Regulatory Considerations for Safety of Nanomaterials

  • Jasreen Kaur
  • Harpreet Singh
  • Madhu KhatriEmail author


Nanoparticles are continuously being used in various industries on a daily basis, exposing both humans and environment. As previous studies indicate, these nanomaterials tend to cause serious health effects in humans and other biological species. This leads to a dire need to set up specific regulations and guidelines for usage and disposal of these nanoparticles. In order to set up these guidelines, certain factors need important considerations such as physicochemical properties of nanomaterials, their release into environment, portal of their entry into the human body, and their relative toxicities. Therefore, it is mandatory to mend the challenges faced during setting up of these regulations. This chapter focuses on explaining various factors that need to be considered for setting up regulations for proper usage of these nanomaterials and also highlights currently existing regulation around the world.


  1. 1.
    Hodoroaba V, Ghanem A (2019) Nanoscale advances a technique-driven materials categorisation scheme to support regulatory identification. Nanoscale Adv 1:781–791. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wohlleben W, Mielke J, Bianchin A, Ghanem A (2017) Reliable nanomaterial classification of powders using the volume-specific surface area method. J Nano Res 19:61. Scholar
  3. 3.
    Szakal C, Tsytsikova L, Carlander D, Duncan TV (2014) Measurement methods for the oral uptake of engineered nanomaterials from human dietary sources: summary and outlook. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 13(4):669–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arts JHE, Hadi M, Irfan M, Keene AM, Kreiling R, Lyon D (2015) A decision-making framework for the grouping and testing of nanomaterials ( DF4nanoGrouping ). Reg Tox and Pharma 71(2):S1–S27. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Patel P, Shah J (2017) Safety and Toxicological Considerations of Nanomedicines: The Future Directions. Curr Clin Pharmacol 12(2):73–82Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    OECD (2016) Testing Programme of Manufactured Nanomaterials—Dossiers and Endpoints. Available at
  7. 7.
    EC (2011) Commission Recommendation of 18 October 2011 on the Definition of Nanomaterial (2011/696/EU). pp. 38–40; OJ L 275Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ISO 17867:2015 (2015) Preview Particle Size Analysis—Small-angle X-ray ScatteringGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Linsinger T, Roebben G, Gilliland D, Calzolai L, Rossi F, Gibson N, Klein C (2012) Requirements on measurements for the implementation of the European commission. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 92:8–28Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    US-EPA (2017) Chemical substances when manufactured or processed as nanoscale materials: TSCA reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
  11. 11.
    Gilliland D, Gibson P, Hempelmann U, Vicent Pena JB, Kund K, Wohlleben W, Koch T, Burke A, Mcnulty G, Hartl-Gunselmann A, Knobl S, Reisinger M, Sokull-Klüttgen B, Stamm H, Liewald H (2014) Basic comparison of particle size distribution measurements of pigments and fillers using commonly available industrial methods. EUR.
  12. 12.
    EC (2012) Regulation (EU) 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 Concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products. OJ L 167/1Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    OECD (2014) OECD Series on the Safety of Manufactured Nanomaterials, No. 41. Report of the OECD Expert Meeting on the Physico-chemical Properties of Manufactured Nanomaterials and Test Guidelines. OECD, Paris, France, pp. 56. ENV/JM/MONO (2014) 15. Available at Scholar
  14. 14.
    ISO 15901–1:2016 (2016) Evaluation of Pore Size Distribution and Porosity of Solid Materials by Mercury Porosimetry and Gas Adsorption—Part 1: Mercury PorosimetryGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    ISO 15901–15902:2006 (2006) Pore Size Distribution and Porosity of Solid Materials by Mercury Porosimetry and Gas Adsorption—Part 2: Analysis of Mesopores and Macropores by Gas AdsorptionGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    ISO 15901–15903:2007 (2007) Pore Size Distribution and Porosity of Solid Materials by Mercury Porosimetry and Gas Adsorption—Part 3: Analysis of Micropores by Gas AdsorptionGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    ECHA (2017a) Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment. Appendix R7-1 Recommendations for Nanomaterials Applicable to Chapter R7a Endpoint Specific Guidance, Version 2.0, May 2017. European Chemicals Agency.
  18. 18.
    EFSA (2011) Guidance on the risk assessment of the application of nanoscience and nanotechnologies in the food and feed chain. EFSA J 9(5):2140. 36 ppCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    EC (2006) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 Concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), Establishing a European Chemicals Agency, Amending Directive 1999/45/EC and Repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/ 93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as Well as Council Directive 76/ 769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. OJ L 396:1–849Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ECHA (2017b) How to Prepare Registration Dossiers that Cover Nanoforms: Best Practices, Version 1.0, May 2017.
  21. 21.
