Exposure through the Life Cycle CoR Teleconference
Draft Minutes
July 11, 2012
Participants: Rick Canady (CoR co-chair, ILSI Research Foundation), Teresa Fernandes (Heriot-Watt University), Hildo Krop (IVAM), Thomas Kuhlbusch (CoR co-chair, Institute of Energy and Environmental Technology e.V.), Stacey Standridge (National Nanotechnology Coordination Office), Jenny Tao (Environmental Protection Agency), and Gabrielle Windgasse (California Department of Public Health)
Handouts:
- Draft scope statement
- Agenda
Minutes:
I. Introduction to the Exposure through the Life Cycle CoR
The Communities of Research (CoRs) were proposed at the U.S.-EU: Bridging NanoEHS Research Efforts workshop in March 2011. Three CoRs were launched at the Society of Toxicology Annual Meeting in March 2012, including this Community on Exposure through the Life Cycle. The remaining 3 CoRs were inaugurated at the NanoSafety Cluster Meeting in Grenoble, France in May 2012.
The Communities are intended to provide a platform for scientists in the U.S. and EU to develop a shared repertoire of protocols and methods to collaboratively address the open EHS questions about nanomaterials. The CoRs are managed by the participants, with the U.S. National Nanotechnology Coordination office and the Directorate-General for Research & Innovation in the EU providing administrative support.
- II. Possible aims and outputs (e.g. matchmaking, exchange on ongoing and future projects, awareness of funding opportunities)
- Effort to ID advantages to sharing information and efforts. To this end ID major barriers and opportunities and best areas for collaboration. Possible aims and outputs to this end. Matchmaking between scientists of different expertise. Exchange information on projects and share awareness of funding opportunities. Other clear aims? Bridging initiative. Really trying to establish a community. Where you might look to find information now – where do you go? Particularly where do you go to find information across the Atlantic. This should be a community to turn to ID similar interest. Also need to limit scope. Describe something useful but not contain the entire universe. Difficult to keep scope to a tractable level on which actual progress can be made. Emphasis on forming a community with a narrow scope.
- Overlap between CoRs. Not much topic-wise but there could be areas for collaboration between the CoRs such as ecotoxicity test. Exposure is the most key area because without this information the other areas don’t have anything to work off of.
- List of tools to measure a multitude of particles and matrices (environmental compartments/media). (list of projects, list of sources for information, point out the missing information and linkages) Where is this information available? Value of CoR to provide linkages or a resource list. ISO has a list of machines, instruments, and methods that could be used with some modification. Canady and Rick have also come up with a couple of tables in their own work. The CoR could collate this kind of information. An important task that a community could build upon. Feed-forward and feedback mechanisms. Could ID ongoing research projects that are developing those types of methodologies. Very little standard methodologies out there but people are thinking hard about developing them. Could also generate a meta analysis of what is missing from available methods. Limits and strengths of each method are also of interest.
- Take on 2 or 3 topics and add more as the group matures and has a better idea of groups’ strengths and weaknesses.
- Distinguish between field (difficulties in measuring soils and sediments) and laboratory measurements. ID nanoparticles as ENMs vs. naturally occurring. Defining the what you are exposing to is critically important with regard to eventual risk evaluation. Showing there is Ag in the soil is not enough. Second topic would be soil sediments. How to ID ENMs before, during, and after transport and release. Understanding transformation as exposure relevant to risk. Keep focus on goals. We want to know more than the fact that Ag is in the soil (e.g. surface characteristics, size distributions, etc.) how much information is needed to understand exposure (too broad of a question for the CoR)?
- Bullet point 4. How would this fit in the community? If it is released, can NPs be released from material? Are NPs even in the released material? With a stress on the release side. Can NPs in a particle be detected? Methods to understand this. Community could focus on physico-chemical characterization. Focus on release processes.
- III. Identification and discussion of possible subtopics
- Most urgent topics and tasks that the CoR should narrow the scope to? – analytical and laboratory methods are key. Exposure situations cannot be quantified without reliable and commonly agreed upon laboratory methods for numerous and multiplying nanoparticles. Methods available now and areas for improvement. Then follow to who could be exposed, human health, and risk assessment
- Exposure for a certain material such as CNTs but first you must measure particles and you must have certain methods. Second step is to know what particles are made of. Third step is agglomeration state over lifetime. No interested in specific components such as CNTs over a life time.
- Risk assessment must have exposure information. Exposure information for routes of mammalian exposure (dermal, oral, inhalation). EPA is interested in nanosilver and nanocopper. Not CNTs. General exposure values – material specific.
- Focus on generating value for Community.
- 2 topics: List of measurement topics and soil sediments over particle life time.
- IV. Next Steps
CoR members are encouraged to advertise this Community to their person networks and to invite colleagues to join. Membership suggestions can also be emailed to Rick and Thomas (rcanady@ilsi.org and tky@iuta.de), copying Stacey (sstandridge@nnco.nano.gov). Teresa and Gabrielle will identify colleagues with expertise in the CoR subtopics.
The second EU-U.S.: Bridging NanoEHS Research Efforts workshop will be held in Helsinki, Finland on October 25-26, 2012. The primary goal of the workshop is to further develop the Communities of Research. More information on the workshop and a registration link are available at http://www.ttl.fi/partner/nanoehs_workshop/Sivut/default.aspx.
Each CoR will host a breakout session during the workshop, with two 15 minute presentations and one hour discussion. The speakers from0020
- V. Time frame for meetings?
- Speakers for Helsinki workshop. One for each topic ID’ed above as a starting point for the conference.
- Task is now to find two groups of people (or two speakers) to do the presentations.
- Gabrielle (her office may be able to pay some or all of her travel expenses) takes lead on tools project and Teresa takes lead on soils project (Teresa thinks that other people may be more knowledgeable and better to lead). Teresa will take the job if it is well-defined within her competencies. They could each present for their sub-topic. Content first – speaker decision later.
- Need to ID working groups. Another call in late August to discuss rough draft and scope of presentations.
- Rick-administered interim Sharepoint website?
- August 10-14 to touch base again.
Rick’s notes:
In addition to the notes that were taken, I jotted down the following as a possible product or project of the CoR. We could serve as a resource and clearinghouse for questions and active projects under the two topics that we identified that effectively answer (for the methods topic):
- What methods or data are available (for issue x)
- What research is in progress to develop methods or data (for issue x)
- What is being asked for (methods, data, etc) but is missing from projects or standards (for issue x)
Membership list out to listserv
Stacey check legality of CoR Sharepoint website
Send information to Community on Helsinki workshop
