlighted that some established analytical methods such micro-Raman and micro-FTIR can be effective for identifying microplastics although there is a need for further development and, above all, harmonisation and standardisation. For the smaller-sized nanoplastics, these methods are not effective and, in agreement with previous speakers, it was reiterated that there is a need for new methods to assess their presence, identity (including shape) and quantity in complex matrices such food, water and environmental samples. A number of existing methods for characterising engineered nanomaterials were described and consideration given to their potential use in the analysis of nano- and microplastics. The speaker presented several examples of studies into potentially applicable techniques for nanoplastic fractionation, sizing and chemical analysis including the specific instrumentation (such as electron microscopy (SEM)) that fall into this category.

In concluding, the speaker noted that the study of sub-10 micron plastic particles presents major challenges particularly if particle identification is required. Nanoplastics analysis methods can benefit from selected methods used for engineered nanomaterials. Key challenges that remain to be resolved include sample extraction, concentration and handling (avoiding contamination), and improving sensitivity and specificity. It is essential that there be a clear definition of the information required and the related metrics. Materials for medical applications and other ‘soft’ engineered particles may be a driver for the development of new analytical technologies for nanoplastics, given the common use of organic based nanomaterials in diagnostic and therapeutic health applications.

Iseult Lynch (University of Birmingham, UK) introduced the “100 Plastic Rivers Project” in her presentation on Harmonising detection, quantification and impact assessment of micro/nanoplastics in freshwater environmental hotspots. The project entails a large group of microplastics researchers sampling 100 rivers worldwide using the same inexpensive sampling device to capture small plastic particles. Sampling takes place, for example, in different climate situations (e.g. before and after monsoon) and locations (e.g. up- and down-stream of wastewater treatment plants). The project aims to create a global database of plastic materials found in rivers and gathered using the same sampling technique. First, the focus is on optimising the methods for mesoplastics (increasing sensitivity and reducing or ideally eliminating contamination) before applying them to microplastics. Once the techniques are effective in the laboratory, they will be tested for real-world applicability on unknown plastics (e.g. collected on a beach).

The speaker identified the need for harmonisation of methods and for more robust method development and testing. There is also a need to understand the effects, if any, of exposure to the plastics themselves and to any co-pollutants that they may have acquired (e.g. contaminants), and to move from observational and descriptive to hypothesis-driven research. The current research gaps and priorities in regulatory science related to nanoplastics highlighted by the speaker included methods for the isolation of nano-fractions; robust, high throughput methods for detection and quantification against biotic backgrounds; standardised “aged/weathered” samples for hazard assessment, co-transport, biomagnification etc., and hazard testing in accumulation hot spots.

The first results of the RealRiskNano Project¹⁴⁹ were presented by Ted Henry (Heriot-Watt University, UK) in Distinguishing the realistic environmental risks of nanoplastics by investigating fate and toxicology in real-world scenarios. Considering that some microbes form agglomerates with nanoplastics, the project aims to evaluate their formation and their presence in environmental locations, evaluate their toxicology and biological effects, and investigate the sorption of co-contaminants. Sorption and bioavailability are investigated by measuring changes in biomarker gene expression.

¹⁴⁹ UK NERC (NE/N006526/1)

Looking at microplastics, it was found that ingestion occurs in biota, but absorption is low and depuration is rapid. Any reduction in sorption and bioavailability depends on the context. The effects in mesocosm organisms are minimal even at very high concentrations. Human exposure to microplastics via consumption of seafood is low compared to other sources. For example, the uptake of microplastics from eating contaminated mussels is estimated to be less than the microplastic contamination from the dust falling onto the plate during the meal.

It was concluded that more work needs to be done to determine the extent to which nanoplastics are formed in the environment and to see where those particles accumulate. The relationship between the morphology, behaviour and impact of the particles needs to be clarified, looking, for example, at whether some shapes of nanoplastics (e.g. fibres) are particularly problematic. The speaker emphasised that achieving a circular economy for plastics is challenging and that there is a need to work globally and across disciplines to address the challenges, including incorporating plastic recycle/reuse into product design.

Alfonso Lampen (BfR, Germany) gave a presentation on Micro- and nanoplastics in food: oral uptake, toxicology and initial aspects of risk assessment. There have been reports of the occurrence of plastics in a variety of food products including bivalves¹⁵⁰, salt¹⁵¹ and mineral water¹⁵². The plastics can come from plastic wrapping, bottles and tubes, but also from manufacturing processes. Although microplastics occur in food, there is no harmonised definition of microplastics (in terms of size and morphology) and no appropriate methods of quantification. Since risk depends on the potential hazard, the exposure and the uptake, there is insufficient data to make a clear risk assessment in such cases. Despite that, recent research¹⁵³ has reported that the contamination of foodstuffs by micro- and nano-plastic particles released spontaneously from packaging materials seems rather unlikely.

¹⁵⁰ L. Van Cauwenberghe and C. R. Janssen : Microplastics in bivalves cultured for human consumption: Environmental Pollution Vol 193, pp 65-70, 2014.

¹⁵¹ A. Karami et al. : The presence of microplastics in commercial salts from diverse countries : Scientific Reports, 2017.

¹⁵² D. Schymanski et al. : Release of plastic particles from different packaging into mineral water : Water Research 129 pp 154-162, 2018.

¹⁵³ B. Toussaint et al. : Review of micro- and nanoplastics contamination in the food chain, Food additives and contaminants Part A, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp 639-673, 2019

¹⁵⁴ https://echa.europa.eu/hot-topics/microplastics

¹⁵⁵ https://www.echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/12414bc7-6bb2-17e7-c9ec-652a20fa43fc

¹⁵⁶ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/plastic_waste.htm

¹⁵⁷ Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC) / Predicted No Effect Concentration (PNEC)

¹⁵⁸ Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT) / very Persistent and very Bioaccumulative (vPvB)

In general, the skin, when intact, is a good barrier against chemicals and other agents that are, for example, carried by cosmetics. Uptake from foodstuff tend to be small and plastics have been found to persist the digestive process (saliva, digestion enzymes, etc.) in humans. Human digestion fluids are not able to degrade or change plastic materials.

In summary, microplastics can accumulate in the environment and reach the food chain but their uptake from nutrition, their bioavailability and the toxicological mechanisms are not fully understood. Further research is needed concerning material characterisation, detection and cellular uptake and effects, even though, according to the current understanding, the risk to consumers is low.

Sylvain Bintein (EC DG ENV, EU) presented the Proposal of ECHA (the European Chemicals Agency) for a restriction of intentionally-added microplastics and nanoplastics.¹⁵⁴, 155 The concerns¹⁵⁶ about microplastics and nanoplastics derives from them being easily ingested due to their small size. They can enter into the food chain when being mistaken for food, e.g. by suspension feeders. Laboratory studies have reported a variety of adverse effects including toxicity. The materials tend to fragment into smaller and smaller particles and are resistant to (bio)degradation, leading to a potential long-term, irreversible accumulation in the environment.

ECHA has concluded that the release of intentionally added microplastics can pose a risk that is not adequately controlled. At the same time, it is acknowledged that the current data provides an incomplete picture of the situation. There are several risk assessment approaches being implemented under REACH: threshold-based (PEC/PNEC)¹⁵⁷ and non-threshold-based (PBT/vPvB)¹⁵⁸ approaches. A case-by-case approach is also an option. However, a significant issue is the lack of a consistent definition of the terms “microplastic” and “nanoplastic”. “Microplastic” is typically considered to refer to small solid particles composed of synthetic polymers that are non-degradable, a less than 5mm size criterion being often used.

The proposed restriction of intentionally added microplastics and nanoplastics includes different regulatory measures: (a) prohibition on ‘placing on the market’; (b) derogated uses (for natural/biodegradable polymers and uses without foreseeable micro-plastic release); (c) labelling obligations (for uses where microplastic release can be minimised with instructions for use); and (d) mandatory reporting requirements (of identity, description of use, tonnage, releases). Outside the scope of the ECHA restriction would be materials that occur in nature and have not been chemically modified, or materials that are (bio)degradable. Other proposed derogations from the ban (that would be subject to labelling and/or reporting) include microplastics used at industrial sites, used in medicinal products for human/veterinary use, contained throughout their life-cycle (e.g. in a solid matrix) or permanently modified at the point of use so they are no longer considered as being microplastics (e.g. coatings, films).

Public consultation on the proposed restriction ended in September 2019. Following scrutiny by ECHA’s committees for risk assessment (RAC) and socio-economic analysis (SEAC), the final Committee opinions will be sent to the Commission for decision-making in summer/autumn 2020. Any resulting restriction could potentially enter into force in summer 2021.

The presenter noted that research is needed on toxicological effects of nano- and microplastics as well as their impacts on the terrestrial environment. Test methods need to be robust and applicable to polymers including nano- and microplastics in order to serve the needs of enforcement and proper implementation of the proposed restrictions.

Panel discussion

Some plastic items in the ocean are up to fifty years old, younger plastic items being mainly present along the coastline. The importance of a circular economy was stressed, moving away from an unsustainable, throwaway culture to one that avoids plastic entering the environment. One speaker suggested designing plastic articles such that they automatically degrade (totally) after use or/and making them suitable for a circular use approach and recycling. While much of the discussion on nanomaterials, such as nanoplastics, is around how to regulate them as chemicals, an effort to transfer, or at least share, the focus with safe-by-design could produce significant benefits. The panellists emphasised that not only the ‘classical’ plastics should be considered but also (bio)degradable plastics.

