Metadata stewardship in nanosafety research: learning from the past, preparing for an "on-the-fly" FAIR future

Introduction: Significant progress has been made in terms of best practice in research data management for nanosafety. Some of the underlying approaches to date are, however, overly focussed on the needs of specific research projects or aligned to a single data repository, and this “silo” approach is hampering their general adoption by the broader research community and individual labs. Methods: State-of-the-art data/knowledge collection, curation management FAIRification, and sharing solutions applied in the nanosafety field are reviewed focusing on unique features, which should be generalised and integrated into a functional FAIRification ecosystem that addresses the needs of both data generators and data (re)users. Results: The development of data capture templates has focussed on standardised single-endpoint Test Guidelines, which does not reflect the complexity of real laboratory processes, where multiple assays are interlinked into an overall study, and where non-standardised assays are developed to address novel research questions and probe mechanistic processes to generate the basis for read-across from one nanomaterial to another. By focussing on the needs of data providers and data users, we identify how existing tools and approaches can be re-framed to enable “on-the-fly” (meta) data definition, data capture, curation and FAIRification, that are sufficiently flexible to address the complexity in nanosafety research, yet harmonised enough to facilitate integration of datasets from different sources generated for different research purposes. By mapping the available tools for nanomaterials safety research (including nanomaterials characterisation, non-standard (mechanistic-focussed) methods, measurement principles and experimental setup, environmental fate and requirements from new research foci such as safe and sustainable by design), a strategy for integration and bridging between silos is presented. The NanoCommons KnowledgeBase has shown how data from different sources can be integrated into a one-stop shop for searching, browsing and accessing data (without copying), and thus how to break the boundaries between data silos. Discussion: The next steps are to generalise the approach by defining a process to build consensus (meta)data standards, develop solutions to make (meta)data more machine actionable (on the fly ontology development) and establish a distributed FAIR data ecosystem maintained by the community beyond specific projects. Since other multidisciplinary domains might also struggle with data silofication, the learnings presented here may be transferable to facilitate data sharing within other communities and support harmonization of approaches across disciplines to prepare the ground for cross-domain interoperability. Visit WorldFAIR online at http://worldfair-project.eu. WorldFAIR is funded by the EC HORIZON-WIDERA-2021-ERA-01-41 Coordination and Support Action under Grant Agreement No. 101058393

Metadata stewardship in nanosafety research: learning from the past, preparing for an "on-the-fly" FAIR future

Introduction: Significant progress has been made in terms of best practice in research data management for nanosafety. Some of the underlying approaches to date are, however, overly focussed on the needs of specific research projects or aligned to a single data repository, and this "silo" approach is hampering their general adoption by the broader research community and individual labs.Methods: State-of-the-art data/knowledge collection, curation management FAIrification, and sharing solutions applied in the nanosafety field are reviewed focusing on unique features, which should be generalised and integrated into a functional FAIRification ecosystem that addresses the needs of both data generators and data (re)users.Results: The development of data capture templates has focussed on standardised single-endpoint Test Guidelines, which does not reflect the complexity of real laboratory processes, where multiple assays are interlinked into an overall study, and where non-standardised assays are developed to address novel research questions and probe mechanistic processes to generate the basis for read-across from one nanomaterial to another. By focussing on the needs of data providers and data users, we identify how existing tools and approaches can be re-framed to enable "on-the-fly" (meta) data definition, data capture, curation and FAIRification, that are sufficiently flexible to address the complexity in nanosafety research, yet harmonised enough to facilitate integration of datasets from different sources generated for different research purposes. By mapping the available tools for nanomaterials safety research (including nanomaterials characterisation, nonstandard (mechanistic-focussed) methods, measurement principles and experimental setup, environmental fate and requirements from new research foci such as safe and sustainable by design), a strategy for integration and bridging between silos is presented. The NanoCommons KnowledgeBase has shown how data from different sources can be integrated into a one-stop shop for searching, browsing and accessing data (without copying), and thus how to break the boundaries between data silos.Discussion: The next steps are to generalise the approach by defining a process to build consensus (meta)data standards, develop solutions to make (meta)data more machine actionable (on the fly ontology development) and establish a distributed FAIR data ecosystem maintained by the community beyond specific projects. Since other multidisciplinary domains might also struggle with data silofication, the learnings presented here may be transferrable to facilitate data sharing within other communities and support harmonization of approaches across disciplines to prepare the ground for cross-domain interoperability

Metadata stewardship in nanosafety research: learning from the past, preparing for an “on-the-fly” FAIR future

Introduction: Significant progress has been made in terms of best practice in research data management for nanosafety. Some of the underlying approaches to date are, however, overly focussed on the needs of specific research projects or aligned to a single data repository, and this “silo” approach is hampering their general adoption by the broader research community and individual labs.Methods: State-of-the-art data/knowledge collection, curation management FAIrification, and sharing solutions applied in the nanosafety field are reviewed focusing on unique features, which should be generalised and integrated into a functional FAIRification ecosystem that addresses the needs of both data generators and data (re)users.Results: The development of data capture templates has focussed on standardised single-endpoint Test Guidelines, which does not reflect the complexity of real laboratory processes, where multiple assays are interlinked into an overall study, and where non-standardised assays are developed to address novel research questions and probe mechanistic processes to generate the basis for read-across from one nanomaterial to another. By focussing on the needs of data providers and data users, we identify how existing tools and approaches can be re-framed to enable “on-the-fly” (meta) data definition, data capture, curation and FAIRification, that are sufficiently flexible to address the complexity in nanosafety research, yet harmonised enough to facilitate integration of datasets from different sources generated for different research purposes. By mapping the available tools for nanomaterials safety research (including nanomaterials characterisation, nonstandard (mechanistic-focussed) methods, measurement principles and experimental setup, environmental fate and requirements from new research foci such as safe and sustainable by design), a strategy for integration and bridging between silos is presented. The NanoCommons KnowledgeBase has shown how data from different sources can be integrated into a one-stop shop for searching, browsing and accessing data (without copying), and thus how to break the boundaries between data silos.Discussion: The next steps are to generalise the approach by defining a process to build consensus (meta)data standards, develop solutions to make (meta)data more machine actionable (on the fly ontology development) and establish a distributed FAIR data ecosystem maintained by the community beyond specific projects. Since other multidisciplinary domains might also struggle with data silofication, the learnings presented here may be transferrable to facilitate data sharing within other communities and support harmonization of approaches across disciplines to prepare the ground for cross-domain interoperability

Knowledge and Instance Mapping: architecture for premeditated interoperability of disparate data for materials

Abstract Predicting and elucidating the impacts of materials on human health and the environment is an unending task that has taken on special significance in the context of nanomaterials research over the last two decades. The properties of materials in environmental and physiological media are dynamic, reflecting the complex interactions between materials and these media. This dynamic behavior requires special consideration in the design of databases and data curation that allow for subsequent comparability and interrogation of the data from potentially diverse sources. We present two data processing methods that can be integrated into the experimental process to encourage pre-mediated interoperability of disparate material data: Knowledge Mapping and Instance Mapping. Originally developed as a framework for the NanoInformatics Knowledge Commons (NIKC) database, this architecture and associated methods can be used independently of the NIKC and applied across multiple subfields of nanotechnology and material science

Bringing sex toys out of the dark: exploring unmitigated risks

Abstract A majority of American adults report having used sex toys, which, by design, interact with intimate and permeable body parts yet have not been subject to sufficient risk assessment or management. Physical and chemical data are presented examining potential risks associated with four types of currently available sex toys: anal toy, beads, dual vibrator, and external vibrator. A standardized abrasion machine made real-time breakdown of products into microplastics and nanoplastics. The microplastics from the sex toys were then solvent extracted and analyzed using GC–MS. Rates of microplastics and nanoplastics released during abrasion testing from most microplastic release to least was the anal toy, beads, dual vibrator, external vibrator. Both micro- and nanoplastics particles were generated following the abrasion test, with the 50 percentile diameters (D50) ranging from the anal beads at 658.5 μm, dual vibrator at 887.83 μm, anal toy at 950 μm, and external vibrator at 1673.33 μm. The material matrix of each product was analyzed using ATR-FTIR, with results identifying the anal toy as polyethylene terephthalate (PET), the anal beads as polyvinyl chloride (PVC), the external vibrator as a silicone blend (polydimethylsiloxane [PDMS]), and the dual vibrator as a rubber mixture (polyisoprene). After extraction, phthalates known to be endocrine disruptors were present in all tested sex toys at levels exceeding hazard warnings. Analogous findings have been reported for similar materials that, when incorporated into other product categories, are subject to regulatory scrutiny in both the US and EU. This data set is not intended to be representative of sex toys as an entire class of products, nor are the abrasion experiments claiming to simulate exact use conditions. However, these exploratory data frame potential concerns, highlighting research questions and the need for prompt prioritization of protective action. Therefore, future studies and multi-stakeholder action are needed to understand and reduce risk for this class of products