Abstract
In this perspective, the authors give their view on the developments and experiences on communicating on (nano)materials safety. We would like to share our experiences with the scientific community in order to make them useful for future communication activities. We present the long-term work of the science communication projects DaNa, DaNa2.0 and DaNa4.0, running from 2009 to 2023. Starting in the early 2000s with the beginnings of nanotechnology research, communication on the safety of nanomaterials with the public was still very new and faced the projects with many challenges. Today, science communication is indispensable for the dissemination of scientific findings and a fact-based approach like the DaNa “Knowledge Base Materials” creates a trustworthy dialogue with the public. This long-term project series has made a significant contribution to communication on the safety of nanomaterials, perhaps even the largest among publicly funded project series worldwide.
1 The projects
There is constant innovation in the (nano)material sector, with a multitude of new materials and opportunities for their use. This is accompanied by massive concerns about the materials safety upon contact with humans and organisms in the environment. To provide objective, evidence-based reporting on materials safety, scientists from different disciplines have joined forces to create a “Knowledge Base Materials.” Reliable and fact-based communication has a significant impact on various stakeholders and over the years, the communication tools have also been constantly updated.
In the early 2000s, a heated discussion arose about the need to analyse the risks of nanomaterials, alongside the opportunities they offer. Parallel to the 6th and 7th European Framework Program from 2003 to 2013 national research programs on nanotechnology were launched. Starting in 2006, the German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) promoted a series of laboratory research projects that laid the foundations for high-quality materials science and toxicological data and encouraged the communication of project results to various stakeholders with an interest in nanosafety. Subsequently, a consortium was mandated by the BMBF in 2009 to further develop these foundations and make them accessible to the public in a science communication project named DaNa (Data and Knowledge on Nanomaterials). The central intention of this initial information project was to provide an objective, fact-based presentation of nanomaterials and their safety. This was triggered by public concerns about the safety of nanomaterials at that time [e.g., (Prince sounds new nanotech alert, 2024)], and aimed at providing a sound scientific basis for public debate, which was sometimes rather driven by emotions than by scientific facts. A website and additional information materials like flyers or brochures were designed in German (www.nanopartikel.info) and English (www.nanoobjects.info) (and parts of it even in French) from the outset to achieve worldwide accessibility. The international availability of the DaNa information platform had a significant impact on both the number of visitors and the general visibility of the project.
In total, the BMBF funded from 2009 to 2023 a whole series of research projects dealing with the safety of various (nano)materials. The projects DaNa, DaNa2.0, and DaNa4.0 (note: there was no DaNa3) served as accompanying projects respectively, supporting project partners with networking as well as the dissemination of their research results via the DaNa website.
In addition to the central communication channel, the nanoobjects.info website, and information events for several stakeholders (e.g., pupils, students), the DaNa initiatives published their work (e.g., development of database, dissemination strategies, literature selection criteria) in specialised (; ; ; Nau et al., 2016; ; ; ; ; Nau et al., 2023) and general journals (Steinbach et al., 2012; ). Furthermore, a contact point was set up for citizens and consumers to discuss nanosafety issues directly with experts. Since the 2020s, the website has been expanded to include selected so-called advanced materials, in addition to various other measures (aspects of battery research, sustainability).
Over the years, the project website has successfully become a renowned information platform. This is shown by the fact that other initiatives have referred to DaNa, e.g., the EU NanoSafety Cluster (https://www.nanosafetycluster.eu) (; Nanosafetycluster, 2024), and the European Observatory for Nanomaterials (EUON) hosted by ECHA (https://euon.echa.europa.eu/safety) (). Moreover, DaNa methods and work have received recognition at the EU level, e.g., in the NanoCommons User Guidance Handbook (https://nanocommons.github.io/user-handbook/) ().
In addition, also the access figures demonstrate growing interest from the public over the years. According to an internal project analysis (in line with data protection guidelines), in 2022 approx. 97,460 website visitors and 166,000 page views were recorded, demonstrating a need for information on the safety and application of various materials. This is also reflected in search engine rankings: the topics covered on nanopartikel.info and/or nanoobjects.info are in the top positions (Nau et al., 2024).
2 The team
Assessing the safety of nanomaterials is a complex process requiring the consideration of chemical-physiological material characterisation together with (eco)toxicological effects. For this, experts from various disciplines such as material sciences, chemistry, physics, biology, and toxicology teamed up to a powerful multidisciplinary team, which initially consisted of a core team from Empa and KIT for evaluation of human toxicology, UFZ for ecotoxicology, and DECHEMA and Fraunhofer IKTS for material properties of nanomaterials.
