Human and animal evidence supports lower occupational exposure limits for poorly-soluble respirable particles: Letter to the Editor re: 'Low-toxicity dusts: Current exposure guidelines are not sufficiently protective' by Cherrie, Brosseau, Hay and Donaldson

Characterizing risk assessments for the development of occupational exposure limits for engineered nanomaterials

The commercialization of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) began in the early 2000's. Since then the number of commercial products and the number of workers potentially exposed to ENMs is growing, as is the need to evaluate and manage the potential health risks. Occupational exposure limits (OELs) have been developed for some of the first generation of ENMs. These OELs have been based on risk assessments that progressed from qualitative to quantitative as nanotoxicology data became available. In this paper, that progression is characterized. It traces OEL development through the qualitative approach of general groups of ENMs based primarily on read-across with other materials to quantitative risk assessments for nanoscale particles including titanium dioxide, carbon nanotubes and nanofibers, silver nanoparticles, and cellulose nanocrystals. These represent prototypic approaches to risk assessment and OEL development for ENMs. Such substance-by-substance efforts are not practical given the insufficient data for many ENMs that are currently being used or potentially entering commerce. Consequently, categorical approaches are emerging to group and rank ENMs by hazard and potential health risk. The strengths and limitations of these approaches are described, and future derivations and research needs are discussed. Critical needs in moving forward with understanding the health effects of the numerous EMNs include more standardized and accessible quantitative data on the toxicity and physicochemical properties of ENMs.

Biokinetics of Nanomaterials: the Role of Biopersistence

Nanotechnology risk management strategies and environmental regulations continue to rely on hazard and exposure assessment protocols developed for bulk materials, including larger size particles, while commercial application of nanomaterials (NMs) increases. In order to support and corroborate risk assessment of NMs for workers, consumers, and the environment it is crucial to establish the impact of biopersistence of NMs at realistic doses. In the future, such data will allow a more refined future categorization of NMs. Despite many experiments on NM characterization and numerous in vitro and in vivo studies, several questions remain unanswered including the influence of biopersistence on the toxicity of NMs. It is unclear which criteria to apply to characterize a NM as biopersistent. Detection and quantification of NMs, especially determination of their state, i.e., dissolution, aggregation, and agglomeration within biological matrices and other environments are still challenging tasks; moreover mechanisms of nanoparticle (NP) translocation and persistence remain critical gaps. This review summarizes the current understanding of NM biokinetics focusing on determinants of biopersistence. Thorough particle characterization in different exposure scenarios and biological matrices requires use of suitable analytical methods and is a prerequisite to understand biopersistence and for the development of appropriate dosimetry. Analytical tools that potentially can facilitate elucidation of key NM characteristics, such as ion beam microscopy (IBM) and time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry (ToF-SIMS), are discussed in relation to their potential to advance the understanding of biopersistent NM kinetics. We conclude that a major requirement for future nanosafety research is the development and application of analytical tools to characterize NPs in different exposure scenarios and biological matrices.

Safety assessment of nanomaterials using an advanced decision-making framework, the DF4nanoGrouping

As presented at the 2016 TechConnect World Innovation Conference on 22-25 May 2016 in Washington DC, USA, the European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC) 'Nano Task Force' proposes a Decision-making framework for the grouping and testing of nanomaterials (DF4nanoGrouping) consisting of three tiers to assign nanomaterials to four main groups with possible further subgrouping to refine specific information needs. The DF4nanoGrouping covers all relevant aspects of a nanomaterial's life cycle and biological pathways: intrinsic material properties and system-dependent properties (that depend upon the nanomaterial's respective surroundings), biopersistence, uptake and biodistribution, and cellular and apical toxic effects. Use, release, and exposure route may be applied as 'qualifiers' to determine if, e.g., nanomaterials cannot be released from products, which may justify waiving of testing. The four main groups encompass (1) soluble, (2) biopersistent high aspect ratio, (3) passive, and (4) active nanomaterials. The DF4nanoGrouping foresees a stepwise evaluation of nanomaterial properties and effects with increasing biological complexity. In case studies covering carbonaceous nanomaterials, metal oxide, and metal sulfate nanomaterials, amorphous silica and organic pigments (all nanomaterials having primary particle sizes below 100 nm), the usefulness of the DF4nanoGrouping for nanomaterial hazard assessment was confirmed. The DF4nanoGrouping facilitates grouping and targeted testing of nanomaterials. It ensures that sufficient data for the risk assessment of a nanomaterial are available, and it fosters the use of non-animal methods. No studies are performed that do not provide crucial data. Thereby, the DF4nanoGrouping serves to save both animals and resources.

