IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v36y2016i8p1564-1580.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Alternative Testing Strategies for Nanomaterials: State of the Science and Considerations for Risk Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • J. A. Shatkin
  • K. J. Ong

Abstract

The rapid growth of the nanotechnology industry has warranted equal progress in the nanotoxicology and risk assessment fields. In vivo models have traditionally been used to determine human and environmental risk for chemicals; however, the use of these tests has limitations, and there are global appeals to develop reliable alternatives to animal testing. Many have investigated the use of alternative (nonanimal) testing methods and strategies have quickly developed and resulted in the generation of large toxicological data sets for numerous nanomaterials (NMs). Due to the novel physicochemical properties of NMs that are related to surface characteristics, the approach toward toxicity test development has distinct considerations from traditional chemicals, bringing new requirements for adapting these approaches for NMs. The methodical development of strategies that combine multiple alternative tests can be useful for predictive NM risk assessment and help screening‐level decision making. This article provides an overview of the main developments in alternative methods and strategies for reducing uncertainty in NM risk assessment, including advantages and disadvantages of in vitro, ex vivo, and in silico methods, and examples of existing comprehensive strategies. In addition, knowledge gaps are identified toward improvements for experimental and strategy design, specifically highlighting the need to represent realistic exposure scenarios and to consider NM‐specific concerns such as characterization, assay interferences, and standardization. Overall, this article aims to improve the reliability and utility of alternative testing methods and strategies for risk assessment of manufactured NMs.

Suggested Citation

  • J. A. Shatkin & K. J. Ong, 2016. "Alternative Testing Strategies for Nanomaterials: State of the Science and Considerations for Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1564-1580, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:36:y:2016:i:8:p:1564-1580
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12642
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12642
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12642?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michael Greenberg & Anthony Cox & Vicki Bier & Jim Lambert & Karen Lowrie & Warner North & Michael Siegrist & Felicia Wu, 2020. "Risk Analysis: Celebrating the Accomplishments and Embracing Ongoing Challenges," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2113-2127, November.
    2. J. A. Shatkin & Kimberly J. Ong & Christian Beaudrie & Amy J. Clippinger & Christine Ogilvie Hendren & Lynne T. Haber & Myriam Hill & Patricia Holden & Alan J. Kennedy & Baram Kim & Margaret MacDonell, 2016. "Advancing Risk Analysis for Nanoscale Materials: Report from an International Workshop on the Role of Alternative Testing Strategies for Advancement," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1520-1537, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:36:y:2016:i:8:p:1564-1580. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.