Over the years, various external experts from Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Denmark and Slovenia supported this core team. They were joined by IT specialists from KIT, who realized the technically sophisticated implementation of the knowledge database on nanoobjects.info as a unique selling point (see Table1).
TABLE 1
| Temporary team members (2009–2023) | |
|---|---|
| Human toxicology | C. Marquardt (KIT, Germany) |
| P. Wick, C. Hirsch, T. Bürki-Thurnherr (Empa, Switzerland) | |
| N. Bohmer (Empa, Switzerland/DECHEMA, Germany) | |
| Ecotoxicology | A. Mattern, S. Reichelt, S. Wagner (UFZ, Leipzig, Germany) |
| Material information | V. Richter, S. Richter (Fraunhofer IKTS, Germany) |
| B. Mathes, F. Paul, S. Espinoza, N. Möller (DECHEMA, Germany) | |
| Web platform | C. Marquardt, D. Nehse, S. Kuhn (KIT, Germany) |
| IT | D. Kimmig, A. Schmidt (KIT, Germany) |
| Focus group analysis | M. Zschiesche (UfU, Berlin, Germany) |
| External experts (Affiliation at that time) | |
| Human toxicology | A. Duschl, M. Himly (University Salzburg, Austria) |
| B. Rothen-Rutishauser, J. Caldwell (AMI, Switzerland) | |
| Ecotoxicology | C. Tyler, R. Goodhead (University of Exeter, United Kingdom) |
| B. Nowack, I. Hincapie (Empa, Switzerland) | |
| F. v.d. Kammer (University Vienna, Austria) | |
| N. Hartmann, A. Baun (Technical University of Denmark, DTU) | |
| A. Jemec Kokalj (University of Ljubljana, Slovenia) | |
| Material information | J. Kreuter (Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany) |
| A. Fink (AMI, Switzerland) | |
| Exposure | T. Kuhlbusch (IUTA, Germany) |
| General consulting | S. Belluci (TA Swiss, Bern, Switzerland) |
| M. Simko (Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria) | |
| C. Studer (BAG, Bern, Switzerland) | |
Team and external experts.
3 The challenges
For a well-balanced representation of knowledge on materials safety, we experienced various challenges, some of which will be briefly outlined here. For articles on human and environmental safety of advanced materials (including nanomaterials) only peer reviewed published data on (nano)materials was taken into account and underwent an internal project process. For this purpose, scientific literature for the respective compound or material was retrieved from common databases (e.g., PubMed, WoS, Scopus … ). As some (eco)toxicological testing of nanomaterials turned out to be prone to interferences (e.g., (Worle-Knirsch et al., 2006; Spohn et al., 2009), several misinterpretations (Priester J. et al., 2012; ; Priester J. H. et al., 2012; ; ; Smith, 2012; ; ; SciTechDaily, 2021) and misconceptions (Yazdi et al., 2010; Schwab et al., 2011; ; ; ; ; ) of study results appeared in the press, most often in an alarming style.
A recent example is the controversial discussion about the biological effects of Titanium dioxide (TiO2) between the EU authorities on the one side and industry and several scientific experts on the other: In 2021, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) revised the classification of TiO2 based on high-dose tests on rats and results from questionable publications. Everyday products containing TiO2 (size-independent) must be labelled according to EUH212 as follows: “Warning! Hazardous respirable dust may be generated during use. Do not inhale dust” (). Moreover, in 2021 the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) re-evaluated studies from 2015 to 2020 and raised safety concerns as well (Younes et al., 2021; ). TiO2 (E171) was then banned as a food additive in the EU in August 2022. On 23 November 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) annulled the Commission Delegation Regulation of 2019 as regards to the aforementioned classification and labelling of TiO2 in the CLP Regulation. In its judgment, the General Court ruled “that the Commission made a manifest error in its assessment of the reliability and acceptability of the study on which the classification was based, and incorrectly applied the classification criteria as laid down by the CLP Regulation to a substance that has the intrinsic property to cause cancer” (Union, 2022). International expert groups have doubts about the EFSA’s evaluation and are calling for this decision to be reconsidered in the EU (; ).
Such topics confronted the DaNa researchers right from the beginning with the issue of reliability of studies and prompted us to develop a methodology for the selection of reliable studies as basis for our communication efforts. The central tool in this methodology became our quality criteria checklist (Nau et al., 2016; ; ). This checklist compiles relevant criteria on basic particle characteristics, the study design, the biological test systems as well as the statistical evaluation of data. By defining both mandatory and voluntary criteria, it allowed us to select reliable studies, and only those were included into the knowledgebase that fulfilled minimum all mandatory criteria.