    Hansen SF, Baun A (2012) European Regulation Affecting Nanomaterials - Review of Limitations and Future Recommendations. Dose Response 10(3):364–383Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shandilya N et al (2015) Emission of titanium dioxide nanoparticles from building materials to the environment by wear and weather. Environ Sci Technol 49(4):2163–2170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gondikas AP et al (2014) Release of TiO2 nanoparticles from sunscreens into surface waters: a one-year survey at the old Danube recreational Lake. Environ Sci Technol 48(10):5415–5422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hartmann NB et al (2014) Environmental fate and behavior of nanomaterials—new knowledge on important transformation processes. Environmental Project No. 1594 of the Danish Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hou WC et al (2013) Biological accumulation of engineered nanomaterials: a review of current knowledge. Environ Sci Process Impacts 15(1):103–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Walser T et al (2012) Persistence of engineered nanoparticles in a municipal solid waste incineration plant. Nat Nanotech 7:520–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Miller R, Raftis JB, Langrish JP, McLean SG, Samutrtai P, Connell SP, Wilson S, Vesey AT, Fokkens PHB, Boere AJF et al (2017) Inhaled nanoparticles accumulate at sites of vascular disease. ACS Nano 11:4542–4552. Scholar
  28. 28.
    Van der Zande M, Vandebriel RJ, Van Doren E, Kramer E, Herrera Rivera Z, Serrano-Rojero CS, Gremmer ER, Mast J, Peters RJ, Hollman PC et al (2012) Distribution, elimination, and toxicity of silver nanoparticles and silver ions in rats after 28-day oral exposure. ACS Nano 6:7427–7442. Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pujalté I, Dieme D, Haddad S, Serventi AM, Bouchard M (2017) Toxicokinetics of titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles after inhalation in rats. Toxicol Lett 265:77–85. Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bennett SW, Zhou D, Mielke R, Keller AA (2012) Photoinduced disaggregation of TiO2 nanoparticles enables transdermal penetration. PLoS One 7:e48719. Scholar
  31. 31.
    Crosera M, Prodi A, Mauro M, Pelin M, Florio C, Bellomo F, Adami G, Apostoli P, De Palma G, Bovenzi M et al (2015) Titanium dioxide nanoparticle penetration into the skin and effects on HaCaT cells. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12:9282–9297. Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tak YK, Pal S, Naoghare PK, Rangasamy S (2015) Shape-dependent skin penetration of silver nanoparticles: does it really matter? Sci Rep 5:16908. Scholar
  33. 33.
    Park YH, Bae HC, Jang Y, Jeong SH, Lee HN, Ryu WI, Yoo MG, Kim YR, Kim MK, Lee JK et al (2013) Effect of the size and surface charge of silica nanoparticles on cutaneous toxicity. Mol Cell Toxicol 209:67–74. Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yoshida T, Yoshioka Y, Takahashi H, Misato K, Mori T, Hirai T, Nagano K, Abe Y, Mukai Y, Kamada H et al (2014) Intestinal absorption and biological effects of orally administered amorphous silica particles. Nanoscale Res Lett 9:532. Scholar
  35. 35.
    De Matteis V, Cascione M, Brunetti V, Toma CC, Rinaldi R (2016) Toxicity assessment of anatase and rutile titanium dioxide nanoparticles: the role of degradation in different pH conditions and light exposure. Toxicol In Vitro 37:201–210. Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hadrup N, Lam HR (2014) Oral toxicity of silver ions, silver nanoparticles and colloidal silver—A review. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 68:1–7. Scholar
  37. 37.
    Asharani PV, Wu YL, Gong Z, Valiyaveettil S (2008) Toxicity of silver nanoparticles in zebrafish models. Nanotechnology 19.
  38. 38.
    Haque E, Ward A (2018) Zebrafish as a model to evaluate nanoparticle toxicity. Nanomaterials 8(7):561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Liu J, Fan D, Wang L, Shi LI, Ding J, Chen Y, Shen S (2014) Effects of ZnO, CuO, Au, and TiO2 nanoparticles on Daphnia magna and early life stages of Zebrafish Danio rerio. Environ Prot Eng 40(1):431–439Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Böhme S, Baccaro M, Schmidt M, Potthoff A, Stärk HJ, Reemtsma T, Kühnel D (2017) Metal uptake and distribution in the zebrafish (Danio rerio) embryo: differences between nanoparticles and metal ions. Environ Sci Nano 4(5):1005–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Shah SNA, Shah Z, Hussain M, Khan M (2017) Hazardous effects of titanium dioxide nanoparticles in ecosystem. Bioinorg Chem Appl 2017:4101735Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Valentini X, Absil L, Laurent G, Robbe A, Laurent S, Muller R, Nonclercq D (2017) Toxicity of TiO 2 nanoparticles on the NRK52E renal cell line. Mol Cell Toxicol 13(4):419–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sajid M, Ilyas M, Basheer C, Tariq M, Daud M, Baig N, Shehzad F (2015) Impact of nanoparticles on human and environment: review of toxicity factors, exposures, control strategies, and future prospects. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22(6):4122–4143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Arruda SCC, Silva ALD, Galazzi RM, Azevedo RA, Arruda MAZ (2015) Nanoparticles applied to plant science: a review. Talanta 131:693–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lin DH, Xing BS (2007) Phytotoxicity of nanoparticles: inhibition of seed germination and root elongation. Environ Pollut 150:243–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Liu Y, Zhao Y, Sun B, Chen C (2012) Understanding the toxicity of carbon nanotubes. Acc Chem Res 46(3):702–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Chithrani BD, Ghazani AA, Chan WCW (2006) Determining the size and shape dependence of gold nanoparticle uptake into mammalian cells. Nano Lett 6:662–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    D’Silva J, van Calster G (2009) Taking temperature—A review of European Union regulation in nanomedicine. Eur J Health Law 16:249–269. Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kaegi R et al (2008) Synthetic TiO2 nanoparticle emission from exterior facades into the aquatic environment. Environ Pollut 156(2):233–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    SCENIHR, Risk Assessment of Products of Nanotechnologies. 2009.; Accessed 17 July 2017
  51. 51.
    Kaur J, Khatri M, Puri S (2019) Toxicological evaluation of metal oxide nanoparticles and mixed exposures at low doses using zebra fish and THP1 cell line. Environ Toxicol 34(4):375–387Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University Institute of Engineering and Technology (UIET)Panjab UniversityChandigarhIndia
  2. 2.Centre for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, Panjab UniversityChandigarhIndia
  3. 3.Wellcome Trust/DBT India AllianceHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations