Regulatory landscape of nanotechnology and nanoplastics from a global perspective
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Nanotechnology and more particularly nanotechnology-based products and materials have provided a huge potential for novel solutions to many of the current challenges society is facing. However, nanotechnology is also an area of product innovation that is sometimes developing faster than regulatory frameworks. This is due to the high complexity of some nanomaterials, the lack of a globally harmonised regulatory definition and the different scopes of regulation at a global level. Research organisations and regulatory bodies have spent many efforts in the last two decades to cope with these challenges. Although there has been a significant advancement related to analytical approaches for labelling purposes as well as to the development of suitable test guidelines for nanomaterials and their safety assessment, there is a still a need for greater global collaboration and consensus in the regulatory field. Furthermore, with growing societal concerns on plastic litter and tiny debris produced by degradation of littered plastic objects, the impact of micro- and nanoplastics on humans and the environment is an emerging issue. Despite increasing research and initial regulatory discussions on micro- and nanoplastics, there are still knowledge gaps and thus an urgent need for action. As nanoplastics can be classified as a specific type of incidental nanomaterials, current and future scientific investigations should take into account the existing profound knowledge on nanotechnology/nanomaterials when discussing issues around nanoplastics. This review was conceived at the 2019 Global Summit on Regulatory Sciences that took place in Stresa, Italy, on 24-26 September 2019 (GSRS 2019) and which was co-organised by the Global Coalition for Regulatory Science Research (GCRSR) and the European Commission's (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC). The GCRSR consists of regulatory bodies from various countries around the globe including EU bodies. The 2019 Global Summit provided an excellent platform to exchange the latest information on activities carried out by regulatory bodies with a focus on the application of nanotechnology in the agriculture/food sector, on nanoplastics and on nanomedicines, including taking stock and promoting further collaboration. Recently, the topic of micro- and nanoplastics has become a new focus of the GCRSR. Besides discussing the challenges and needs, some future directions on how new tools and methodologies can improve the regulatory science were elaborated by summarising a significant portion of discussions during the summit. It has been revealed that there are still some uncertainties and knowledge gaps with regard to physicochemical properties, environmental behaviour and toxicological effects, especially as testing described in the dossiers is often done early in the product development process, and the material in the final product may behave differently. The harmonisation of methodologies for quantification and risk assessment of nanomaterials and micro/nanoplastics, the documentation of regulatory science studies and the need for sharing databases were highlighted as important aspects to look at.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,009 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,009 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».