Further we were confronted with “data-rich” materials, such as nanosilver or nanoTiO2, for which unmanageable numbers of studies were found. Despite some efforts it was not possible to automatize the study quality evaluation. Hence, further selection criteria were included, and only studies published in journals with an impact factor of 2 or higher were considered. While using original publications for the articles on human and ecotoxicology, for the material information texts, also grey literature, as well as literature reviews were considered.
4 Communication
In general, scientists publish their results in scientific journals and report on their findings at conferences. The fact that scientists were reporting on nanotechnology, in particular on the safety of nanomaterials, via a web platform accessible to the general public, was really new in 2009. But focus group discussions in the forerunner project NanoCare and student focus groups in DaNa () had shown that there was a need for reliable information on nanomaterials. The debate about possible risks should take place at an early stage of innovation and development with fact-based information and open communication in order to not repeat the mistakes of past debates, e.g., on green genetic engineering. Communicating science with different stakeholders is challenging, as the level of information and background knowledge differs individually. Discussing with other scientists is usually least challenging, as there is mostly a common basis, even though terminology may differ in detail. Stakeholders such as regulators are also grateful for reliable first-hand information. The main target group of the nanoobjects.info website is interested consumers. They often have questions about products containing nanotechnology or nanomaterials (Nano enabled products). Or they are concerned by advertisements and media reports and therefore consult the web platform for background information. It is therefore all the more important to provide reliable information on the safety of nanomaterials and writing articles in an understandable way. Open and understandable communication with the general public by scientists also demystifies the science and its often very specific terminology. For many consumers science is still practiced in ivory towers and there is no awareness on how science informs on safety issues. This is why scientists should communicate directly to the public. But that doesn’'t mean that every scientist has to do science communication. The acceptance of this work is still difficult, especially among scientific colleagues, because success in science is mainly measured in publications. It is not yet fully accepted that science communication requires resources and is not done on the side, as demonstrated by little funding options. The DaNa projects have taken on a pioneering role here, as they explicitly promoted work for the public. During the course of the projects, the team has continued to develop and the principles of science communication have become more and more integrated into the knowledge base. For example, by including formats such as a paper of the month, presenting scientific studies and highlighting the significance of their results for the general public.
Social media have played an increasingly important role in recent years. Channels on X (formerly Twitter), Mastodon and LinkedIn were established to reach an even wider audience. The social media channels complement the web platform, allowing the information to reach a younger target group as well.
5 The wishlist
From the outset, the DaNa experts intended to promote an objective, evidence-based discussion. This includes, in particular, the re-evaluation of published studies, as it is noticeable that many publications are not sufficiently qualified and/or often lack important, relevant information on the content, particularly with regard to toxicological statements. Some authors’ conclusions are often not comprehensible on the basis of the results presented (Song et al., 2009; Yazdi et al., 2010; ). Many publications in the area of nano(eco)toxicology lack important information on the physical-chemical characteristics of the particles, as well as on particle behaviour in testing media over time. This includes e.g., information on the size of internal structures, or the concentrations used in toxicity assays, so that the experiments are not reproducible. Therefore, a catalogue of relevant criteria was compiled by the DaNa team. It sets out clear requirements that the studies must meet in order to be included in our texts on materials and effects. Whether the criteria were fulfilled or not is carefully documented.
However, this will not be sufficient in the future, because with more than 80,000 published studies on the toxicological effects of nanomaterials, it is no longer possible to re-evaluate the results and content. Recent developments in AI point to an automated evaluation and review of studies. However, reliable quality evaluation is still essential, the more so for more complex advanced materials.
As shown by (; ; ; ), only around 10%–30% of published studies on nanotoxicology can actually be used to assess a hazard or risk. The reason for this includes experimental design that may be not suitable for risk assessment purposes (e.g., use of only one test concentration), but also missing information on relevant parameters.
Missing information may be due to data that were not experimentally generated or data that exist but are simply not available due to several reasons. To overcome obstacles in data findability and re-use, a group of scientists formulated the FAIR principles (Wilkinson et al., 2016), standing for a concept to foster the Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability of scholarly data. The concept is now widely accepted and there are many efforts worldwide to implement it in practice (), including the EU (European Open Science Cloud). There are activities in the field of material safety research as well (). From this point of view, it would therefore also be desirable for each toxicological publication to include a supplement containing a form similar to a REACH dossier, in which all relevant (meta)data are listed in a machine-readable version (including the important properties of the material, the biological model, the treatment and the biological endpoints). This would ease the work of regulators, science communicators, and any re-users.
6 The future
Over the years of communicating about (nano)materials safety, also the material science and materials of interest have undergone tremendous changes. The materials became more complex in composition, nano and microscale particles were combined, and properties of materials were fine tuned for a specific application, leading to the field of advanced materials. Many novel developments for advanced materials are related to the huge societal transformation in front of us, to fight the triple planetary crisis of climate change, decline in biodiversity and pollution. Overall, in the EU, several strategies were brought on the way to support the transition to a more sustainable lifestyle (Green deal, Zero pollution action plan, Circular economy action plan). Here, advanced materials and material innovations are supposed to play a key role to e.g., make batteries for electromobility more efficient, improve the storage of energy from renewable sources, or provide efficient remediation methods to remove pollutants from the environment. But in addition, sustainability calls for improvements in material design (long-lived materials to prolong use phase of products) as well as in recyclability of materials from applications e.g., rare earth elements from batteries, to increase re-use of materials on the one hand, and reduce the environmental impacts of mining on the other hand. All this will lead to the constant development and market entry of novel materials, with new properties that may also affect materials impact on human and environmental health.
In recent years promising developments regarding the early detection of potential detrimental effects of novel materials have been made, e.g., the development of the Safe (and sustainable) by Design (SSbD) concept. Currently the concept is further developed to be put into practice by material developers (). It must be avoided that such concepts fundamentally slow down research and innovation in general and thus prevent further scientific development. However, policy goals (such as EU Green deal (), Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability ()) need to be implemented into these concepts. In addition, the prediction of toxic effects of materials will further improve in the future, and this may also be useful for risk communication on novel materials (Oomen et al., 2015; Varsou et al., 2019; ; ).
All these material innovations, being developed or applied in new combinations, support the need for constant, honest communication on potential hazardous effects for humans and the environment, based on facts and scientific evidence. In the EU, regulatory frameworks are constantly adopted to novel findings as evidenced by the implementation of nanomaterial-specific annexes and guidance into REACH, and adoption of cosmetics and pesticide regulations. It will be important also to communicate on regulatory issues to the society and inform on protective or restrictive measures taken by governments to manage potential risks of advanced materials. Currently, for example, there is a debate to include polymer materials into the registration required under REACH, and formulate criteria to identify materials of concern (; ).
Further, digitalization () and the implementation of infrastructures for FAIR data () hold promise to ease the DaNa teams future work by facilitating data search by e.g., data mining tools (also involving artificial intelligence) and in general allow access to toxicity data more easily.
7 Conclusion
Reflecting on the history of the DaNa projects and their achievement in building a unique knowledge base on materials safety accessible to everyone, there are promising developments in the field of toxicology, having a significant impact on our future work. To counteract fake news and “alternative facts,” transparent and evidence-based communication is crucial to build trust between stakeholders, including scientists, policymakers, regulatory authorities, and the public. Sustainable and environmentally friendly toxicology as applied in the concept of green toxicology, emphasizes the need to consider the environmental impact of chemicals and materials during the research and development process (). Ideally, chemicals harmful for humans and the environment will not enter the use phase, to avoid situations such as the current one with PFAS, which are extremely persistent and are now known as “forever chemicals.” They are suspected to cause cancer, and cause high economical burdens due to costs for healthcare, environmental monitoring, remediation and more [e.g., (Wee and Aris, 2023)]. Strengthening toxicology as an integral part of overall chemicals and materials research is essential for responsible and sustainable innovation.
Further, non-animal testing methods, often referred to as New Approach Methodologies (NAMs), play currently a pivotal role in toxicology. These alternatives aim to replace, reduce, or refine the use of animals in testing procedures by building a mechanistic understanding on effects of toxicants. This shift not only addresses ethical concerns related to animal welfare but also aligns with the broader goal of promoting environmentally friendly practices. NAMs include in vitro and high-throughput methods, computational models, and other innovative technologies that provide reliable and mechanistic data without relying on animal experiments.
Examples of long-term projects that communicate about materials safety and support green toxicology by publishing information on the web are “Nano-Trust” (https://www.oeaw.ac.at/ita/nanotrust/) and “DaNa” (www.nanoobjects.info, www.nanopartikel.info). These initiatives focus on understanding the potential risks associated with (nano)materials and provide reliable information for different stakeholders in a targeted manner. Both projects went beyond the typical funding period of three to 4 years, highlighting the need for sustained efforts and commitment to build trust and achieve meaningful communication activities.
In summary, the DaNa team took a long journey in science communication on (nano)materials safety. As with all things, standing still is not an option, and so constant adjustments have been made to current developments on the internet, in communication and also in material science and toxicology and we will continue to do so as the journey continues. Following the successful completion of the DaNa projects, the BMBF is funding safety and sustainability aspects of advanced materials as part of a new science communication project: MANTRA - data on innovative materials for sustainability and transfer. The new platform of the initiative www.materialneutral.info will be launched mid 2024.
Statements
Data availability statement
Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. This data can be found here: www.nanoobjects.info.
Author contributions
DK: Funding acquisition, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing. HK: Conceptualization, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing. CS: Funding acquisition, Project administration, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing. KN: Funding acquisition, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The authors would like to thank the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) for funding the three DaNa projects: DaNa (“Collection, evaluation and broad-based presentation of socially relevant data and findings on nanomaterials”) Grant No. 03X0075 (08/2009–07/2013), DaNa2.0 (“Data and Knowledge on Nanomaterials—Evaluation of Socially Relevant Scientific Facts”), Grant No. 03X0131 (08/2013–12/2019), and DaNa4.0 (“Data on new, innovative and safe application related materials”) Grant No. 03XP0282 (03/2020–11/2023).
Acknowledgments
The core project partners (HK—Human toxicology, KN—Human toxicology, Web platform, DK—Ecotoxicology, CS—Material information) would like to thank project members and external experts listed in Table 1 for their support and valuable contributions to communicating on (nano)materials safety.
Conflict of interest
HK is shareholder of NanoCASE GmbH.
The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
Abdolahpur MonikhF.ChupaniL.Arenas-LagoD.GuoZ.ZhangP.DarbhaG. K.et al (2021). Particle number-based trophic transfer of gold nanomaterials in an aquatic food chain. Nat. Commun.12 (1), 899. 10.1038/s41467-021-21164-w
2
BallJ. (2012). Nanoparticle 'risk' to food crops. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-19320267.
3
BoutillierS.FourmentinS.LapercheB. (2022). History of titanium dioxide regulation as a food additive: a review. Environ. Chem. Lett.20 (2), 1017–1033. 10.1007/s10311-021-01360-2
4
BraakhuisH. M.MurphyF.Ma-HockL.DekkersS.KellerJ.OomenA. G.et al (2021). An integrated approach to testing and assessment to support grouping and read-across of nanomaterials after inhalation exposure. Appl Vitro Toxicol7 (3), 112–128. 10.1089/aivt.2021.0009
5
CaldeiraC.FarcalR.MorettiC.ManciniL.RasmussenK.RauscherH.et al (2022) Safe and sustainable by design chemicals and materials – review of safety and sustainability dimensions, aspects, methods, indicators, and tools. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 10.2760/879069
6
CommissionE. (2019). The European green deal. COM(2019) 640 final. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52019DC0640.
7
CommissionE. (2020). Chemicals strategy for sustainability - towards a toxic-free environment. COM(2020) 667 final. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:f815479a-0f01-11eb-bc07-01aa75ed71a1.0003.02/DOC_1&format=PDF.
8
CrawfordS. E.HartungT.HollertH.MathesB.van RavenzwaayB.Steger-HartmannT.et al (2017). Green Toxicology: a strategy for sustainable chemical and material development. Environ. Sci. Eur.29 (1), 16. 10.1186/s12302-017-0115-z
9
CrossR. K. (2021) Without these lipid shells, there would be no mRNA vaccines for COVID-19. Chemical & Engineering News. Available at: https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceuticals/drug-delivery/Without-lipid-shells-mRNA-vaccines/99/i899 (8).
10
CrossR. K.SpurgeonD.SvendsenC.LahiveE.LittleS.von der KammerF.et al (2024). An integrated approach to testing and assessment (IATA) to support grouping and read-across of nanomaterials in aquatic systems. Nano Today54, 102065. 10.1016/j.nantod.2023.102065
11
DaNa (2021). Literature criteria checklist. Available at: https://nanopartikel.info/en/knowledge/literature-criteria-checklist/(Accessed November 9, 2021).
12
DaNa-Project-Consortium (2021a) Nanomaterials and fake news –spotlight april 2021.
13
DaNa-Project-Consortium (2021b). Spotlight april 2021: nanomaterials and fake news – a commentary based on an example. Available at: https://nanopartikel.info/en/spotlight/spotlight-april-2021-nanomaterials-and-fake-news-a-commentary-based-on-an-example/.