Much of the discussion focused on the importance of communication, cooperation and networking between actors. The US National Nanotechnology Initiative, a collaboration mechanism across USA government departments and agencies was seen as a model for (nationally) determining roles, deployment of resources and interaction methods. It was proposed that the EU-US Nanotechnology Communities of Research could expand beyond those two regions as a platform for information exchange. In the specific area of regulatory science, the Global Coalition on Regulatory Science Research (GCRSR) already has engagement from ten countries and the EU.

Consideration is being given to the establishment of a European platform of experts coordinated by the JRC that would look at methods, standards, definitions and their harmonisation. The JRC already undertakes some activities where the effort could be enlarged to an international scale.

8 Poster session

There were 28 poster presentations by scientists and students on the latest research related to the session topics.

The work presented included research to understand the fate and effects of nanomaterials in organisms and the environment, and on the characterisation and quantification of nanomaterials and nanoplastics. Others considered risk assessment and mitigation, metrology and issues of data completeness. On the topics of regulation, work was presented on regulatory preparedness for nanomaterials and the implementation of the EC recommendation on the definition of nanomaterial. Many nanomaterials were considered in the poster presentations, including nanoplastics but also carbon nanotube nanocomposites, titanium dioxide and other oxides, and iron-based nano-colloids. Examples of applications presented included polymer additives in 3D printing, antimicrobial agents, food grade nanomaterials and nanomedicines.

A full list of poster presentations is provided below (in alphabetical order by first author’s last name).

Poster title, Authors, Affiliation

Aquatic environmental risk assessment of chitosan/silver, copper and carbon nanotube nanocomposites as antimicrobial agents

Nermeen M. Abu-Elala¹, Huda O. Abu Bakr², Marwa S. Khattab³, Samah H. Mohamed⁴, Maha A. El-hadye, Rehab A. Ghandour⁵, Rania E. Morsi6,7

1 Department of Fish Diseases and Management, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt

2 Department of Biochemistry and Chemistry of Nutrition, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt

3 Department of Pathology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt

4 Department of Immunology, Animal Health Research Institute, Dokki, Giza, Egypt

5 Department of Fish Diseases, Animal Health Research Institute, Dokki, Giza, Egypt

6 Department of Physiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt

7 Analysis and Evaluation Department, Egyptian Petroleum Research Institute, Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt

8 EPRI-Nanotechnology Center, Egyptian Petroleum Research Institute, Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt

VOC emissions influenced by polymer additives in 3D printing

Souhail R. Al-Abed¹ and Phillip M. Potter², Farhana Hassan³, and Slawomir Lominicki³

1 National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio, USA

2 Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio, USA

3 Department of Environmental Sciences, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA

Application of enhanced darkfield hyperspectral microscopy for visualization of nanoparticles in histological tissue samples

Trine Berthing, Alicja Mortensen, Ulla Vogel

National Research Centre for Working Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark

Combination of 47Ti and 48Ti for the determination of highly polydisperse TiO2 particle size distributions by spICP MS

Guillaume Bucher and François Auger

Service Commun des Laboratoires, Pessac, France

Assessing nanomaterial physicochemical data completeness in existing databases

Daniele Comandella¹, Stefania Gottardo¹, Iria Maria Rio-Echevarria1,2, Hubert Rauscher¹*

1 European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy

2 Present address: European Commission, Research Executive Agency, Brussels, Belgium

*Corresponding author

Nanotechnology for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia: the case of parenteral iron-based nano-colloidal products

Tiziana Di Francesco, Beat Flühmann Vifor Pharma Management Ltd., Glattbrugg, Switzerland

Nanoplastics: an emerging pollutant. Preparation of models and analytical strategy for the determination of their physicochemical and environmental behavior

Hind El Hadri1,2, Laurence Pessoni1, Cyril Cugnet¹, Julien Gigault³, Cloé Veclin1, Elise Deniau1, Bruno Grassl¹, Stéphanie Reynaud¹

1 IPREM (UPPA/CNRS), Pau, France

2 Cordouan Technologies, Pessac, France

3 Géosciences (Univ Rennes/CNRS), Rennes, France

Characterisation and Quantification of Nanoparticles in Food Grade Titanium Dioxide and in their Related Food Products

Otmar Geiss¹, Jessica Ponti¹, Chiara Senaldi¹, Ivana Bianchi¹, Dora Mehn¹, Josefa Barrero¹, Douglas Gilliland¹, Reinhard Matissek², Elke Anklam¹

1 European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy

2 Lebensmittelchemisches Institut des Bundesverbandes der Deutschen Süßwarenindustrie, Cologne, Germany

Advancing the regulatory science for nanomedicines through a systematic review of the scientific literature

Blanka Halamoda-Kenzaoui, Antonio Puertas Gallardo, Susanne Bremer-Hoffmann

European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy

Bridging Communities in the Field of Nanomedicine

Blanka Halamoda-Kenzaoui, Susanne Bremer-Hoffmann

European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy

Epigenetic Action of Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles in Human Cells

George J. Hammons, Marta Pogribna, Nathan Koonce, Beverly Word, Anil K. Patri, and Beverly D. Lyn-Cook

FDA/National Center for Toxicological Research, Jefferson, USA

Open science-open source precision medicine platform to support chronic kidney disease screeening modernization efforts worldwide

Kimberly Harding¹, Michael Volynsky², Tesfaye Mersha³, Susanne Nicholas⁴, David R. Williams⁵, Robert M. Mayberry⁶, Jonathan Medverd⁷, Nicholas Polys⁸, Walter Magnussen⁹, Andrew Casertano¹⁰

1 Monarch Innovation Partners, Inc., Rockville, MD, USA

2 InfoPro Systems Inc., Rockville, MD, USA

3 Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati, Biomedical Informatics Cincinnati, OH, USA

4 David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Division of Nephrology, Los Angeles, USA

5 Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

6 Morehouse School of Medicine, Health Disparities Center of Excellence, Atlanta, GA, USA

7 University of Washington Medicine, Dept. of Radiology, Seattle, WA, USA

8 Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Visionarium Lab, VA, USA

9 Texas A&M University, Internet 2 Technology Evaluation Center, TX, USA

10 University of Maryland, iSchool, College Park, Maryland, USA

How could all that stuff be in my blank!?

Kay T. Ho¹, Michaela A. Cashman², Stephen Russo³ and Robert M. Burgess¹

1 US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett, USA

2 Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett, USA

3 General Dynamics Electric Boat, North Kingstown, USA

Regulatory Preparedness for nanomaterials and other innovative materials

A. Paula K. Jantunen¹, Agnieszka Mech¹, Kirsten Rasmussen¹, Juan Riego Sintes¹, Stefania Gottardo¹, Cornelle Noorlander², Lya Soeteman-Hernandez², Adrienne J.A.M. Sips², Monique Groenewold², Susan Dekkers²

1 European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy

2 National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Centre for Safety of Substances and Products, Bilthoven, the Netherlands

Migration and toxic potential of silver nanoparticles in feminine hygiene products: characterization and in vivo rodent studies

Nathan A. Koonce, Ammu Mathew, Ioana-Mihaela Popescu, Suman Ghorai, Julian E. A. Leakey and Anil K. Patri

National Center for Toxicological Research, Office of Scientific Coordination - Nanotechnology Core Facility, Jefferson, USA

Characterization and quantification of nanoplastic in the environment: possibilities and limitations of Py-GCMS

Corentin Le Juge¹, Julien Gigault²

1 Laboratoire Géosciences Rennes, France

2 CNRS-Université de Rennes, France

Centrifugal field flow fractionation in analysis of nano- and microplastics

Dora Méhn¹, Giacomo Milan², Marco Pallavera², Douglas Gilliland¹

1 European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy

2 EOS srl, Milano, Italy

Development of Nano tools for localized activation in radiation induced combinatory cancer treatment

Rao Papineni1,2*, Sunil Krishnan³, Ajayan Pulickel⁴, and Onur Sahin2,3

1 KUMC, Kansas

2 PACT & Health LLC, Connecticut

3 Mayo Clinic, Florida

4 Rice University, Texas

Developing Methodologies for the Detection and Clean-up of Workplace Spills Containing Engineered Nanomaterials

Viridiana Perez, Irene Andreu, Tony Ngo, Cameron Hodgins, Matthew W. Bilton, Kelly E.C. Cadieux, Michael T.Y. Paul, Tania C. Hidalgo Castillo, Clifton Bright Davies, Byron D. Gates

Department of Chemistry, Simon Fraser University, Canada

Stabilization of Nanoplastic with Terrestrial and Marine Organic Matter - Implications for the fate of an emerging contaminant

Alice Pradel, Séléna Ferreres, Julien Gigault

Univ Rennes, CNRS, Géosciences Rennes, Rennes, France

Risk assessment and mitigation of the presence of engineered nanomaterials in Atlantic aquaculture: NANOCULTURE

Monica Quarato, Laura Rodriguez-Lorenzo and Begoña Espiña

Water Quality Group, Water4Enviroment Unit, Department of Life Sciences, International Iberian Nanotechnology Laboratory-INL, Braga, Portugal

Towards the implementation of the EC recommendation on the definition of nanomaterial

Hubert Rauscher* and Agnieszka Mech

European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy

*Corresponding author

Zebrafish embryotoxicity of commercial nanomaterials used in the plastic industry

Marisa P. Sárria¹, Ivone Pinheiro¹, Ana Vieira1, Cristiana Cunha1,2, Ana Vilas-Boas1,2, Laura Rodriguez-Lorenzo¹, Andreia Gomes², Begoña Espiña¹*

1 INL - International Iberian Nanotechnology Laboratory, Braga, Portugal

2 University of Minho, Braga, Portugal

*Corresponding author

Environmental risk assessment of medical products – ready for assessment of nano-scaled active ingredients?

