| 1. |
- Hartmann, Nanna B., et al.
(författare)
-
Are We Speaking the Same Language? Recommendations for a Definition and Categorization Framework for Plastic Debris
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Environmental Science and Technology. - : American Chemical Society (ACS). - 0013-936X .- 1520-5851. ; 53:3, s. 1039-1047
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Copyright © 2019 American Chemical Society. The accumulation of plastic litter in natural environments is a global issue. Concerns over potential negative impacts on the economy, wildlife, and human health provide strong incentives for improving the sustainable use of plastics. Despite the many voices raised on the issue, we lack a consensus on how to define and categorize plastic debris. This is evident for microplastics, where inconsistent size classes are used and where the materials to be included are under debate. While this is inherent in an emerging research field, an ambiguous terminology results in confusion and miscommunication that may compromise progress in research and mitigation measures. Therefore, we need to be explicit on what exactly we consider plastic debris. Thus, we critically discuss the advantages and disadvantages of a unified terminology, propose a definition and categorization framework, and highlight areas of uncertainty. Going beyond size classes, our framework includes physicochemical properties (polymer composition, solid state, solubility) as defining criteria and size, shape, color, and origin as classifiers for categorization. Acknowledging the rapid evolution of our knowledge on plastic pollution, our framework will promote consensus building within the scientific and regulatory community based on a solid scientific foundation.
|
|
| 2. |
- Hartmann, Nanna B., et al.
(författare)
-
NanoCRED : A transparent framework to assess the regulatory adequacy of ecotoxicity data for nanomaterials - Relevance and reliability revisited
- 2017
-
Ingår i: NanoImpact. - : Elsevier BV. - 2452-0748. ; 6, s. 81-89
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Environmental hazard and risk assessment serve as the basis for regulatory decisions to protect the environment from unintentional adverse effects of chemical substances including nanomaterials. This process requires reliable and relevant environmental hazard data upon which classification and labelling can be based and Predicted No-Effect Concentration (PNEC) values can be estimated. In a regulatory context ecotoxicological data is often recommended to be generated according to accepted and validated test guidelines, preferably also following Good Laboratory Practice. However, engineered nanomaterials are known to behave very differently in ecotoxicity tests compared to the conventional soluble chemicals, for which most guidelines were developed. Therefore non-guideline tests, or tests following modified test guidelines, can provide valuable information and should not per se be considered less adequate for regulatory use. Here we propose a framework for reliability and relevance evaluation of ecotoxicity data for nanomaterials that take into account the challenges and characterisation requirements associated with testing of these substances. The nanoCRED evaluation criteria, and accompanying guidance, were developed to be used in combination with those developed through the ‘Criteria for Reporting and Evaluating Ecotoxicity Data (CRED)’ project. This approach can accommodate all types of nanomaterials, all types of aquatic ecotoxicity studies, and qualitative as well as quantitative data evaluation requirements. Furthermore, it is practically feasible to implement and directly applicable in European as well as international regulatory frameworks.
|
|
| 3. |
- Rist, Sinja, et al.
(författare)
-
A critical perspective on early communications concerning human health aspects of microplastics
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Science of the Total Environment. - : Elsevier BV. - 0048-9697 .- 1879-1026. ; 626, s. 720-726
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- © 2018 Microplastic research in recent years has shown that small plastic particles are found almost everywhere we look. Besides aquatic and terrestrial environments, this also includes aquatic species intended for human consumption and several studies have reported their prevalence in other food products and beverages. The scientific as well as public debate has therefore increasingly focused on human health implications of microplastic exposure. However, there is a big discrepancy between the magnitude of this debate and actual scientific findings, which have merely shown the presence of microplastics in certain products. While plastics can undoubtedly be hazardous to human health due to toxicity of associated chemicals or as a consequence of particle toxicity, the extent to which microplastics in individual food products and beverages contribute to this is debatable. Considering the enormous use of plastic materials in our everyday lives, microplastics from food products and beverages likely only constitute a minor exposure pathway for plastic particles and associated chemicals to humans. But as this is rarely put into perspective, the recent debate has created a skewed picture of human plastic exposure. We risk pulling the focus away from the root of the problem: the way in which we consume, use and dispose of plastics leading to their widespread presence in our everyday life and in the environment. Therefore we urge for a more careful and balanced discussion which includes these aspects.
|
|
| 4. |
- Ågerstrand, Marlene, et al.
(författare)
-
A call for action : Improve reporting of research studies to increase the scientific basis for regulatory decision-making
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Journal of Applied Toxicology. - : Wiley. - 0260-437X .- 1099-1263. ; 38:5, s. 783-785
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This is a call for action to scientific journals to introduce reporting requirements for toxicity and ecotoxicity studies. Such reporting requirements will support the use of peer-reviewed research studies in regulatory decision-making. Moreover, this could improve the reliability and reproducibility of published studies in general and make better use of the resources spent in research.
|
|
