Abstract
Scientific writings and policy documents define the terms nanomaterial and nanoparticle in various ways. This variation is considered problematic because the absence of a shared definition is understood as potentially hindering nanomaterial knowledge production and regulation. Another view is that the existence of a shared definition may itself cause problems, as rigid definitions arguably exclude important aspects of the studied phenomena. The aim of this paper is to inform this state of disagreement by providing analytical concepts for a systematic understanding of how, and even whether, nanomaterial and nanoparticle could and should be defined. To do this, we review definitions of nanomaterial and nanoparticle presented in research articles and policy documents. Definitions were identified by first conducting a Scopus search and then tracing cited definitions back to their sources. In total, 36 definitions were identified. Theories of definition from philosophy and linguistics provide analytical guidance for structuring and categorizing the identified definitions, and the main analytical dimensions of the definitions are then identified and discussed. Finally, we propose a framework for understanding the process of defining nanomaterial and nanoparticle. This framework considers both the generality needed for a shared understanding (by suggesting proto-definitions of nanomaterial and nanoparticle) and the level of precision required for different purposes (by allowing for various explications of the proto-definitions).
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Note that in the case of the A problem, it is not usually the morpheme nano itself that causes concern [8]. It is typically understood as a prefix of the SI system, and as such, its definition is uncontroversial, nano simply meaning a billionth part (i.e., 10−9). Rather, what are considered problematic are terms such as nanotechnology, nanoscience, nanomaterial, and nanoparticle.
As noted by Hempel [25], definitions do not have to have this structure but can also be construed without a class. For example, consider the definition of the relationship harder than as in “x is harder than y = Df x scratches y, but y does not scratch x” [25]. This definition does not mention any class but is still perfectly legitimate as a definition of harder than. Also, note that Flowerdew identifies, in academic discourse, “semi-formal definitions” that do not contain a class. Semi-formal definitions contain key characteristics that “may well be sufficient to distinguish the term from other members of its class, [but] the class is not mentioned” [22].
As one of the anonymous reviewers pointed out, those who advance explicata along the lines of novelty may face problems. For one thing, a phrase such as “novel characteristics” is itself vague, so although this explicatum restricts interpretation in excluding entities that not exhibit novel characteristics, what this terms exactly mean is unclear.
References
Quine WV (1951) Two dogmas of empiricism. Philos Rev 60(1):20–43
Bromley DA (2002) Science, technology, and politics. Technol Soc 24(1–2):9–26
Maynard AD, Aitken RJ, Butz T, Colvin V, Donaldson K, Oberdörster G, Philbert MA, Ryan J, Seaton A, Stone V, Tinkle SS, Tran L, Walker NJ, Warheit DB (2006) Safe handling of nanotechnology. Nature 444(16):267–269
Oberdörster G, Stone V, Donaldson K (2007) Toxicology of nanoparticles: a historical perspective. Nanotoxicology 1(1):2–25
Renn O, Roco MC (2006) Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. J Nanoparticle Res 8:153–191
Bowman DM, Hodge GA (2008) A big regulatory tool-box for a small technology. NanoEthics 2:193–207
Joachim C (2005) To be nano or not to be nano? Nat Mater 4(2):107–109
Kjølberg K, Wickson F (2007) Social and ethical interactions with nano: mapping the early literature. NanoEthics 1(2):89–104
Loeve S (2010) About a definition of nano: how to articulate nano and technology. HYLE - International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry 16(1):3–18
Lövestam G, Rauscher H, Roebben G, Klüttgen BS, Gibson N, Putaud J-P, Stamm H (2010) Considerations on a definition of nanomaterial for regulatory purposes. JRC Reference Reports European Commission, Luxembourg
Saner M, Stoklosa A (2013) Commercial, societal and administrative benefits from the analysis and clarification of definitions: the case of nanomaterials. Creativity and Innovation Management 22(1):26–36
Bowman DM, D’Silva J, van Calster G (2010) Defining nanomaterials for the purpose of regulation within the European Union. European Journal of Risk Regulation 1(2):115–122
Kreyling WG, Semmler-Behnke M, Chaudhry Q (2010) A complementary definition of nanomaterial. Nano Today 5:165–168
Marchant GE, Sylvester DJ, Abbott KW (2008) Risk management principles for nanotechnology. NanoEthics 2:43–60
Marrani D (2013) Nanotechnologies and novel foods in European law. NanoEthics 7(3):177–188
Auffan M, Rose J, Bottero J-Y, Lowry GV, Jolivet J-P, Wiesner MR (2009) Towards a definition of inorganic nanoparticles from an environmental, health and safety perspective. Nat Nanotechnol 4(10):634–641
Hamburg MA (2012) FDA’s approach to regulation of products of nanotechnology. Science 336(6079):299–300