Kathrin Schwirn, Silvia Berkner, and Doris Völker

German Environment Agency (UBA), Dessau-Rosslau, Germany

Nanoparticle analysis in consumer products

Miguel Spuch-Calvar¹, Alke Fink1,2, Barbara Rothen-Rutishauser¹

1 BioNanomaterials Group, Adolphe Merkle Institute, Fribourg, Switzerland

2 Department of Chemistry, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland

From research to harmonized testing: the case study of the hydrophobicity of nanomaterials

Andrea Valsesia, Stefania Gottardo, Cloé Desmet, Pascal Colpo, Douglas Gilliland, Juan Riego Sintes

European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy

Physicochemical characterisation of several types of the E171 food additive

Eveline Verleysen, Marina Ledecq, Sandra De Vos, Isaac Ojea Jimenez, Frédéric Brassinne, Nadia Waegeneers, Jan Mast

Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium

Determination of nanoplastics presence in contaminated soil: new considerations

Aurélie Wahl, Mélanie Davranche, Julien Gigault

Université de Rennes 1/CNRS, Géosciences Rennes, Rennes, France

Annexes

Annex 1. Agenda

Annex 2. Biographies of Speakers and Session chairs
(in alphabetical order)

Nadim Akhtar

Nadim Akhtar has a PhD degree in chemistry from Manchester and has been working for AstraZeneca since 2005. During this time Nadim has worked across different fields including separation science, New modalities (proteins, peptides, nucleic acids and nanomedicines) and Predictive Science supporting both drug substance and drug product activities. Nadim currently sits in the Global Product Development and has worked in the nanomedicine area for a number of years, focusing on both early and late stage portfolio. Nadim has been involved with several regulatory filing involving small molecules, oligonucleotides and nanomedicines.

Souhail Al-Abed

Dr. Souhail Al-Abed is a research chemist at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). His research activities include fate and risk evaluation of nanomaterials used in consumer products and the understanding of many challenging environmental problems from nano and micro plastics. He authored and coauthored more than 110 peer-review journal articles and five book chapters. He is a Fellow of the American Chemical Society (ACS) and Chair-Elect of the ACS Division of Environmental Chemistry. He is member of Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN) at the OECD and member of American Geophysical Union in the Hydrology section and serves in many national and international research committees.

Elke Anklam

Elke Anklam is a chemist, with specialisation in food, organic and radiation chemistry. After obtaining her PhD from the University Hamburg (Germany), she worked in various European Research Institutions and was a Teaching Professor at the Applied University of Fulda (Germany).

Since 1991, she has been working at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (EC-JRC). Since 2006, she has a Director position in the JRC. At present, she is the Director of the JRC-Geel site and Director of JRC Directorate F: Health, Consumers & Reference Material, located at the JRC-Geel and JRC-Ispra site.

Sylvain Bintein

For the past 15 years, Dr. Sylvain Bintein has been employed at the European Commission as Team Leader of the team dealing with regulation for registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of Chemicals (REACH) and the classification, labelling and packaging of chemicals (CLP) in the Directorate General for the environment. He has a PhD in environmental toxicology and he is an engineer from the French National School for Water and Environmental Engineering. For several years, he was a member of the Scientific Committee to the Stockholm Convention on POPs, and of the Chemicals Management Plan Science Committee of the Government of Canada.

Sven Even Borgos

Sven Even Borgos (n. 1976) is a biophysicist at SINTEF (Norway) with a PhD in molecular genetics, and has for the last decade specialized in advanced analytical chemistry – often based on mass spectrometry – of nanoparticulate systems. He is assay group leader of chemical characterization in the European Nanomedicine Characterisation laboratory (EUNCL), work package leader for assessment of improved nanomedicine characterization technologies in EUNCL, and work package leader for the integration of regulatory needs with available characterization technologies in the REFINE project, which aims to contribute a regulatory science framework for the risk-benefit assessment of nanobiomaterial-based medicinal products and medical devices.

Ken Bosnick

Dr. Ken Bosnick leads the Nanomaterial Depositions and Characterizations Team at the National Research Council’s Nanotechnology Research Centre in Edmonton, Canada. His research interests center on inorganic nanomaterial depositions and their applications. Key ongoing projects include developing methods for fabricating sinterable hybrid ceramic structures for applications in armour, exploiting conformal metal coatings for energy harvesting, and synthesizing semiconductor nanostructures for gas sensing applications. He has a keen interest in exploiting nanomaterials to tackle waste issues in the food sector, which will form the basis for his talk at GSRS19.

Susanne Bremer-Hoffmann

Dr. rer nat Susanne Bremer-Hoffmann, obtained her PhD from the Charite University Hospital Berlin/D for her work on T-cell reactions against autologous leukemia cells. After post-doctoral research at the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment in Germany, S. Bremer contributed to the establishment of the Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (EURL-ECVAM) hosted by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre JRC in 1995. She coordinated EURL-ECVAM’s activities in the area of reproductive toxicity including the validation and regulatory acceptance of in vitro tests assessing endocrine disrupters. Her research activities focussed on the development of in vitro toxicity tests based on murine/human embryonic and induced pluripotent stem cells. She participated in several European and international research projects, published more than 100 scientific manuscripts and contributed to various European and international expert groups e.g. at the OECD and the IPRP nanomedicine working group relevant for the implementation of European legislation.

Robert Burgess

Dr. Robert M Burgess has been a Research Physical Scientist with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Office of Research and Development in Narragansett, Rhode Island, USA for 27 years. His research focuses on understanding the bioavailability of organic and metal contaminants, including nanomaterials and micro- and nanoplastics, in the marine environment. This work supports the development of informed environmental regulations. He has contributed to the authorship of over 100 peer-reviewed papers related to ecotoxicity and ecological risk assessment. Dr. Burgess received a Master’s degree in Biological Oceanography and Ph.D in Chemical Oceanography from the University of Rhode Island’s Graduate School of Oceanography.

Hongda Chen

Dr. Hongda Chen is a National Program Leader at National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), USDA. He provides the leadership for nanoscale science, and nanotechnology for agriculture and food systems. He also leads the national portfolio of engineering for research, education and extension in food manufacturing technologies, and value-added products. Dr. Chen received his Ph.D. in engineering from University of California, Davis. He was a professor of food engineering at University of Vermont. Dr. Chen is an elected Fellow of Institute of Food Technologists (IFT), International Academy of Food Science and Technology (IAFoST) of IUFoST, and American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE).

Charles Clifford

Charles Clifford is a senior research scientist in the Surface Technology Group at the National Physical Laboratory, the UK’s national metrology laboratory. He has extensive experience in international standardisation. He is UK head of delegation to ISO/TC229 (nanotechnologies), CEN TC 352 (European nanotechnologies) and IEC TC113 (electro technical nanotechnologies). He is also UK secretary to ISO TC201 (surface chemical analysis). He leads and participates in collaborative projects with a focus on nanomaterials and analysis at the nanoscale. He has a background in scanning probe microscopy.

Pieter Cullis

Pieter R. Cullis, Ph.D. FRSC, FNAI (USA), is Scientific Director & CEO of the NanoMedicines Innovation Network, Canada’s National Centre of Excellence in nanomedicines, based at the University of British Columbia. Dr. Cullis and co-workers have been responsible for fundamental advances in the design and development of nanomedicines employing lipid nanoparticle (LNP) technology for cancer therapies and gene therapies. This work has contributed to four drugs that have been approved by regulatory agencies in the U.S. and Europe. Dr. Cullis was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada in 2004 and was also awarded the Prix Galien, Canada’s premier prize for achievements in pharmaceutical R&D, in 2011.

Wim H. de Jong

Wim H. De Jong, DVM, PhD graduated as veterinarian at Utrecht University, the Netherlands in 1978 and is registered as specialist in Experimental Pathobiology, and Toxicological Pathology. His research involved the safety evaluation and risk assessment of xenobiotics, medical devices and nanomaterials, and development of alternative testing methods. He published more than 170 publications in peer reviewed international journals and books. He previously was employed by the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, the Netherlands. He was member of ISO TC 194/CEN TC 206 Biological and clinical evaluation of medical devices, ISO TC 229 Nanotechnology, SCHENIR, and working groups of the SCCS and EFSA. He is member of SCHEER and the SCCS working group on nanomaterials. He is member of the editorial board and reviewer for several scientific journals.

Guilhem de Sèze

Guilhem de Sèze joined the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in 2016 as Head of the Scientific Evaluation of Regulated Products Department. From 2008, he worked for the European Chemicals Agency in Helsinki, where in 2011 he became a Head of Unit, first for Substance Identification and Data Sharing, and then for Evaluation. Before this, Guilhem worked in the field of hazardous chemicals management in academia and in the chemical industry. He holds a PhD in chemical engineering from Louisiana State University.

Jon de Vlieger

Jon de Vlieger obtained his doctoral degree in bio analytical chemistry from the VU University in Amsterdam. In 2011 he joined Lygature (former Top Institute Pharma), an independent not-for-profit organization based in the Netherlands. Lygature catalyzes the development of new medical solutions by driving public-private collaboration between academia, industry, and society. Dr. de Vlieger coordinates several international public private partnerships, including the Non Biological Complex Drugs Working Group, an international network of scientific and clinical experts from academia, industry and regulatory bodies, with expertise in many aspects of the development and evaluation of NBCDs and nanomedicines. He is a co-editor of the book on NBCDs in the AAPS Advances in the Pharmaceutical Sciences Series and is co-author on a series of key-papers on the topic of regulatory challenges for NBCDs.

Amit K. Dinda

Professor Amit K. Dinda is Head of Renal & Transplant Pathology at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. His research interests include experimental pathology, cancer, regulatory science, regenerative and nanomedicine. He has published more than 350 research articles, edited 4 books, written 14 chapters, filed 12 patents. He is secretary of Indian Society of Nanomedicine, former Vice President of Electron Microscopy Society of India, Society of Tissue Engineering & Regenerative Medicine (India). He is an assessor for NABL (Laboratory Accreditation), GLP & GCP systems. He is an advisor for developing regulatory guidelines in India in the areas of Nanomedicine, Nanotechnology based agricultural and food products.

Mauro Ferrari

Mauro Ferrari, Ph.D. trained in mathematics, mechanical engineering, medicine, and business. He served in tenured faculty and academic leadership positions at UC Berkeley, Ohio State, the National Cancer Institute of the USA, the University of Texas Medical School and MD Anderson Cancer Centre – Houston, Houston Methodist Hospital (Executive Vice President) and Research Institute (President and CEO), Weill Cornell Medical College, and the University of St Thomas Houston. An academic entrepreneur with several companies established around his research, Dr. Ferrari has served on the Board of Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:ARWR) since 2010. Currently the President Designate of the European Research Council, he will begin serving his term on January 1, 2020.

Valérie Fessard

Dr FESSARD Valérie is a toxicologist working for ANSES (France) as the head of the “Toxicology of contaminants” unit. After a PhD in ecotoxicology (1996), she was recruited to develop assays for testing the genotoxicity of contaminants especially the comet assay (both in vitro and in vivo) and the in vitro micronucleus assay. Promoting the 3R rules, she wishes to improve in vitro toxicology testing using high throughput approaches and 3D cell models. She has a long standing experience in the toxicity of marine and freshwater toxins, nanomaterials and mixtures. She has been involved in several European projects and coordinated recently a French/German project on the toxicity of metallic nanoparticles.

Lisa E. Friedersdorf

Dr. Lisa Friedersdorf is the Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office. She has been involved in nanotechnology for over twenty-five years, with a particular interest in advancing technology commercialization through university-industry-government collaboration. She is a strong advocate for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, and has over two decades of experience teaching at both the university and high school levels. Lisa earned her PhD and MSE in Materials Science and Engineering from the Johns Hopkins University and BS in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Central Florida.

Julien Gigault

Julien Gigault dedicated his research to the development of analytical strategies and experimental protocols for determining the source, fate and impact of nanoscale materials in the environment. After his PhD in Pau (2011) focused on the characterization of carbon nanotubes and fullerenes, he has continued at NIST under the supervision of Vincent A. Hackley by developing analytical approach to characterize inorganic nanoparticles (Gold and Silver nanoparticles) in an environmental and health context. Since 2014, he is a permanent CNRS researcher (government) and his main interests are the anthropogenic nanoparticles in the environment such as nanoplastics. He is author and co-author of 40 papers in international journals. He has also supervised and coordinated more than 6 national and international projects on nanoplastics involving 28 researchers in Europe.

Douglas Gilliland

Douglas Gilliland was awarded a PhD degree in applied chemistry from the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow in 1993 after which he joined JRC as a post-doctoral fellow before becoming a full staff member in 1997. Previous activities with JRC have included studies of corrosion in gas turbines and implantable medical devices using electrochemical, surface analytical (XPS and ToF-SIMS) and radiotracers methods. More recently he has gained experience in the synthesis of a wide range of nanomaterials becoming responsible for scientific activities for the detection and physicochemical characterization of nanostructured materials and nanoparticles. Currently is expanding these research activities into the area of analytics for micro and nanoplastics.

Peter L. Goering

Dr. Goering is a Research Toxicologist and serves as Deputy Director; Division of Biology, Chemistry, and Materials Science; Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories; CDRH; USFDA. The division’s nanotechnology research focuses on addressing key challenges associated with the evaluation of nanomaterial characterization and toxicity for biocompatibility testing and predicting health risks. He currently serves as CDRH liaison to the ASTM E56 standards committee on Nanotechnology: Physical, Chemical, and Toxicological Properties. He received his PhD from the Kansas University Medical School. Dr. Goering has co-authored over 100 peer-reviewed publications and book chapters, is a Diplomate of the American Board of Toxicology, and a Fellow of Academy of Toxicological Sciences. He served as President of the Society of Toxicology in 2015-16.

Mar Gonzalez

Mar Gonzalez joined the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 2004 to work in its Environment, Health and Safety Division. Over the years, she has had a number of responsibilities under the heading of safety/risk assessment and international harmonisation in the regulation of chemicals and products of modern biotechnology. Since she joined OECD, she has been involved in various technical programmes covering biosafety, the safety of novel foods and feeds and chemical accidents prevention, preparedness and response. She was involved in the establishment of the programme on Nanosafety in 2006 and has since been responsible for the implementation of its programme of work, which includes the development of tools for assessing the hazards of nanomaterials such as the development of OECD Test Guidelines and guidance documents. From 2010 to 2018, she became responsible for the outreach work on chemicals, as well as reviewing the legal frameworks of non-OECD countries seeking a partnership at OECD. Mar has a BA in Physical Anthropology, a Master degree in Biotechnology and Ethics from the University of Sheffield, UK and a Diploma on Biosafety.

Ralf Greiner

Ralf is Head of the Department of Food Technology and Bioprocess Engineering and Deputy to the President of the Max Rubner-Institut (MRI), Karlsruhe, Germany. His research is focused on studying and modelling conventional and new processing technologies, as well as on food nanotechnology and food application of enzymes especially phytases. His research activities resulted in about 180 original papers in peer-reviewed journals, 55 book chapters and 355 abstracts or short papers in congress proceedings. Ralf is a representative of MRI in several international and national associations on food technology, food control and food nanotechnology. In addition, he is Editor for Food Control (Europe and South America).

Nanna B. Hartmann

Nanna B. Hartmann is a senior researcher at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU Environmental). She focuses her research on ecotoxicology and method development for testing of nanomaterials and microplastics in aquatic systems. Through her research she has a thorough experience in investigating the fate and effects of nanomaterials and microplastics in environmental and technical systems. She has extensive experience in working on the interface between science and regulation. She has been involved in the development of OECD test guideline development as well as providing expert advice to the European Commission’s Chief Scientific Advisors on policy development for micro- and nanoplastics.

Andrea Held

Andrea Held holds a degree in chemistry from the University Dortmund, Germany. After obtaining her PhD, she started her career at the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, initially providing reference measurements on samples for laboratory intercomparisons and organising such intercomparisons, touching also on nuclear measurements. Her main focus today is on the development of reference materials supporting EU legislation, covering a broad range from food contaminants and priority pollutants in environmental matrices to advanced materials, nanomaterials and most recently also microplastics.

Ted Henry

Ted Henry is a Professor of Environmental Toxicology in the Institute of Life and Earth Sciences at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK. He received a Bachelor of Arts (1992) from the University of California Santa Barbara, a Master of Science (1998) at Auburn University (AL, USA), and PhD at Auburn University (2002). For over 15 years his research program has been supported (NERC, US EPA, US NSF, EU FP7, and Horizon2020) to investigate the ecotoxicology of anthropogenic particles (engineered nanomaterials, nanoplastics, and microplastics). He is the PI of the current NERC Highlights project RealRiskNano (NE/N006526/1) focused on the formation, fate, and environmentally relevant effects of nanoplastic microorganism agglomerates in marine ecosystems.

Dolores Hernán Pérez de la Ossa

Dolores obtained a Pharmacy degree and a European PhD in Pharmaceutical Technology from the Complutense University, Madrid, Spain conducting research stays at USA Virginia Commonwealth University-School of Medicine and the Institute of Biomolecular Chemistry of the Italian National Research Council. Her main area of research was the development and in vitro and in vivo characterization of micro and nanoparticles for cannabinoid administration.

She joined the Quality Office of the European Medicines Agency in London in 2010. Since then she has been Product Team Leader/Quality Specialist for numerous medicinal products applications and supported the development of several scientific guidelines. Since 2012 she also acts as Scientific Secretary of the Quality Working Party Core Team (QWP CT) and provides scientific support to the EMA PAT team. She represents EMA at the IPRP nanomedicines working group, ICH Q13 EWG and ASTM E55.

