Grouping of nanomaterial and hazard assessment : requirements for additional criteria to assess the quality of studies
Résumé
In several occasions, scientists can predict the effects of nanomaterials that are in the same category. When possible, grouping is done to simplify analysis, decisions, and to help to select relevant assays. Fate categories could possibly be used to dictate the need for hazard tests or hazard profile to dictate environmental behavior. Nevertheless, to determine hazard in a regulatory framework, assays have to be conducted under defined guidelines and studies are assessed under a score system (i.e. the Klimisch score) to determine if information quoted are sufficient and incertitude acceptable. With this respect, as work is currently done to improve and adapt existing guidelines for nanomaterials, the need for additional quality criteria is emerging. In particular, nanomaterial identification is crucial in hazard assessment and grouping. A list of 10 parameters considered as necessary to identify nanomaterials. The aim of this study is a tentative to identify parameters needed for nanomaterials to validate a study, in order to improve the score system with adaptation for nanomaterials. Data are collected from literature for different nanomaterial tested (TiO2 and Ce for example) and analyzed. For each study, parameters assigned and results of test toxicity are reported. Parameters mainly linked to toxicity are tested using multivariate statistical analysis (PCA for example), which can help in identifying crucial parameters to estimate the quality of the study. Based on these results, a prioritization of additional parameter to be included when assessing the quality of a study using nanomaterials is proposed.