14
DaNa-Project-Consortium (2021c). Spotlight february 2021: nanoobjects in the COVID-vaccine – scientifically correct?Available at: https://nanopartikel.info/en/spotlight/spotlight-february-2021-nanoobjects-in-the-covid-vaccine-scientifically-correct/.
15
DriscollK. E. (2022). Review of lung particle overload, rat lung cancer, and the conclusions of the Edinburgh expert panel—it's time to revisit cancer hazard classifications for titanium dioxide and carbon black. Front. Public Health10, 907318. 10.3389/fpubh.2022.907318
16
DumitV. I.AmmarA.BakkerM. I.BañaresM. A.BossaC.CostaA.et al (2023). From principles to reality. FAIR implementation in the nanosafety community. Nano Today51, 101923. 10.1016/j.nantod.2023.101923
17
ECHA (2021a). Guide on the classification and labelling of titanium dioxide. Available at: https://echa.europa.eu/-/new-guide-available-on-classifying-and-labelling-titanium-dioxide.
18
ECHA (2021b) An initial thought starter on REACH information requirements for Unique Polymers Requiring Registration. Available at: https://eeb.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Statement-on-the-registration-of-polymers-under-REACH-_v250421.pdf upload under https://eeb.org/. European Commission.
19
EUON (2024). Nanopinion/-/Blogs/Are-Nanoplastics-Hazardous-The-Way-Forward-To-Overcome-The-Uncertainties-Of-Risk-Assessment. Available at: https://euon.echa.europa.eu/de/nanopinion/-/blogs/are-nanoplastics-hazardous-the-way-forward-to-overcome-the-uncertainties-of-risk-assessment (Accessed April 11, 2024).
20
European Commission and ECHA (2021). “PROPOSAL for an EU-DEFINITION of A polymer of low concern (plc) (8 june 2021),” in CARACAL sub-group on polymers.
21
Fernández-CruzM. L.Hernández-MorenoD.CatalánJ.CrossR. K.Stockmann-JuvalaH.CabellosJ.et al (2018). Quality evaluation of human and environmental toxicity studies performed with nanomaterials – the GUIDEnano approach. Environ. Sci. Nano5 (2), 381–397. 10.1039/c7en00716g
22
GuiS.SangX.ZhengL.ZeY.ZhaoX.ShengL.et al (2012). Intragastric exposure to titanium dioxide nanoparticles induced nephrotoxicity in mice, assessed by physiological and gene expression modifications. Part. Fibre Toxicol.10, 4. 10.1186/1743-8977-10-4
23
GuiS.SangX.ZhengL.ZeY.ZhaoX.ShengL.et al (2015). Retraction Note: intragastric exposure to titanium dioxide nanoparticles induced nephrotoxicity in mice, assessed by physiological and gene expression modifications. Part. Fibre Toxicol.12 (1), 22. 10.1186/s12989-015-0097-1
24
HouX.ZaksT.LangerR.DongY. (2021). Lipid nanoparticles for mRNA delivery. Nat. Rev. Mater.6, 1078–1094. 10.1038/s41578-021-00358-0
25
HristozovD.GottardoS.CrittoA.MarcominiA. (2012). Risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials: a review of available data and approaches from a regulatory perspective. Nanotoxicology6, 880–898. 10.3109/17435390.2011.626534
26
JeliazkovaN.ApostolovaM. D.AndreoliC.BaroneF.BarrickA.BattistelliC.et al (2021). Towards FAIR nanosafety data. Nat. Nanotechnol.16 (6), 644–654. 10.1038/s41565-021-00911-6
27
KimmigD.MarquardtC.NauK.SchmidtA.DickerhofM. (2013). Considerations about the implementation of a public knowledge base regarding nanotechnology. Comput. Sci. Discov.7 (1), 014001. 10.1088/1749-4699/7/1/014001
28
KirklandD.AardemaM. J.BattersbyR. V.BeeversC.BurnettK.BurzlaffA.et al (2022). A weight of evidence review of the genotoxicity of titanium dioxide (TiO2). Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol.136, 105263. 10.1016/j.yrtph.2022.105263
29
Kolosnjaj-TabiJ.JustJ.HartmanK. B.LaoudiY.BoudjemaaS.AlloyeauD.et al (2015). Anthropogenic carbon nanotubes found in the airways of parisian children. EBioMedicine2 (11), 1697–1704. 10.1016/j.ebiom.2015.10.012
30
KrugH. F. (2014). Nanosafety research--are we on the right track?Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl.53 (46), 12304–12319. 10.1002/anie.201403367
31
KrugH. F. (2022). Collection of controlled nanosafety data—the CoCoN-database, a tool to assess nanomaterial hazard. Nanomaterials12 (3), 441. 10.3390/nano12030441
32
KrugH. F.BohmerN.KühnelD.MarquardtC.NauK.SteinbachC. (2018). The DaNa(2.0) knowledge base nanomaterials-an important measure accompanying nanomaterials development. Nanomater. (Basel)8 (4), 204. 10.3390/nano8040204
33
KrugH. F.NauK. (2017). Reliability for nanosafety research - considerations on the basis of a comprehensive literature review. Chembioeng Rev.4 (6), 331–338. 10.1002/cben.201700013
34
KuhlbuschT. A. J.KrugH. F.NauK. (2009). “NanoCare - health related aspects of nanomaterials: final scientific report/DECHEMA e.V,” in In cooperation with NanoCare project consortium, Germany. Editors KuhlbuschH. F. K. T. A. J.NauK. (Frankfurt, Karlsruhe, St. Gallen: DECHEMA e.V.). Available at: https://nanopartikel.info/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/NanoCare_Final_Report.pdf.
35
KuhnelD.KrugH. F.KokaljA. J. (2018). Environmental impacts of engineered nanomaterials-imbalances in the safety assessment of selected nanomaterials. Mater. (Basel)11 (8), 1444. 10.3390/ma11081444
36
KühnelD.MarquardtC.NauK.KrugH. F.MathesB.SteinbachC. (2014). Environmental impacts of nanomaterials: providing comprehensive information on exposure, transport and ecotoxicity - the project DaNa2.0. Environ. Sci. Eur.26, 21. 10.1186/s12302-014-0021-6
37
KühnelD.MarquardtC.NauK.KrugH. F.PaulF.SteinbachC. (2017). Environmental benefits and concerns on safety: communicating latest results on nanotechnology safety research—the project DaNa2.0. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.24 (12), 11120–11125. 10.1007/s11356-016-6217-0
38
LombiE.NowackB.BaunA.McGrathS. P. (2012). Evidence for effects of manufactured nanomaterials on crops is inconclusive. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.109, E3336; author reply E3337. 10.1073/pnas.1214934109
39
MarquardtC.KühnelD.RichterV.KrugH. F.MathesB.SteinbachC.et al (2013). Latest research results on the effects of nanomaterials on humans and the environment: DaNa - knowledge base nanomaterials. J. Phys. Conf. Ser.429, 012060. 10.1088/1742-6596/429/1/012060
40
MonsB.NeylonC.VelteropJ.DumontierM.da Silva SantosL. O. B.WilkinsonM. D. (2017). Cloudy, increasingly FAIR; revisiting the FAIR data guiding principles for the European open science cloud. Inf. Serv. Use37, 49–56. 10.3233/isu-170824
41
Nanocommons (2024). User-handbook/about-and-partner-projects/dana. Available at: https://nanocommons.github.io/user-handbook/about-and-partner-projects/DaNa/(Accessed April 11, 2024).
42
Nanoriskgov (2024). Nanoriskgov Eu/data. Available at: https://nanoriskgov.eu/data.html (Accessed April 11, 2024).
43
Nanosafetycluster (2024). Nsc-Overview/Nsc-Structure/Ended-Nsc-Projects/Dana-2-0. Available at: https://www.nanosafetycluster.eu/nsc-overview/nsc-structure/ended-nsc-projects/dana-2-0/(Accessed April 11, 2024).
44
NauK.BohmerN.KühnelD.MarquardtC.PaulF.SteinbachC.et al (2016). The Dana2.0 knowledge base on nanomaterials – communicating current nanosafety research based on evaluated literature data. J. Mater. Educ.38 (3-4), 93–109.
45
NauK.EspinozaS.KrugH. F.MarquardtC.MatternA.MöllerN.et al (2023). “Knowledge base materials sustainable science communication on advanced materials,” in Sustainable design and manufacturing (Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore).
46
NauK.KrugH. F.MarquardtC.MatternC.MöllerN.SteinbachC.et al (2024) Reliable communication on advanced materials - the impact of science communication on society. submitted.