Frank Herzberg

Dr. Herzberg studied Biology at the Free University of Berlin and made his Ph.D. on cell adhesion molecules in amphibian development. His post-doc research at the Charité focused on the role of integrins in tumour development and metastasis. At BfR, he has been working on risk assessment of chemicals under REACH and on toxicological and regulatory aspects of nanomaterials. Dr. Herzberg is a regular member of the Working Party of Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN) at OECD as well as the Nanomaterial Expert Group (NMEG) at ECHA and has been actively involved in test guideline and REACH adaptation to accommodate nanomaterials.

Arnd Hoeveler

Arnd Hoeveler received his PhD from the Institute of Genetics at the University of Cologne. He was awarded a full Professorship in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology in France. He served several positions in France before joining the Research Directorate at the European Commission in 1996.

Between 2001 and 2006 he served as Head of Unit, covering Infectious Diseases, and led several European programmes dealing with HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis. In October 2006 until September 2017 he took charge of the European Commission’s Health Biotechnology programme, dealing with Diagnostics, Regenerative Medicine, Animal Replacement Strategies, Child Health, and the Innovative Medicine Initiative.

Since October 2017 he is Head of the Consumer Products Safety Unit of the European Commission Joint Research Centre dealing with Medical Devices, Micro-Nano plastics and Nanobiotechnology.

He is a board member of the European Federation of Immunological Societies and serves on several International Advisory Boards.

Marta Hugas

Dr Marta Hugas is serving as Chief Scientist at the European Food Safety Authority. This position addresses the development of EFSA’s scientific strategic direction; acting as focal point on scientific matters and facilitating the understanding of science; fostering scientific cooperation as well as leveraging connections and networks for promoting EFSA’s research priorities. She joined EFSA in 2003 and since then Marta has held several positions: Head of Biological Hazards Unit (BIOHAZ), Head of the Risk Assessment and Scientific Assistance Department a.i. (RASA) and Head of the Biological Hazards and Contaminants Unit (BIOCONTAM).

Marta holds a BSc in biological sciences, an MSc in genetics and microbial biotechnology and a PhD in food microbiology. Prior to joining EFSA, she worked for the Institute for Food and Agricultural Research and Technology (IRTA) in Spain, where she was Head of the Food Microbiology and Biotechnology Unit and led a research group on applied research on meat and food safety. From 1992 to 2004 she was an Associate Professor at the University of Barcelona. Marta’s areas of expertise focus on: food hygiene, development of starter and bio protective cultures, probiotics for the safety of poultry meat, emerging preservation technologies as well as risk assessment of biological hazards. Dr Hugas has extensively published papers and book chapters.

Wenlei Jiang

Dr. Wenlei Jiang currently serves as Senior Science Advisor in the Office of Research and Standards (ORS)/Office of Generic Drugs (OGD)/Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)/US FDA. She has been championing regulatory research in the areas of generic nanomaterials, narrow therapeutic index drugs, and modified release products to support review standards development and ensure post-market drug safety and efficacy. Currently she is leading efforts in complex drug product classification and research, and promoting global bioequivalence harmonization. She also serves as Chair at Product Quality Research Institute (PQRI) Biopharmaceutical Technical Committee. Prior to joining FDA, she was at Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation and she received her PhD in Pharmaceutics and Pharmaceutical Chemistry from The Ohio State University.

Michael Johnston

Dr. Michael Johnston completed his graduate studies at the University of British Columbia in 2006 which focused on regulated drug release from liposomal based nanoscale drug delivery systems. Since 2007, Dr. Johnston has been with Health Canada where he heads the nanomedicine laboratory continuing his research on nanoscale drug delivery systems, nanoscale vaccine adjuvants and therapeutic protein aggregates. Dr. Johnston also heads the Health Products and Food Branches nanotechnology working group within Health Canada, Co-chairs the International Pharmaceutical Regulators Forum Nanomecidines working group and is a member of the Government of Canada’s Interdepartmental Nanotechnology working group.

Melanie Kah

Melanie completed her PhD on the fate of ionisable pesticides at the University of York (UK). After a couple of years at the UK Food and Environmental Research Agency (FERA), Melanie joined the University of Vienna (Austria). Her research on the risk assessment of nanopesticides is a good illustration of the multidisciplinary approaches developed in her group to deal with complex contaminants in the environment. Melanie was Distinguished Visitor at the CSIRO in 2018 (Adelaide, Australia) before joining the University of Auckland (New Zealand) in January 2019.

Debra Kaiser

Dr. Debra Kaiser is currently a Senior Advisor in the Office of Data and Informatics at NIST. She oversees NIST’s Standard Reference Data collection and works on nanotechnology documentary standards in her role as Chair of ASTM International’s Technical Committee E56 on Nanotechnology. Her previous positions at NIST included Technical Director of the Nanotechnology Environment, Health, and Safety Program and Chief of the Ceramics Division. She chaired the committee that developed the 2014 National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan and has led activities in the US Federal interagency Nanotechnology Environment and Health Implications Working Group.

Denis Koltsov

Dr Denis Koltsov was born in Moscow in 1976, graduated from Cambridge University in 1998 and obtained his PhD in nanotechnology in 2003 from the same university. He worked as a research associate in Cambridge Nanoscience Centre before taking up lecturing position at Lancaster University in 2005 where he led nanotechnology work and outreach services till 2009. Dr Koltsov is now running his own nanotechnology consulting practice (BREC Solutions limited) that focuses on technical, regulatory and standardisation issues nanotechnology innovation. Dr Koltsov is the author of several patents, numerous publications and confidential reports to stakeholders. He is a recognised authority in nanotechnology standardisation, innovation and current market, regulatory and policy trends. Dr Koltsov is an expert representing industry on BSI, ISO, IEC and CEN expert committees. Dr Koltsov developed and published a number of international nanotechnology standards and currently holds the chairman position for the ISO TC229 (Nanotechnologies). He has conducted a number of industry-led consultations in nanotechnology sector and reported to relevant regulatory authorities. Dr Koltsov was/is a board member on large EU projects such as NanoDefine, NanoReg2, Gracious and international organisations such as National Graphene Association. He advises small startups as well as multinationals, international organisations and governments.

Alfonso Lampen

Study Biochemistry (University of Göttingen) and Veterinary Medicine, PhD. in Biochemistry and Pharmacology (University Hannover and Veterinary University of Hannover). Extra Professor for Food Toxicology at the Veterinary University of Hannover. He is Head of the Department Food Safety at the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR). Research topics are the gastrointestinal barrier and the mode of action of relevant compounds after oral uptake in food toxicology.

Carlos Eduardo Lima da Cunha

He recently joined the European Commission after over 3 years working in chemical risk assessment and biotechnology innovation in San Francisco, CA, USA. Before that he concluded his doctorate studies in biochemistry and biophysics at the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry in Germany, where he worked on single-molecule protein synthesis characterisation. It was there that he was first introduced to nanoparticles. At the European Commission, he combine his scientific background in problem solving with risk assessment approaches and strategic analysis to tackle European issues at a policy level. Currently, his focus is to bring safer nanotechnology-containing products to European citizens, while promoting innovation.

Iseult Lynch

Professor Iseult Lynch is the Chair of Environmental Nanosciences of the at the University of Birmingham, theme leader for the Institute of Global Innovation’s Environmental Pollution Solutions research theme, and Coordinator of the H2020 NanoCommons research infrastructure for nanosafety. She is an Associate Editor for Environmental Science: Nano, Her research focuses on the environmental interactions of nanoparticles and nanostructured surfaces, and micro and nanoplastics, with biological entities from macromolecules to organisms. She has a very broad overview of all aspects of nanomaterials / nanoplastics safety assessment and the data requirements for risk assessment, and on the need for harmonisation and standardisation of methods and approaches.

Katrin Löschner

Katrin Löschner is Senior Researcher at the National Food Institute at the Technical University of Denmark. She obtained her PhD in Material Sciences at the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg in Germany in 2008. Afterwards she moved to Denmark and combined, as a Postdoc, her knowledge on materials with analytical (food) chemistry. Her expertise is the analysis of nanoparticles in food and biological matrices with specific focus on techniques based on inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) and the challenges related to sample preparation. Katrin has been involved in several EU-funded (NanoLyse, NanoDefine, NanoSolutions, PATROLS) and national research projects. Since 2016, she is the Danish representative in EFSA´s Scientific Network of Nanotechnologies. She is active as an expert for the field of (nano)particle characterization in the EC´s H2020 Reference Material Review Panel and as technical expert for the JRC.

Ritu Nalubola

Dr. Ritu Nalubola is the new Director of the FDA Europe Office. Prior to taking on this role in July 2018, she served as a Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Policy in FDA’s Office of the Commissioner. She has advised senior leadership at FDA, the Department of Health and Human Services, and other U.S. government agencies on complex and cross-cutting policy issues, including those related to nanotechnology, biotechnology and genome editing, food safety, international standards, and trade-related matters. Most recently, she has served as the primary lead for FDA’s efforts, working in conjunction with the broader U.S. government, to modernize the federal regulatory system for biotechnology products. Dr. Nalubola’s career at the FDA spans over 17 years across several Offices and Centers at FDA. She joined the agency after completing post-doctoral work with the Johns Hopkins University and later the U.S. Agency for International Development setting up international public health programs.

Bryant C. Nelson

Bryant is a staff research chemist at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the Material Measurement Laboratory (Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA). He was educated at the University of Texas at Austin, B.Sc., Chemistry, and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Ph.D., and Analytical Chemistry and completed his postdoctoral training as an NRC research fellow at NIST in Analytical Chemistry (clinical mass spectrometry) in 1997. Bryant became a permanent staff member at NIST in 2003. Since 2009, he has led research projects primarily focused on characterizing the toxicological and biological effects of engineered nanomaterials and is currently the NIST Nanomedicine Measurement Assurance Project Leader in which his focus is on the development of international standards and test methods for nano-enabled medical products and devices. He is a member of the Analytical Chemistry Division of the American Chemical Society, ASTM International and Sigma Xi. He has authored over 80 peer-reviewed publications and 2 book chapters. He has given over 75 oral presentations domestically and internationally and is a past Sigma Xi Distinguished Lecturer (2015 – 2017). He was awarded the NIST Outstanding Mentor Award in 2017. He is Past President of the NIST Chapter of Sigma Xi (2008 – 2009) and Past Associate Editor of the Journal of Environmental Quality (2011 – 2014). He is the Chair of ASTM International E56.08 – Nano-Enabled Medical Products and a Councillor to the American Chemical Society representing the Analytical Chemistry Division.

Kumiko Ogawa

Dr. Kumiko Ogawa graduated (1988) and received Ph.D. (1993) from Nagoya City University Medical School, then continued research as a postdoctoral research associate in Pathology and Microbiology, University of Nebraska Medical Center (1993-1996). After serving in Experimental Pathology and Tumor Biology, Nagoya City University and Nagoya Higashi Municipal Hospital, she joined Division of Pathology, National Institute of Health Sciences (2009). She is a board-certified specialist of Japanese Society of Pathology and Japanese Society of Toxicologic Pathology. Her research interest includes toxicological pathology and carcinogenesis. She has been an expert committee member of the Food Safety committee in Japan and several evaluation committees for chemical safety in Japanese government.

Haruhiro Okuda

Dr. Haruhiro Okuda is Director-General of National Institute of Health Sciences (NIHS). After obtaining Ph.D degree in medicinal chemistry from University of Tokyo, he joined the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Evaluation Centre, the predecessor of PMDA, and was engaged in review of new drug approval application. From 2002 to 2018, he worked for NIHS, and served as Head of Division of Organic Chemistry, Head of Division of Drugs and Deputy Director-General. He worked to harmonize regulation on quality of chemical drugs for over 10 years as a member of ICH. He also works to harmonize Pharmacopoeias of Japan, EU, and the USA as a PDG (Pharmacopoeia Discussion Group) member.

Agnes Oomen

Dr. Agnes G. Oomen is a senior scientist and project leader at the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) in the Netherlands. She works at the interface between science and policy, leading and participating in national and European projects on e.g. the health risks, toxicokinetics and grouping and read-across of nanomaterials. She is an active member of the EFSA cross-cutting Working Group on Nanotechnologies and acts as an ad-hoc expert in several international expert, working and network groups. She initiated and was part of a project team exploring the scale of developments of certain bionano-materials, and considering potential effects and the applicability of legal frameworks.

Anil K. Patri

Dr. Anil Patri serves as the lead for Nanotechnology coordination at the US Food and Drug Administration (US FDA). His laboratory is very active in nanotechnology regulatory science research to understand material characteristics, their safety and efficacy. Dr. Patri serves on the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) NSET Subcommittee and NEHI working group for US government inter-agency coordination. He is as member of ISO TC229 and serves on the executive committee of ASTM E56 to facilitate standards development. Dr. Patri serves as the US Co-chair for US-EU Communities of Research (CoR) on Nanomedicine and Characterization.

Prior to joining FDA in 2014, Dr. Patri served as the Deputy Director of the Nanotechnology Characterization Laboratory (NCL) at the Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research. In a decade-long tenure at NCL, he assisted collaborators from industry and academia in preclinical development of drug products for cancer utilizing nanotechnology, many currently in clinical trials. From 2006-2014, he served as a guest scientist at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and co-developed nominal 10nm, 30nm, and 60 nm colloidal gold reference material standards. Dr. Patri developed nanotechnology-based targeted drug delivery and imaging agents until 2004 at the University of Michigan Medical School. He is a co-author of 65 publications, served on editorial, advisory, and scientific review panels.

Dr. Patri obtained his B.Sc., from Osmania University, M.Sc., in Chemistry from Aligarh Muslim University in India, Ph.D. in Chemistry from the University of South Florida followed by a post-doctoral training at the University of Michigan. He worked at Astra Zeneca and as a lecturer in Chemistry prior to graduate school.

Agnès Pottier

Agnès Pottier is VP, Global Head Discovery & New Venture within Nanobiotix. She joined the company in 2007 and has been actively involved in the Discovery, Intellectual Property and Non-Clinical Research activities, supporting the development of its first-in-class radioenhancer NBTXR3. She is co-inventors of more than 15 patent applications families in the field of nanomedicine. Agnès hold a diploma from Engineering School ENSC (Toulouse, France) and a PhD in Inorganic Chemistry from University Paris VI (Paris, France).

Juan Riego Sintes

Juan Riego Sintes has a Degree on General and Organic Chemistry, PhD in Organic Chemistry, MSc in Toxicology and MSc in Environmental Chemistry and Engineering. Research on heterogeneous catalysis using supported reagents, molecular recognition and supramolecular chemistry. Since 1996, led the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre European Chemicals Bureau (ECB) Test Methods area. From 2005 leads the Group on Nanosafety and Regulatory Methods. He is the EC’s coordinator for Testing Methods for chemicals, chairs the EU National Coordinators Group for TMs and represents the Commission in the OECD Test Guidelines Programme (WNT). He chairs the Steering Group on Testing and Assessment of the OECD Working Party of Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN). Led/contributed several key deliverables of the WPMN and chaired WPMN Expert’s Meetings. He managed the REACH Implementation Projects (RIPs) and REACH Implementation Projects on Nanomaterials RIP-oNs and many research projects. Extensive experience in chairing and managing international projects and experts groups in the interface between science and policy.

Reinhilde Schoonjans

Dr. Reinhilde Schoonjans is a risk assessment scientist at the European Food Safety Authority. Her current mandate from the European Commission is to develop a technical guidance for establishing the presence of small particles at the nanoscale in products used to the agri/food/feed chain. She also coordinates the expert group on nanomaterials in agri/food/feed products that developed the Scientific Guidance for risk assessment and she chairs the Nano Network with EU Member States delegates. Other topics of expertise include Synthetic Biology developments, the cloning of farmed animals, biodiversity-related protection goals for environmental risk assessment, epigenetics and risk assessment of genetically modified organisms. She previously worked on hazard criteria for endocrine disruption. Reinhilde Schoonjans is a Molecular Biologist holding a PhD from the University of Ghent, where she performed research on bispecific antibodies for cancer immunotherapy. In October 2005 she qualified as European Patent Attorney for the European Patent Office in Munich.

Primal Silva

Dr. Primal Silva. BVSc, PhD, is a veterinarian and a scientist. He obtained his PhD from the University of Sydney, Australia, in 1987 and conducted his post-doctoral studies at McMaster University and at the Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph. From 1991-1993, he worked as an Assistant Professor at the University of Guelph before joining the Federal Public Service in 1993 where he has held several positions with increasing responsibilities. Dr. Silva is currently the Chief Science Operating Officer in the Science Branch of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. He is also a contributing member to numerous committees and working groups at domestic and international levels including the Scientific Advisory Body of OECD.

Jan Simak

Dr. Simak is a representative of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) in the FDA Nanotechnology Taskforce. Dr. Simak is a Principal Investigator of the research program on toxicity of engineered and biologic nano/microparticles in blood. Dr. Simak also serves as a scientific lead reviewer of cellular blood products and transfusion devices. Dr. Simak received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry in 1992 at the Institute of Hematology and Blood Transfusion / UCT in Prague, Czech Republic. In 1992 – 2000, he served as Assistant Professor/PI at the 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague, and at the Neonatal Intensive Care, Institute for the Care of Mother and Child in Prague. Dr. Simak joined CBER FDA in February 2000.

William Slikker

Dr. William Slikker, Jr. received his Ph.D. in pharmacology and toxicology from the University of California at Davis. Dr. Slikker holds adjunct professorships in the Department of Pediatrics, as well as the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. He has held committee chairmanships or elected offices in several scientific societies including serving as president of the Teratology Society, the Academy of Toxicological Sciences and the Society of Toxicology. Dr. Slikker is also theco-founder and past president of the MidSouth Computational Biology and Bioinformatics Society. Currently Dr. Slikker is the director of FDA’s National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR).

Birgit Sokull-Kluettgen

Birgit Sokull-Kluettgen, who has a PhD in Natural Sciences (Biology), is the Deputy Head of the Consumer Products Safety Unit of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) in Ispra (Italy). Joining the European Commission in 1995, Birgit worked for many years on the scientific/technical support to the conception, development, implementation and monitoring of EU legislation on chemicals. For a long time Birgit is involved in research and policy support projects on safety assessment of nanomaterials. Furthermore, she coordinates the JRC work on the impact and sustainability of plastics. She is particularly interested in linking science to policy needs in order to provide circumspect opinions for a better regulation to the European Commission and to EU Agencies.

