Case Study III: The Construction of a Nanotoxicity Database – The MOD-ENP-TOX Experience

  • Hanne Vriens
  • Dominik Mertens
  • Renaud Regret
  • Pinpin Lin
  • Jean-Pierre Locquet
  • Peter HoetEmail author
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 947)


The amount of experimental studies on the toxicity of nanomaterials is growing fast. Interpretation and comparison of these studies is a complex issue due to the high amount of variables possibly determining the toxicity of nanomaterials.

Qualitative databases providing a structured combination, integration and quality evaluation of the existing data could reveal insights that cannot be seen from different studies alone. A few database initiatives are under development but in practice very little data is publicly available and collaboration between physicists, toxicologists, computer scientists and modellers is needed to further develop databases, standards and analysis tools.

In this case study the process of building a database on the in vitro toxicity of amorphous silica nanoparticles (NPs) is described in detail. Experimental data were systematically collected from peer reviewed papers, manually curated and stored in a standardised format. The result is a database in ISA-Tab-Nano including 68 peer reviewed papers on the toxicity of 148 amorphous silica NPs. Both the physicochemical characterization of the particles and their biological effect (described in 230 in vitro assays) were stored in the database. A scoring system was elaborated in order to evaluate the reliability of the stored data.


Amorphous silica nanoparticles ISA-Tab-Nano Data reliability In vitro Nano-informatics 


  1. 1.
    caNanoLab [Internet]. Cited 6 Aug 2015. Available from:
  2. 2.
    Mills KC, Murry D, Guzan KA, Ostraat ML (2014) Nanomaterial registry: database that captures the minimal information about nanomaterial physico-chemical characteristics. J Nanopart Res 16(2):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    NIOSH topic: nanotechnology : nanoparticle information library | CDC/NIOSH [Internet]. Cited 6 Aug 2015. Available from:
  4. 4.
    NBI Knowlegebase [Internet]. Cited 6 Aug 2015. Available from:
  5. 5.
    Napierska D, Thomassen LC, Lison D, Martens JA, Hoet PH (2010) The nanosilica hazard: another variable entity. Part Fibre Toxicol 7(1):39CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    PubMed relevance sort [Internet]. Cited 1 Sep 2015. Available from:
  7. 7.
    Thomas DG, Gaheen S, Harper SL, Fritts M, Klaessig F, Hahn-Dantona E et al (2013) ISA-TAB-Nano: a specification for sharing nanomaterial research data in spreadsheet-based format. BMC Biotechnol 13(1):2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Klimisch H-J, Andreae M, Tillmann U (1997) A systematic approach for evaluating the quality of experimental toxicological and ecotoxicological data. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 25(1):1–5CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    ToxRTool – Toxicological data Reliability Assessment Tool — EURL ECVAM [Internet]. Cited 31 Jul 2015. Available from:
  10. 10.
    Schneider K, Schwarz M, Burkholder I, Kopp-Schneider A, Edler L, Kinsner-Ovaskainen A et al (2009) “ToxRTool”, a new tool to assess the reliability of toxicological data. Toxicol Lett 189(2):138–144CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Oberdörster G, Maynard A, Donaldson K, Castranova V, Fitzpatrick J, Ausman K et al (2005) Principles for characterizing the potential human health effects from exposure to nanomaterials: elements of a screening strategy. Part Fibre Toxicol 2(1):8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Publications in the series on the safety of manufactured nanomaterials – OECD [Internet]. Cited 2015 Aug 7. Available from:
  13. 13.
    Monteiro-Riviere NA, Inman AO, Zhang LW (2009) Limitations and relative utility of screening assays to assess engineered nanoparticle toxicity in a human cell line. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 234(2):222–235CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wörle-Knirsch JM, Pulskamp K, Krug HF (2006) Oops they did it again! Carbon nanotubes hoax scientists in viability assays. Nano Lett 6(6):1261–1268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lubinski L, Urbaszek P, Gajewicz A, Cronin MTD, Enoch SJ, Madden JC et al (2013) Evaluation criteria for the quality of published experimental data on nanomaterials and their usefulness for QSAR modelling. SAR QSAR Environ Res 24(12):995–1008CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Krug HF (2014) Nanosafety research—are we on the right track? Angew Chem Int Ed 53(46):12304–12319Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vansant EF, Voort PVD, Vrancken KC (1995) Characterization and chemical modification of the silica surface. Elsevier, Amsterdam/New York, p. 573Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Luyts K, Napierska D, Nemery B, Hoet PHM (2013) How physico-chemical characteristics of nanoparticles cause their toxicity: complex and unresolved interrelations. Environ Sci Process Impacts 15(1):23–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hanne Vriens
    • 1
  • Dominik Mertens
    • 2
  • Renaud Regret
    • 3
  • Pinpin Lin
    • 4
  • Jean-Pierre Locquet
    • 5
  • Peter Hoet
    • 1
    • 6
    Email author
  1. 1.Center for Environment and HealthKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Genedata AGBaselSwitzerland
  3. 3.Rhenovia PharmaMulhouseFrance
  4. 4.National Health Research InstitutesZhunan TownTaiwan
  5. 5.Solid State Physics and Magnetism Section, KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  6. 6.KU Leuven, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Center for Environment and HealthLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations