Species sensitivity distributions (SSD) and 5% hazardous concentrations (HC5) are distribution‐based approaches for assessing environmental risks of pollutants. These methods have potential for application in pesticide risk assessments, but their applicability for assessing pesticide risks to soil invertebrate communities has not been evaluated. Using data obtained in a systematic review, the present study investigates the relevance of SSD and HC5 for predicting pesticide risks to soil invertebrates. Altogether, 1,950 laboratory toxicity data were obtained, representing 250 pesticides and 67 invertebrate taxa. The majority (96%) of pesticides have toxicity data for fewer than five species. Based on a minimum of five species, the best available endpoint data (acute mortality median lethal concentration) enabled SSD and HC5 to be calculated for 11 pesticides (atrazine, carbendazim, chlorpyrifos, copper compounds, diazinon, dimethoate, γ‐hexachlorocyclohexane, lambda‐cyhalothrin, parathion, pentachlorophenol, and propoxur). Arthropods and oligochaetes exhibit pronounced differences in their sensitivity to most of these pesticides. The standard test earthworm species, Eisenia fetida sensu lato, is the species that is least sensitive to insecticides based on acute mortality, whereas the standard Collembola test species, Folsomia candida, is among the most sensitive species for a broad range of toxic modes of action (biocide, fungicide, herbicide, and insecticide). These findings suggest that soil arthropods should be tested routinely in regulatory risk assessments. In addition, the data indicate that the uncertainty factor for earthworm acute mortality tests (i.e., 10) does not fully cover the range of earthworm species sensitivities and that acute mortality tests would not provide the most sensitive risk estimate for earthworms in the majority (95%) of cases.

Physicochemical properties of chemicals affect their exposure, toxicokinetics/fate and hazard, and for nanomaterials, the variation of these properties results in a wide variety of materials with potentially different risks. To limit the amount of testing for risk assessment, the information gathering process for nanomaterials needs to be efficient. At the same time, sufficient information to assess the safety of human health and the environment should be available for each nanomaterial. Grouping and read-across approaches can be utilised to meet these goals. This article presents different possible applications of grouping and read-across for nanomaterials within the broader perspective of the MARINA Risk Assessment Strategy (RAS), as developed in the EU FP7 project MARINA. Firstly, nanomaterials can be grouped based on limited variation in physicochemical properties to subsequently design an efficient testing strategy that covers the entire group. Secondly, knowledge about exposure, toxicokinetics/fate or hazard, for example via properties such as dissolution rate, aspect ratio, chemical (non-)activity, can be used to organise similar materials in generic groups to frame issues that need further attention, or potentially to read-across. Thirdly, when data related to specific endpoints is required, read-across can be considered, using data from a source material for the target nanomaterial. Read-across could be based on a scientifically sound justification that exposure, distribution to the target (fate/toxicokinetics) and hazard of the target material are similar to, or less than, the source material. These grouping and read-across approaches pave the way for better use of available information on nanomaterials and are flexible enough to allow future adaptations related to scientific developments.

To assess the risk of all nanomaterials (NMs) on a case-by-case basis is challenging in terms of financial, ethical and time resources. Instead a more intelligent approach to knowledge gain and risk assessment is required.

Bringing together topic-related European Union (EU)-funded projects, the so-called "NanoSafety Cluster" aims at identifying key areas for further research on risk assessment procedures for nanomaterials (NM). The outcome of NanoSafety Cluster Working Group 10, this commentary presents a vision for concern-driven integrated approaches for the (eco-)toxicological testing and assessment (IATA) of NM. Such approaches should start out by determining concerns, i.e., specific information needs for a given NM based on realistic exposure scenarios. Recognised concerns can be addressed in a set of tiers using standardised protocols for NM preparation and testing. Tier 1 includes determining physico-chemical properties, non-testing (e.g., structure-activity relationships) and evaluating existing data. In tier 2, a limited set of in vitro and in vivo tests are performed that can either indicate that the risk of the specific concern is sufficiently known or indicate the need for further testing, including details for such testing. Ecotoxicological testing begins with representative test organisms followed by complex test systems. After each tier, it is evaluated whether the information gained permits assessing the safety of the NM so that further testing can be waived. By effectively exploiting all available information, IATA allow accelerating the risk assessment process and reducing testing costs and animal use (in line with the 3Rs principle implemented in EU Directive 2010/63/EU). Combining material properties, exposure, biokinetics and hazard data, information gained with IATA can be used to recognise groups of NM based upon similar modes of action. Grouping of substances in return should form integral part of the IATA themselves.