Abdel Sumrein

Abdelqader Sumrein is a Scientific Officer at the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), where he has been working since 2009. He works in the Data Availability Unit, where he acts as the product manager for the European Union Observatory for Nanomaterials (EUON). He has a MSc. Degree in Applied toxicology from the University of Surrey. Prior to joining ECHA, he was a graduate student in the Mirkin lab at Northwestern University working on the synthesis and applications of coordination polymer nanomaterials. He obtained his Bachelor’s degree in chemistry and economics from Middlebury College.

Katherine Tyner

Dr. Katherine Tyner is the Associate Director of Science in the Immediate Office of the Office of Pharmaceutical Quality (OPQ), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). As Associate Director, Dr. Tyner leads the OPQ Science Staff in coordinating the intersection between science, review, and policy in OPQ as well as facilitating interactions between other CDER offices and FDA Centers. She received her PhD in Chemistry from Cornell University and joined the Food and Drug Administration in 2007 as a chemist specializing in nanotechnology. While at the FDA, Dr. Tyner has investigated the quality, safety, and efficacy of complex drug products including drug products containing nanomaterials, and she currently leads the CDER nanotechnology working group and is active in other CDER and FDA nanotechnology initiatives. Dr. Tyner is the author of multiple book chapters and journal articles concerning the appropriate characterization and biological impact of nanoparticle therapeutics and other complex products.

Luis Velasquez Cumplido

With 25 years related to research, development and innovation, mainly in biomedicine, bionanotechnology, toxicology and pharmacology. In the last 5 years (2013-2018), has participated in the publication of more than 30 ISI manuscripts, filed 5 patents with three already granted. His work has more than 1000 bibliographic citations, with an h index of 17 and i10 of 36. He has been invited to participate in the working groups of the World Health Organization (WHO) and as an advisor on science and technology in the future commission of the Chilean Senate.

In Chile his scientific work has been financed by practically all the instruments of individual nature (CONICYT, FONDEF; CORFO, etc) and group (Basal centers, MECESUP, Rings etc). At international level it has been financed by the Wellcome Trust, Rocfeller Foundation, Erst Shering Foundation. For his scientific work he was named as the lighthouse of nanotechnology in Chile in the Nanofuture Ligth house network of the European economic community.

In his career, he has directed undergraduate and graduate theses, the postdoctoral degree of 3 academics. Finally, he has been invited to present seminars in numerous countries and I have presented works in more than 100 congresses. He is a reviewer of numerous national and international ISI journals and he is invited to review national and international projects such as the CNRS, France.

Matthias Wacker

Matthias G. Wacker is Associate Professor in the Department of Pharmacy of the National University of Singapore (NUS). Initially, he studied Pharmacy at Goethe University in Frankfurt (Germany) where he obtained his doctoral degree in pharmaceutical technology. As a post-doc and group leader he has joined Jennifer Dressman and Jörg Kreuter in the Institute of Pharmaceutical Technology, Goethe University. There he accomplished his habilitation exploring the ‘Rational Formulation Design of Nanocarrier Devices’. Prior to joining NUS, he was heading the Department of Pharmaceutical Technology and Nanosciences of the Fraunhofer-Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology in Frankfurt led by Gerd Geisslinger. Since 2012, he is scientific advisor to the editors of the Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and, in 2019, joined the editorial board of the European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics. Further, has was editing selected issues for the Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology and Frontiers in Chemistry. In recognition of his research excellence, he was honored with the Eudragit® Best Paper Award (2014) and the Phoenix Pharmaceutics Science Award (2017). In 2019, he was appointed as a member of the expert panel on New Advancements in In Vitro Performance Testing of the United States Pharmacopoeia. He has published and lectured extensively and organized symposia on various aspects of nanotechnology.

Liming Xie

Dr. Liming Xie is currently a professor of physical chemistry at National Center for Nanoscience and Technology (NCNST), Beijing, China. He received his PhD degree from Peking University in 2009. He visited Massachusetts Institute of Technology during 2007 to 2008. He did postdoctoral research at Stanford University from 2009 to 2012 and after that he joined NCNST.

Dr. Xie’s current research interest is standardization of physicochemical characterizations and biological effect evaluations of nanomaterials toward medical applications. He is the co-director of NCNST-NIFDC Joint Laboratory for Measurement and Evaluation of Nanomaterials in Medical Applications. He was awarded “CAS Excellent Young Scientist” and “Beijing Nova Program”.

Shan Zou

Dr. Shan Zou is a Senior Research Officer and Team Leader of the Nanoscale Measurement Discipline at the Metrology Research Centre, National Research Council Canada (NRC). She obtained her PhD from University of Twente, The Netherlands and joined NRC in 2007. She is the Secretary for ASTM International E56 Nanotechnology Committee and Secretary of the Canadian National Committee for IUPAC. She is also the member of BIPM-CCQM Cell Analysis Working Group. Her research interests include molecular-level visualization, sensing, and manipulation of engineered nanomaterials using integrated multimodal techniques. Recently she has focused on cellular mechanical responses to drug and nanomaterials treatments, as well as their toxicity and risk assessment.