Translational toxicology in setting occupational exposure limits for dusts and hazard classification - a critical evaluation of a recent approach to translate dust overload findings from rats to humans

BACKGROUND

We analyze the scientific basis and methodology used by the German MAK Commission in their recommendations for exposure limits and carcinogen classification of "granular biopersistent particles without known specific toxicity" (GBS). These recommendations are under review at the European Union level. We examine the scientific assumptions in an attempt to reproduce the results. MAK's human equivalent concentrations (HECs) are based on a particle mass and on a volumetric model in which results from rat inhalation studies are translated to derive occupational exposure limits (OELs) and a carcinogen classification.

METHODS

We followed the methods as proposed by the MAK Commission and Pauluhn 2011. We also examined key assumptions in the metrics, such as surface area of the human lung, deposition fractions of inhaled dusts, human clearance rates; and risk of lung cancer among workers, presumed to have some potential for lung overload, the physiological condition in rats associated with an increase in lung cancer risk.

RESULTS

The MAK recommendations on exposure limits for GBS have numerous incorrect assumptions that adversely affect the final results. The procedures to derive the respirable occupational exposure limit (OEL) could not be reproduced, a finding raising considerable scientific uncertainty about the reliability of the recommendations. Moreover, the scientific basis of using the rat model is confounded by the fact that rats and humans show different cellular responses to inhaled particles as demonstrated by bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) studies in both species.

CONCLUSION

Classifying all GBS as carcinogenic to humans based on rat inhalation studies in which lung overload leads to chronic inflammation and cancer is inappropriate. Studies of workers, who have been exposed to relevant levels of dust, have not indicated an increase in lung cancer risk. Using the methods proposed by the MAK, we were unable to reproduce the OEL for GBS recommended by the Commission, but identified substantial errors in the models. Considerable shortcomings in the use of lung surface area, clearance rates, deposition fractions; as well as using the mass and volumetric metrics as opposed to the particle surface area metric limit the scientific reliability of the proposed GBS OEL and carcinogen classification.

Exposure to airborne particles and volatile organic compounds from polyurethane molding, spray painting, lacquering, and gluing in a workshop

Due to the health risk related to occupational air pollution exposure, we assessed concentrations and identified sources of particles and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in a handcraft workshop producing fishing lures. The work processes in the site included polyurethane molding, spray painting, lacquering, and gluing. We measured total VOC (TVOC) concentrations and particle size distributions at three locations representing the various phases of the manufacturing and assembly process. The mean working-hour TVOC concentrations in three locations studied were 41, 37, and 24 ppm according to photo-ionization detector measurements. The mean working-hour particle number concentration varied between locations from 3000 to 36,000 cm⁻³. Analysis of temporal and spatial variations of TVOC concentrations revealed that there were at least four substantial VOC sources: spray gluing, mold-release agent spraying, continuous evaporation from various lacquer and paint containers, and either spray painting or lacquering (probably both). The mold-release agent spray was indirectly also a major source of ultrafine particles. The workers’ exposure can be reduced by improving the local exhaust ventilation at the known sources and by increasing the ventilation rate in the area with the continuous source.

A decision-making framework for the grouping and testing of nanomaterials (DF4nanoGrouping)

The European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC) 'Nano Task Force' proposes a Decision-making framework for the grouping and testing of nanomaterials (DF4nanoGrouping) that consists of 3 tiers to assign nanomaterials to 4 main groups, to perform sub-grouping within the main groups and to determine and refine specific information needs. The DF4nanoGrouping covers all relevant aspects of a nanomaterial's life cycle and biological pathways, i.e. intrinsic material and system-dependent properties, biopersistence, uptake and biodistribution, cellular and apical toxic effects. Use (including manufacture), release and route of exposure are applied as 'qualifiers' within the DF4nanoGrouping to determine if, e.g. nanomaterials cannot be released from a product matrix, which may justify the waiving of testing. The four main groups encompass (1) soluble nanomaterials, (2) biopersistent high aspect ratio nanomaterials, (3) passive nanomaterials, and (4) active nanomaterials. The DF4nanoGrouping aims to group nanomaterials by their specific mode-of-action that results in an apical toxic effect. This is eventually directed by a nanomaterial's intrinsic properties. However, since the exact correlation of intrinsic material properties and apical toxic effect is not yet established, the DF4nanoGrouping uses the 'functionality' of nanomaterials for grouping rather than relying on intrinsic material properties alone. Such functionalities include system-dependent material properties (such as dissolution rate in biologically relevant media), bio-physical interactions, in vitro effects and release and exposure. The DF4nanoGrouping is a hazard and risk assessment tool that applies modern toxicology and contributes to the sustainable development of nanotechnological products. It ensures that no studies are performed that do not provide crucial data and therefore saves animals and resources.