Functionality

[pennym]

Hi

How is the issue of nanomaterial functionality (from an industry/product point of view) addressed in the ontology? I checked for terms like "functionality" and specific types of functionality, such as antibacterial, but I couldn´t find that. Is there an existing functionality ontology that could serve as the basis for a nano-specific functionality ontology? Would the chEBI ontology be a good basis? I found others that could be relevant too (e.g. PATO and different medical ontologies), but which one is the best may need to be discussed, or is this discussion already taking place?

Penny

[vedina]

In addition to the above, there is a recent EC report on Nanomaterial's functionality to consider when defining the term.

IMHO the following questions are relevant

• How (if) functionality differs from measured properties (phys chem, tox, etc.).
• If different, how the relation should be defined (as a fact in ontology, via statistical modelling, etc.)
• is the functionality characteristic of the material or of a product (which may contain multiple materials).

For example, scratch resistance was given as example of functionality, which is not a property, however, there is an entire domain of science, as well as protocols and instruments that are testing for scratch resistance

[egonw]

Functionality would be modeled with (ChEBI) roles, or new (sub)classes... this is biology oriented; 'antibacterial' is CHEBI:33282 ... so, easily doable...

Regarding non-biological roles, that may be harder... 'scratch resistance' is indeed not really a role, so not entirely sure how to do that... Nina, regarding your points... a role says something about the material's purpose... scratch resistance is close, but not entirely that... it's perhaps a secondary role?

BTW, who cares about scratch resistance for nanomaterials?? I can imagine a role 'scratch resistance increasing', though...

[egonw]

@vedina @pennym so, the first step would be to make a list of 'roles'/'functionalities' that we need...

[vedina]

@egonw - who cares about scratch resistance - those who make anti-scratch coatings. I would say this is rather a primary role.

I also thought ChEBI is a good fit - but does it define the role per compound, or per substance? (and the role should not be restricted to a biological one)

[egonw]

@vedina sure! but that's not a property of the nanomaterial... that's the feature or perhaps role of a material in which the enm is a component, I guess?

[vedina]

@egonw how is that not a property, if it can be measured? Is a few nm coating film not a nano material?

[vedina]

Another example of functionality given as example was Surface plasmon resonance - IMHO this is again measurable property.

[egonw]

@vedina no, that's not what I mean... it is a property... if the scratch resistance a property really a property of that few nm coating, or of the full material? Does the adhesion of the nm layer on the rest of the matter not (partly) determine the resistance? My point was just, what is it a property of...

[vedina]

@egonw yes, making a list is the first step. A subsequent one would be to define which measurable property is related to the functionality.

Random search found this 5. Nanotextiles—Properties, Types, Functionalities and Processes , see Table 1.

[vedina]

@egonw, agree, what is it a property of is The question see my point above is the functionality characteristic of the material or of a product (which may contain multiple materials) thinking aloud, if a company produces anti-scratching coatings, they need to measure the property independent on what the film will be later put on, that's it, the company will report scratch resistance as a property of the film, no?

[vedina]

It seems UDS uses the terms properties and functionalities together, but unfortunately does not include specific lists.

[pennym]

Referring to what I just heard from people involved in functionality aspects. A nanomaterial functionality is as much a property of the material as is toxicity and the task is to figure out what physchem property links a nanomaterial to a specific functionality so that eventually the industry can search fro direct links between functionality and toxicity. But to be able to do this, we need the ontology, similarly as we need it for linking toxicity.

[vedina]

@pennym don't we mostly use modelling to link between properties and toxicity, rather than ontology ?

[pennym]

Well yes, modelling will be done only on the toxicological side. I guess this issue is more related to the future when functionality has in fact been linked to PC properties, maybe by industry themselves...But it is still good to keep this in mind already now and including it in the ontology will make it more useful to the industry too and not only tox-researchers. Or is this out of scope?

[vedina]

Yes, you are right, in ontology one adds facts, e.g. if a link between properties and functionality or toxicity is already known. Hence, it's definitely not out of scope (and will be great to have a list of terms representing the functionalities).

If the link is not yet established (or perhaps is more complex that a fact that can be added in ontology) then we turn to modelling.

[pennym]

Yes, and I guess some functionality aspects are already known, such as Cu or Ag ion solubility being antibacterial etc. I guess for the ontology, a list of relevant functionalities (from the product development point of view) from the industry would be very good to have.

[fehrhart]

We intend to add chebi application ontology. role -> application http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ontology-lookup/browse.do?ontName=CHEBI

Opinions?

[pennym]

Looks like a good idea!

[fehrhart]

done