Reader TTS

The nanotoxicology community should implement guidelines on the types of information that are required in their research articles to improve the quality and relevance of the published

papers. In the past decade, the number of published papers in the field of nanotoxicology — the study of the toxicity, and environmental, health and safety issues of nanomaterials — has

grown by nearly 600% (ref. 1). Most of these papers report _in vitro_ studies that examine the toxicity of various nanomaterials. The studies are performed by delivering a certain amount of

nanomaterial onto cells growing at the bottom of a culture plate and measuring how they respond. So much seems to have been done — using different model systems and nanomaterials — and yet,

there are grumbles throughout the literature about the slow progress2, misconceptions in and of the field3, and proposals on what the community needs to do as a whole for the field to

progress faster4. One thing is at least clear for now: few studies offer consistent results that are of value, and it is difficult to compare studies because they are often carried out using

poorly characterized nanomaterials and arbitrary experimental conditions. At _Nature Nanotechnology_, we have received a number of proposals asking for these concerns to be aired, for

editors to implement guidelines and/or requirements for reporting nanotoxicology research and to actively enforce these. It is becoming clear, particularly in the bioscience and clinical

research communities5, that good reporting has many benefits: it is essential for peer review, valuable for informing policy and future science, and above all, important for ensuring that

money invested in research produces useful results6. As Kilkenny _et al_. have put it5, “failure to describe research methods and to report the results appropriately has potential

scientific, ethical and economic implications for the entire research process and the reputation of those involved in it.” > Materials characterization data is not a stand-alone piece of

> information. The most common question raised in nanotoxicology is whether there is a minimum set of physical and chemical characterization data for nanomaterials that is required for

publication. Should this set contain the nanomaterial size, chemical composition, surface area and/or shape plus others? What is a reasonable number of parameters that should be included so

that the study can be understood, and is reproducible and reliable, without putting a strain on budgets? Different proposals have been made in various publications: one had a list of 17

parameters outlining what is essential, valuable-but-not essential, or not significant7; another listed six items along with the challenges for obtaining them4; and another had eight

must-have parameters2. In a Commentary in _Nature Nanotechnology_, Schururs and Lison8 point out that “characterization data is not a stand-alone piece of information” and that “the

parameters examined should be those useful for analysing the results of the study and for understanding the mechanisms of toxicity”. Our position is that materials characterization should be

done based on relevance to the study, but there are a number of common parameters that should be included in all papers. Various working groups involved in doing this seem to be narrowing

the list down to: particle size and distribution, chemical composition, impurities, degree of nanomaterial aggregation or agglomeration under the experimental conditions, surface chemistry,

surface area, morphology, surface reactivity and persistence. There are, of course, differing opinions on what this list should contain and whether such a list is necessary. However, for the

field to progress, the community must start somewhere by agreeing on a basic list soon, and implementing it diligently. > There is a need to define the nanomaterial along with the > 

environment it is present in. Apart from the materials side of things, careful reporting of the experimental conditions (for example, the composition of biomolecules in the cell culture

media) is equally important. More and more studies point to the significance of the proteins that adsorb on the nanoparticle surface when it comes into contact with the physiological

environment or serum-containing cell culture media. These proteins are thought to 'passivate' the high surface energy of nanoparticles, and depending on the amount of serum present

in the culture media and the total surface area of the nanoparticles, cells can interact and take up the nanoparticles in different ways. For these reasons, there is a need to define the

nanomaterial along with the environment it is present in9. Journal editors can draft guidelines and reject papers that do not meet the requirements, but ultimately, the responsibility and

discipline for implementing them rests on the researchers. The big challenges in the coming years remain the same: to produce research results that can inform the public on the benefits and

emergent risks of using nanomaterials. _Nature Nanotechnology_ is committed to supporting the community to implement guidelines. To start with, an open consultation and dialogue will be held

at the upcoming 6th International Conference on Nanotoxicology in Beijing from 4 to 7 September 2012 (ref. 10). The aim of this two-hour session is to consult the community so that a formal

set of characterization requirements for reporting nanotoxicology papers can be established. _Nature Nanotechnology_ will offer to disseminate this information and/or revise our Guide to

Authors. Please join the dialogue. Written comments and feedback are also welcomed at [email protected] (closing date: 30 November 2012). REFERENCES * Ostrowski, A. D., Martin, T.,

Conti, J., Hurt, I. & Harthorn, B. H. _J. Nanopart. Res._ 11, 251–257 (2009). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Krug, H. F. & Wick, P. _Angew. Chem. Int. Ed._ 50, 1260–1278 (2011).

Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Warheit, D. B. _Nano Lett._ 10, 4777–4782 (2010). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Bouwmeester, H. et al. _Nanotoxicology_ 5, 1–11 (2011). Article  CAS  Google

Scholar  * Kilkenny, C., Browne, W. J., Cuthill, I. C., Emerson, M. & Altman, D. G. _PLoS Biol._ 8, e1000412 (2010). Article  Google Scholar  * Chalmers, I. & Glasziou, P. _Lancet_

374, 86–89 (2009). Article  Google Scholar  * Oberdörster, G. et al. _Part. Fibre Toxicol._ 2, 1–35 (2005). Article  Google Scholar  * Schrurs, F. & Lison, D. _Nature Nanotech._ 7,

546–548 (2012). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Lesniak, A. et al. _ACS Nano_ 6, 5845–5857 (2012). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * http://english.nanoctr.cas.cn/nanotoxicology2012 Download

references RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Join the dialogue. _Nature Nanotech_ 7, 545 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2012.150

Download citation * Published: 19 August 2012 * Issue Date: September 2012 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2012.150 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be

able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing

initiative