Annex 3. List of participants

Last Name | First Name | Organisation
AKHTAR | Nadim | AstraZeneca Macclesfield, UK
AL-ABED | Souhail | Environmental Protection Agency-EPA, USA
ALLAN | Jaqueline | Joint Institute for Innovation Policy (JIIP), Belgium
ANASTASIO | Yesica | ANMAT-Administración Nacional de Medicamentos, Alimentos y Tecnología Médica, Argentina
ANGELOV | Angel | University of Food Technologies, Bulgaria
ANKLAM | Elke | European Commission, JRC, EU
BACONNIER | Simon | CEA, France
BAHRKE | Susanne | EDQM, Council of Europe
BARAT BAVIERA | Jose Manuel | Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain
BARONE | Flavia | Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Italy
BARRERO | Josefa | European Commission, JRC, EU
BARTHELEMY | Eric | EFSA, EU
BASTOS | Maria | Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Porto, Portugal
BELZ | Susanne | European Commission, JRC, EU
BEMRAH | Nawel | Anses, France
BIANCHI | Ivana | European Commission, JRC, EU
BINTEIN | Sylvain | European Commission, DG ENV, EU
BORCHARD | Gerrit | University of Geneva, Switzerland
BORGOS | Sven Even | SINTEF Industry, Dept. of Biotechnology and Nanomedicine, Norway
BOSNICK | Ken | National Research Council Canada, Nanotechnology Research Center, Canada
BRAS | Rafael | Mars Wrigley, USA
BREMER | Susanne | European Commission, JRC, EU
BUCHER | Guillaume | Service Commun des Laboratoires, France
BURGESS | Robert | EPA, USA
CALZOLAI | Luigi | European Commission, JRC, EU
CAPUTO | Fanny | CEA Grenoble, France
CARLANDER | David | Nanotechnology Industries Association (NIA), Belgium
CASTENMILLER | Jacqueline | Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA), Netherlands
CECCONE | Giacomo | European Commission, JRC, EU
CELLA | Claudia | European Commission, JRC, EU
CHALFIN | Kate | ASTM International, USA
CHAN SHEOT | Harn | Singapore Food Agency, Singapore
CHEN | Hongda | USDA, USA
CHITTOFRATI | Alba | Solvay Specialty Polymers - R&D - Analytics and Material Characterisation Dept, Italy
CLIFFORD | Charles | National Physical Laboratory, UK
COLPO | Pascal | European Commission, JRC, EU
CROSS | Richard | Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK
CUBADDA | Francesco | Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Italy
CULLIS | Pieter | University of British Columbia, Canada
DE JONG | Wilhelmus | Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS), EU
DE SEZE | Guilhem | EFSA, EU
DE VLIEGER | Jon | Lygature - NBCD Working Group, Netherlands
DESMET | Cloe | European Commission, JRC, EU
DI FRANCESCO | Tiziana | Vifor Pharma Management Ltd, Switzerland
DILCHEVA | Valeriya | Institute of Experimental Morphology, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Bulgaria
DINDA | Amit Kumar | All India Institute of Medical Sciences, India
EL HADRI | Hind | IPREM, France
EL MINIAWY | Hala | Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Cairo University, Egypt
ERDEN | Dicle | Pamukkale University, Faculty of Technology, Turkey
ESPINA | Begona | International Iberian Nanotechnology Laboratory (INL), Portugal
FELEZ | Marta | Tolsa SA, Spain
FERRARI | Mauro | University of St. Thomas (UST), USA
FESSARD | ValéRie | ANSES, France
FIELD | Anne | Therapeutic Goods Administration, Commonwealth Department of Health, Australia
FLÜHMANN | Beat | Vifor Pharma Ltd, Switzerland
FORMANEK | Florian | HORIBA, France
FRIEDERSDORF | Lisa | National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, USA
FRIESE | Dagmar | Federal Ministry of Health, Germany
FUMAGALLI | Francesco | European Commission, JRC, EU
GALLOCCHIO | Federica | Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Italy
GE | Guanglu | National Center for Nanoscience and Technology, China
GEERS | Christoph | Adolphe Merkle Institute, Switzerland
GEERTSMA | Robert | RIVM - National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Netherlands
GEISS | Otmar | European Commission, JRC, EU
GENG | Xingchao | National Institutes for Food and Drug Control (NIFDC), China
GIGAULT | Julien | CNRS Géosciences Rennes, France
GILLILAND | Douglas | European Commission, JRC, EU
GIORIA | Sabrina | European Commission, JRC, EU
GOERING | Peter | FDA, USA
GOLJA | Viviana | National Institute of Public Health, Slovenia
GONZALEZ | Mar | OECD
GOTCHEVA | Velitchka | University of Food Technologies, Bulgaria
GOTTARDO | Stefania | European Commission, JRC, EU
GOYAL | Aditya Sandeep | Evora University, Portugal
GREINER | Ralf | Max Rubner-Institut, Germany
HALAMODA KENZAOUI | Blanka | European Commission, JRC, EU
HAMMONS | George | FDA / National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR), USA
HARDING | Kimberly | Monarch Innovation Partners, Inc., USA
HARTMANN | Nanna Bloch | Technical University of Denmark (DTU), Denmark
HELD | Andrea | European Commission, JRC, EU
HELLMER | Lena | Swedish Chemicals Agency, Sweden
HENRY | Theodore | Heriot-Watt University, UK
HERNAN PEREZ DE LA OSSA | Dolores | EMA, EU
HERZBERG | Frank | Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR), Germany
HO | Kay | EPA, USA
HOEVELER | Arnd | European Commission, JRC, EU
HUGAS | Marta | EFSA, EU
ISLES | Mike | Alliance for Safe Online Pharmacy, UK
IWASE | Ryo | Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan
JANTUNEN | Anna Paula | European Commission, JRC, EU
JEDLIČKOVÁ | Michaela | Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic, Czech Republic
JIANG | Wenlei | FDA, USA
JOHNSTON | Michael | Health Canada, Canada
KAH | Melanie | University of Auckland, New Zealand
KAISER | Debra | National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), USA
KASEMETS | Kaja | National Institute of Chemical Physics and Biophysics, Estonia
KAWANISHI | Toru | Food Safety Commission, Cabinet Office, Government of Japan, Japan
KESTENS | Vikram | European Commission, JRC, EU
KHATTAB | Marwa | Cairo University, Egypt
KOBE | Andrej | European Commission, DG ENV, EU
KOIVISTO | Pertti | Finnish Food Authority, Finland
KOLTSOV | Denis | BREC Solutions Limited, UK
KOONCE | Nathan | FDA / NCTR, USA
KOSTADINOVA | Dessislava | Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Institute of Optical Materials and Technologies “Acad. Jordan Malinowski”, Bulgaria
KOYAMA | Kazuo | Food Safety Commission, Cabinet Office, Government of Japan, Japan
LA SPINA | Rita | European Commission, JRC, EU
LAMPEN | Alfonso | German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Germany
LETTIERI | Teresa | European Commission, JRC, EU
LEYENS | Lada | Swissmedic, Switzerland
LIGUORI | Biase | EcamRicert - ECSIN Lab., Italy
LIMA DA CUNHA | Carlos Eduardo | European Commission, DG RTD, EU
LIPŞA | Dorelia | European Commission, JRC, EU
LLORENS-CHIRALT | Raquel | AIMPLAS, Spain
LOPEZ | Isabel | IMDEA WATER, Spain
LOUATI | Claudia | FDA Europe Office, USA
LYNCH | Iseult | University of Birmingham, UK
LÖFFLER | Beat | European Foundation for Clinical Nanomedicine, Switzerland
LÖSCHNER | Katrin | Technical University of Denmark (DTU), Denmark
MANIKAS | Rizos-Georgios | European Commission, DG GROW, EU
MANTOVAN | Etienne | EcamRicert, Italy
MAO | Zhenbin | National Medical Products Administration (NMPA), China
MARTÍNEZ HERNÁNDEZ | Virtudes | IMDEA Water Institute, Spain
MAST | Jan | Sciensano, Belgium
MATHISEN | Gro Haarklou | Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment, Norway
MAZZILIS | Denis | Agenzia Regionale per la protezione dell'ambiente Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia, Italy
MECH | Agnieszka | European Commission, JRC, EU
MERCIER-BONIN | Muriel | INRA, France
MIKEC | Darko | Croatian Agency for Agriculture and Food, Croatia
MILOSEVIC | Ana | Empa, Switzerland
MINELLI | Caterina | National Physical Laboratory, UK
MORESSA | Alessandra | Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Italy
MORTENSEN | Alicja | National Research Centre for Working Environment, Denmark
MÜNCHBACH | Miriam | Jungbunzlauer, Germany
MĖHN | Dóra | European Commission, JRC, EU
NAKAE | Hiroki | JMAC Japan bio Measurement & Analysis Consortium, Japan
NALUBOLA | Ritu | FDA, USA
NELSON | Bryant | NIST, USA
OGAWA | Kumiko | National Institute of Health Sciences, Japan
OKUDA | Haruhiro | National Institute of Health Sciences, Japan
OOMEN | Agnes | RIVM, Netherlands
PAPINENI | Lakshmana Rao Venkata | University of Kansas Medical Center, USA
PATRI | Anil K. | FDA, USA
PEREZ | Viridiana | Simon Fraser University, Canada
PETKOVA | Svetlozara | Institute of Experimental Morphology, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Bulgaria
PICCOLI | Elisa | Agenzia Regionale per la Protezione dell'Ambiente Friuli Venezia Giulia, Italy
POPOVICI | Georgeta | National Sanitary Veterinary and Food Safety Authority, Romania
POTTIER | Agnès | Nanobiotix, France
PRADEL | Alice | Geosciences Rennes, France
QUARATO | Monica | International Iberian Nanotechnology Laboratory (INL), Portugal
RASMUSSEN | Kirsten | European Commission, JRC, EU
RAUSCHER | Hubert | European Commission, JRC, EU
RIEGO SINTES | Juan | European Commission, JRC, EU
RINCON RINCON | Ana Maria | EFSA, EU
RODRIGUEZ-LORENZO | Laura | International Iberian Nanotechnology Laboratory (INL), Portugal
ROSCH | Micheline | Ministère de la Santé - Direction de la santé - Division de la sécurité alimentaire, Luxembourg
ROSSI | Andrea M | Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica, Italy
RÖSSLEIN | Matthias | Empa, Switzerland
SABORIDO | Mariano | ANMAT-Administración Nacional de Medicamentos, Alimentos y Tecnología Médica, Argentina
SCHOONJANS | Reinhilde | EFSA, EU
SCHWIRN | Kathrin | German Environment Agency (UBA), Germany
SCOTT-FORDSMAND | Janeck James | Aarhus University, Denmark
SENALDI | Chiara | European Commission, JRC, EU
SHARMA | Supriya | Health Canada, Canada
SILVA | Primal | Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Canada
SIMAK | Jan | Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, USA
SIMEONOV | Anton | NIH - National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, Bulgaria
SIMON | Peter | Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology, Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Slovakia
SLIKKER | William | FDA/NCTR, USA
SMITH | Ben | Agency for Science, Technology & Research, Singapore
SOKULL-KLUETTGEN | Birgit | European Commission, JRC, EU
SOME | Daniel | Wyatt Technology, USA
SPUCH-CALVAR | Miguel | Adolphe Merkle Insititute, Switzerland
STAMENITIS | Stamatios | MARS GmbH, Germany
SUMREIN | Abdelqader | ECHA, EU
TARAZONA | Jose | EFSA, EU
TAY GENG | Yu | Singapore Food Agency, Singapore
THAKKAR | Shraddha | National Center for Toxicological Research, US Food and Drug Administration, USA
THÜRMER | René | BfArM - Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices, Germany
TONG | Weida | FDA/NCTR, USA
TYNER | Katherine | FDA, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Office of Pharmaceutical Quality, USA
VALSESIA | Andrea | European Commission, JRC, EU
VELASQUEZ CUMPLIDO | Luis | Universidad SEK Chile, Chile
VETTORI | Maria | EFSA, EU
VLADOV | Ivelin | Institute of Experimental Morphology, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Bulgaria
WACKER | Matthias | National University of Singapore, Singapore
WIENCEK | Justin | FDA/NCTR, USA
WYSER | Yves | Société des produits Nestlé, Switzerland
XENAKIS | Aristotelis | National Hellenic Research Foundation, Greece
XIE | Liming | National Center for Nanoscience and Technology, China
YANG | Jun Young | National Institute of Food and Drug Safety Evaluation, South Korea
ZENTAI | Andrea | National Food Chain Safety Office, Hungary
ZHANG | Hezhan | National Institutes for Food and Drug Control (NIFDC), China
ZOU | Shan | National Research Council Canada, Canada

GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU

In person

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the address of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

On the phone or by email

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service:

- by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),

- at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or

- by electronic mail via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU

Online

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en

EU publications

You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en).

JRC120318

EUR 30195 EN

PDF | ISBN 978-92-76-18435-5 | ISSN 1831-9424 | doi:10.2760/517689
EPUB | ISBN 978-92-76-20660-6 | ISSN 1831-9424 | doi:10.2760/886072

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020

© European Union, 2020

The reuse policy of the European Commission is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not owned by the EU, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders.

All content © European Union, 2020

How to cite this report: Allan J., Sokull-Kluettgen B., and Patri A.K., Gobal Summit on Regulatory Science 2019 Nanpotechnology and Nanoplastics, EUR 30195 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020, ISBN 978-92-76-18435-5, doi:10.2760/517689, JRC120318.