Maynard AD (2011) Don’t define nanomaterials. Nature 475
Handy RD, von der Kammer F, Lead JR, Hassellöv M, Owen R, Crane M (2008) The ecotoxicology and chemistry of manufactured nanoparticles. Ecotoxicology 17(4):287–314
Carnap R (1950) Logical foundation of probability. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Flowerdew J (1991) Pragmatic modifications on the ‘representative’ speech act of defining. J Pragmat 15:253–264
Flowerdew J (1992) Definitions in science lectures. Applied Linguistics 13(2):202–221
Gupta A (2015) Definitions. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 Edition), ed. by EN Zalta http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/definitions. Retrieved January 10, 2016
Hansson SO (2006) How to define–a tutorial. Princípios, Revista de Filosofia 13(19–20):5–30
Hempel CG (1952) Fundamentals of concept formation in empirical science. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Næss A (2005) Precization and definition. In: Drengson A (ed) The selected works of Arne Næss, vol 7. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 25–54
Robinson R (1950) Definition. Oxford University Press, Oxford
OED (n.d.) definition, n. Oxford English Dictionary, Online edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Smith R (2014) Aristotle’s Logic. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ajdukiewicz K (1960) Three concepts of definition. Philos Today 4(3):182–183
Bird, A, Tobin E (2015) Natural Kinds. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2015 Edition), ed. by Edward N. Zalta; http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/natural-kinds. Retrieved January 10, 2016
Kripke SA (1980) Naming and necessity. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Putnam H (1973) Meaning and reference. J Philos 70(19):699–711
Schwartz SP (1977) Introduction. In: Schwartz SP (ed) Naming, necessity and natural kinds. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp 13–41
Laurence S, Margolis E (1999) Concepts and cognitive science. In: Margolis E, Laurence S (eds) Concepts: core readings. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 3–81
DePaul MR, Ramsey W (eds) (1998) Rethinking intuition: the psychology of intuitions and its role in philosophical inquiry. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Lanham
Lakoff G (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Margolis E, Laurence S (eds) (1999) Concepts: core readings. MIT Press, Cambridge
Rosch E, Mervis CB (1975) Family resemblances: studies in the internal structure of categories. Cogn Psychol 7(4):573–605
Murphy G (2004) The big book of concepts. MIT Press, Cambridge
Næss A (1949) Toward a theory of interpretation and preciseness. Theoria 15(1–3):220–241
Næss A (2005) Basic terms. In: Drengson A (ed) The selected works of Arne Næss, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 5–82
Oberdörster G, Maynard A, Donaldson K, Castranova V, Fitzpatrick J, Ausman K, Carter J, Karn B, Kreyling W, Lai D, Olin S, Monteiro-Riviere N, Warheit D, Yang H, the ILSI Research Foundation/Risk Science Institute Nanomaterial Toxicity Screening Working Group (2005) Principles for characterizing the potential human health effects from exposure to nanomaterials: elements of a screening strategy. Part Fibre Toxicol 2(1):8
Barlow S, Chesson A, Collins JD, Flynn A, Hardy A, Klaus-Dieter J, Knaap A, Kuiper H, Larsen JC, Le Neindre P, Schans J, Schlatter J, Silano V, Skerfving S, Vannier P (2009) Scientific opinion. The potential risks arising from nanoscience and nanotechnologies on food and feed safety. Scientific opinion of the scientific committee. The EFSA Journal 958:1–39
European Parliament (2009) Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 25 March 2009 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EC) No …/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on novel foods, amending Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 258/97. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, Brussels
SCENIHR (2007) Opinion on the scientific aspects of the existing and proposed definitions relating to products of nanoscience and nanotechnologies. The European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, Brussels
CCA (2008) Small is different: a science perspective on the regulatory challenges of the nanoscale. Report of the expert panel on nanotechnology. Council of Canadian Academies, Ottawa
US EPA (undated) Concept Paper for the Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program under TSCA. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
DEFRA (2006) Defra consultation on a voluntary reporting scheme for engineered nanoscale materials. Summary of findings and Government’s response. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London
NICNAS (2009) Introduction of new nanomaterials, chemical gazette. National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme - NICNAS, Canberra
BSI (2007) Terminology for nanomaterials. British Standards Institution, London
CPSC (2005) CPSC nanomaterial statement. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda
Environment Canada (2007) New substances program advisory note 2007–06: requirements for nanomaterials under the new substances notification regulations (chemicals and polymers). Environment Canada, Gatineau QC
European Commission (2011) Recommendations: commission recommendation of 18 October 2011 on the definition of nanomaterial. The European Commission, Brussels
European Parliament (2009) Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products. Official Journal of the European Union. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, Brussels
Hansen SF, Larsen BH, Olsen SI, Baun A (2007) Categorization framework to aid hazard identification of nanomaterials. Nanotoxicology 1(3):243–250
Health Canada (2010) Interim policy statement on Health Canada’s working definition for nanomaterials. Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario
ISO (2010) Nanotechnologies—vocabulary—part 1: core terms. ISO, Geneva
NCI (2009) Cancer nanotechnology pattform partnership. US National Cancer Institute, Rockville
SCCP (2007) Opinion on safety of nanomaterials in cosmetic products. The European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Products, Brussels
UK Advisory Group on Nanotechnology Applications (2002) New dimensions for manufacturing: a UK strategy for nanotechnology. Department of Trade and Industry and Office of Science and Technology, London
Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London
ISO (2008) Nanotechnologies—terminology and definitions for nano-objects—nanoparticle, nanofibre and nanoplate. ISO, Geneva
US Office of Pesticide Programs (2010) Nanotechnology and pesticides. Office of Pesticide Programs, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
ASTM (2012) E2456-06, standard terminology relating to nanotechnology. ASTM International, West Conshohocken
House of Lords (2010) Nanotechnologies and food, vol 1–2. House of Lords, Science and Technology Commiitee, London
Rauscher H, Roebben G, Amenta V, Sanfeliu AB, Calzolai L, Emons H, Gaillard C, Gibson N, Linsinger T, Mech A, Pesudo LQ, Rasmussen K, Sintes JR, Sokull-Klüttgen B, Stamm H (2014) Towards a review of the EC Recommendation for a definition of the term “nanomaterial”, Part 1: Compilation of information concerning the experience with the definition. JRC Scientific and Policy Report. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements, Luxembourg
Klaessig F, Marrapese M, Abe S (2011) Current perspectives in nanotechnology terminology and nomenclature. In: Murashov V, Howard J (eds) Nanotechnology standards. Springer, New York, pp 21–52
Roebben G, Rauscher H, Amenta V, Aschberger K, Sanfeliu AB, Calzolai L, Emons H, Gaillard C, Gibson N, Holzwarth U, Koeber R, Linsinger T, Rasmussen K, Sokull-Klüttgen B, Stamm H (2014) Towards a review of the EC recommendation for a definition of the term “nanomaterial”, Part 2: Assessment of collected information concerning the experience with the definition. JRC Scientific and Policy Report. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements, Luxembourg
Barnard AS, Guo H (eds) (2012) Nature’s nanostructures. Pan Stanford, Singapore
Heymann D, Jenneskens LW, Jehlička J, Koper C, Vlietstra E (2003) Terrestrial and extraterrestrial fullerenes. Fullerenes, Nanotubes, Carbon Nanostruct 11(4):333–370
IWGC (1999) Nanotechnology research directions: IWGN workshop report. Vision for nanotechnology R&D in the Next decade. National Science and Technology Council Committee on Technology Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology (IWGN), Washington
Grice HP (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Cole P, Morgan JL (eds) Syntax and semantics, 3rd edn, Speech acts. Academic Press, New York, pp 41–58
Sperber D, Wilson D (1995) Relevance: communication & cognition, 2nd edn. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford
Allhoff F (2007) On the autonomy and justification of nanoethics. NanoEthics 1(3):185–210
Manchikanti P, Bandopadhyay T (2010) Nanomaterials and effects on biological systems: development of effective regulatory norms. NanoEthics 4(1):77–83
Preston CJ, Sheinin MY, Sproat DJ, Swarup VP (2010) The novelty of nano and the regulatory challenge of newness. NanoEthics 4:13–26
Boholm M, Boholm Å (2012) The many faces of nano in newspaper reporting. J Nanoparticle Res 14(2):722–740
OED (n.d.) nano-, comb. form. Oxford English Dictionary, Online edn. Oxford University Press
Tomalia DA (2009) In quest of a systematic framework for unifying and defining nanoscience. J Nanoparticle Res 11:1251–1310
Maynard AD, Warheit DB, Philbert MA (2011) The new toxicology of sophisticated materials: nanotoxicology and beyond. Toxicol Sci 120(S1):109–129
Acknowledgments
This work was funded by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Research Council Formas, and the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research (Mistra). We wish to thank Åsa Boholm, Rickard Frost, Mikael Johansson, Monica Lindh de Montoya, and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive criticism and suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Boholm, M., Arvidsson, R. A Definition Framework for the Terms Nanomaterial and Nanoparticle . Nanoethics 10, 25–40 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-015-0249-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-015-0249-7