47
OomenA. G.BleekerE. A. J.BosP. M. J.van BroekhuizenF.GottardoS.GroenewoldM.et al (2015). Grouping and read-across approaches for risk assessment of nanomaterials. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health12 (10), 13415–13434. 10.3390/ijerph121013415
48
PriesterJ.GeY.MielkeR. E.HorstA. M.MoritzS. C.EspinosaK.et al (2012a). Soybean susceptibility to manufactured nanomaterials with evidence for food quality and soil fertility interruption. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.109, E2451–E2456. 10.1073/pnas.1205431109
49
PriesterJ. H.LombiR. toMielkeR. E.HorstA. M.MoritzS. C.EspinosaK.et al (2012b). Reply to Lombi et al.: Clear effects of manufactured nanomaterials to soybean. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.109 (49), E3337. 10.1073/pnas.1215763109
50
Prince sounds new nanotech alert (2024). The guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2004/jul/12/sciencenews.themonarchy (Accessed January 27, 2024).
51
SchwabF.BucheliT. D.LukheleL. P.MagrezA.NowackB.SiggL.et al (2011). Are carbon nanotube effects on green algae caused by shading and agglomeration?Environ. Sci. Technol.45 (14), 6136–6144. 10.1021/es200506b
52
SciTechDaily (2021) Nanomaterials: the invisible killer lurking in our consumer products.
53
SmithC. (2012). Nanoparticles poison soil. Available at: https://www.thenakedscientists.com.
54
SongY.LiX.DuX. (2009). Exposure to nanoparticles is related to pleural effusion, pulmonary fibrosis and granuloma. Eur. Respir. J.34 (3), 559–567. 10.1183/09031936.00178308
55
SpohnP.HirschC.HaslerF.BruininkA.KrugH. F.WickP. (2009). C60 fullerene: a powerful antioxidant or a damaging agent? The importance of an in-depth material characterization prior to toxicity assays. Environ. Pollut.157 (4), 1134–1139. 10.1016/j.envpol.2008.08.013
56
SteinbachC.MathesB.KrugH. F.WickP.KühnelD.NauK.et al (2012). Die Sicherheit von Nanomaterialien in der Diskussion: DaNa, eine Internet-Wissensplattform für Interessierte. Dtsch. Apoth. Z. (DAZ)152 (16), 90–92.
57
UnionC. o.J. o.t.E. (2022) The General Court annuls the Commission Delegated Regulation of 2019 in so far as it concerns the harmonised classification and labelling of titanium dioxide as a carcinogenic substance by inhalation in certain powder forms. PRESS RELEASE No 190/22. Available at: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2022-11/cp220190en.pdf.
58
VarsouD. D.AfantitisA.MelagrakiG.SarimveisH. (2019). Read-across predictions of nanoparticle hazard endpoints: a mathematical optimization approach. Nanoscale Adv.1 (9), 3485–3498. 10.1039/c9na00242a
59
WeeS. Y.ArisA. Z. (2023). Revisiting the “forever chemicals”, PFOA and PFOS exposure in drinking water. npj Clean. Water6 (1), 57. 10.1038/s41545-023-00274-6
60
WilkinsonM. D.DumontierM.AalbersbergI. J. J.AppletonG.AxtonM.BaakA.et al (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data3 (1), 160018. 10.1038/sdata.2016.18
61
Worle-KnirschJ. M.PulskampK.KrugH. F. (2006). Oops they did it again! Carbon nanotubes hoax scientists in viability assays. Nano Lett.6 (6), 1261–1268. 10.1021/nl060177c
62
YazdiA.GuardaG.RiteauN.DrexlerS. K.TardivelA.CouillinI.et al (2010). Nanoparticles activate the NLR pyrin domain containing 3 (Nlrp3) inflammasome and cause pulmonary inflammation through release of IL-1α and IL-1β. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.107, 19449–19454. 10.1073/pnas.1008155107
63
YounesM.AquilinaG.CastleL.EngelK. H.FowlerP.Frutos FernandezM. J.et al (2021). Safety assessment of titanium dioxide (E171) as a food additive. Efsa J.19 (5), e06585. 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6585
Summary
Keywords
science communication, safety, nanomaterials, advanced materials, human health, environmental health
Citation
Kühnel D, Krug HF, Steinbach C and Nau K (2024) The DaNa projects: public communication of (nano)material safety data—from conspiracy theories to study quality. Front. Toxicol. 6:1382458. doi: 10.3389/ftox.2024.1382458
Received
05 February 2024
Accepted
02 May 2024
Published
28 May 2024
Volume
6 - 2024
Edited by
Bengt Fadeel, Karolinska Institutet (KI), Sweden
Reviewed by
Lya G. Soeteman-Hernandez, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Netherlands
Maria Dusinska, Norwegian Institute for Air Research, Norway
Updates
Copyright
© 2024 Kühnel, Krug, Steinbach and Nau.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Dana Kühnel, dana.kuehnel@ufz.de; Katja Nau, katja.nau@kit.edu
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.