Assessing nanoparticle risk poses prodigious challenges

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology

Volumn 5, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 374-387

  Macphail, Robert C ^a   Grulke, Eric A ^b   Yokel, Robert A ^c,d  

^a U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

^c University of Kentucky   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADVERSE EVENTS; EXPOSED TO; HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS; INTERNATIONAL COORDINATION; LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENTS; REGULATORY AGENCIES;

LIFE CYCLE; NANOPARTICLES; RISK PERCEPTION; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

RISK ASSESSMENT;

NANOPARTICLE;

ARTICLE; DATA BASE; HUMAN; LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED STATES;

COMMUNICATION; HUMANS; METAL NANOPARTICLES; NANOPARTICLES; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT;

EID: 84879218689     PISSN: 19395116     EISSN: 19390041     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/wnan.1216     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Thomas T, Bahadori T, Savage N, Thomas K. Moving toward exposure and risk evaluation of nanomaterials: challenges and future directions. WIREs Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 2009, 1:426-433.
2. Klaine SJ, Koelmans AA, Horne N, Carley S, Handy RD, Kapustka L, Nowack B, von der Kammer F. Paradigms to assess the environmental impact of manufactured nanomaterials. Environ Toxicol Chem 2012, 31:3-14.
3. Rodricks JV. Calculated Risks: The Toxicity and Human Health Risks of Chemicals in our Environment. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
4. Thomas K, Sayre P. Research strategies for safety evaluation of nanomaterials, Part I: evaluating the human health implications of exposure to nanoscale materials. Toxicol Sci 2005, 87:316-321.
5. Holsapple MP, Farland WH, Landry TD, Monteiro-Riviere NA, Carter JM, Walker NJ, Thomas KV. Research strategies for safety evaluation of nanomaterials, Part II: toxicological and safety evaluation of nanomaterials, current challenges and data needs. Toxicol Sci 2005, 88:12-17.
6. Balshaw DM, Philbert M, Suk WA. Research strategies for safety evaluation of nanomaterials, Part III: nanoscale technologies for assessing risk and improving public health. Toxicol Sci 2005, 88:298-306.
7. Tsuji JS, Maynard AD, Howard PC, James JT, Lam C-W, Warheit DB, Santamaria AB. Research strategies for safety evaluation of nanomaterials, Part IV: risk assessment of nanoparticles. Toxicol Sci 2006, 89:42-50.
8. Borm P, Klaessig FC, Landry TD, Moudgil B, Pauluhn J, Thomas K, Trottier R, Wood S. Research strategies for safety evaluation of nanomaterials, Part V: role of dissolution in biological fate and effects of nanoscale particles. Toxicol Sci 2006, 90:23-26.
9. Powers KW, Brown SC, Krishna VB, Wasdo SC, Moudgil BM, Roberts SM. Research strategies for safety evaluation of nanomaterials, Part VI: characterization of nanoscale particles for toxicological evaluation. Toxicol Sci 2006, 90:296-303.
10. Thomas T, Thomas K, Sadrieh N, Savage N, Adair P, Bronaugh R. Research strategies for safety evaluation of nanomaterials, Part VII: evaluating consumer exposure to nanoscale materials. Toxicol Sci 2006, 91:14-19.
11. Thomas K, Aguar P, Kawasaki H, Morris J, Nakanishi J, Savage N. Research strategies for safety evaluation of nanomaterials, Part VIII: international efforts to develop risk-based safety evaluations for nanomaterials. Toxicol Sci 2006, 92:23-32.
12. Maynard AD, Warheit DB, Philbert MA. The new toxicology of sophisticated materials: nanotoxicology and beyond. Toxicol Sci 2011, 120:S109-S129.
13. National Research Council (NRC). Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1983.
14. Gwinn MR, Tran L. Risk management of nanomaterials. WIREs Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 2010, 2:130-137.
15. Suter GW II. Ecological Risk Assessment. 2nd ed. New York: CRC Press; 2007.
16. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK. Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal 1994, 14:1101-1108.
17. Slovic P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Anal 1999, 19:689-701.
18. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal 2004, 24:311-322.
19. Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie CEH, Conti J, Harthorn BH. Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nat Nanotechnol 2009, 4:752-758.
20. Priest S, Greenhalgh T, Kramer V. Risk perceptions starting to shift? U.S. citizens are forming opinions about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 2010, 12:11-20.
21. National Research Council. Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2009.
22. Graham T. Researches on the arseniates, phosphates, and modifications of phosphoric acid. Philos Trans 1833, 123:253-284.
23. Yokel RA, Grulke EA, MacPhail RC. Metal-based nanoparticle interactions with the nervous system: the challenge of brain entry and the risk of retention in the organism. WIREs Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 2012. doi:10.1002/wnan.1202.
24. Oberdorster G, Maynard A, Donaldson K, Castranova V, Fitzpatrick J, Ausman K, Carter J, Karn B, Kreyling W, Lai D, et al. Principles for characterizing the potential human health effects from exposure to nanomaterials: elements of a screening strategy. Part Fibre Toxicol 2005, 2:1-35.
25. Balbus JM, Maynard AD, Colvin VL, Castranova V, Daston GP, Denison RA, Dreher KL, Goering PL, Goldberg AM, Kulinowski KM, et al. Harzard assessment for nanoparticles-report from an interdisciplinary workshop. Environ Health Perspect 2007, 115:1664-1659.
26. Savolainen K, Alenius H, Norppa H, Pylkkanen L, Toumi T, Kasper G. Risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials and nanotechnologies-a review. Toxicology 2010, 269:92-104.
27. st century: a paradigm for moving forward. WIREs Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 2012, 4:1-15.
28. Cockburn A, Bradford R, Buck N, Constable A, Edwards G, Haber B, Hepburn P, Howlett J, Kampers J, Klein C, et al. Approaches to the safety assessment of engineered nanomaterials (ENM) in food. Food Chem Toxicol 2012, 50:2224-2242.
29. Grieger KD, Linkov I, Hansen SF, Baun A. Environmental risk analysis for nanomaterials: review and evaluation of frameworks. Nanotoxicology 2012, 6:196-212.
30. National Research Council (NRC). A Research Strategy for Environmental, Health, and Safety Aspects of Engineered Nanomaterials. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2012.
31. National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Technology, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology. National Nanotechnology Initiative. Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Strategy, October 2011.
32. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)-DuPont Nano Partnership. Nano Risk Framework, June 2007. Accessed 24 February 2012. Available at: http://www.nanoriskframework.com
33. European Commission. Heath and Consumer Protection Directorate-General. Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR). The appropriateness of existing methodologies to assess the potential risks associated with engineered and adventitious products of nanotechnologies. 2006 (SCENIHR/002/05).
34. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). Guidance on the risk assessment of the application of nanoscience and nanotechnologies in the food and feed chain. EFSA J 2011, 9:2140 [36 pp.]. Accessed 24 February 2012/Available at: www.efsa, europa.eu/efsajournal.htm
35. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Important issues on risk assessment of manufactured nanomaterials. Series on the Safety of Manufactured Nanomaterials. No.33. Paris, 2012.
36. Som C, Berges M, Chaudhry Q, Dusinska M, Fernandes TF, Olsen SI, Nowack B. The importance of life cycle concepts for the development of safe nanoproducts. Toxicology 2010, 269:160-169.
37. Elder A, Vidyasagar S, DeLouise L. Physicochemical factors that affect metal and metal oxide nanoparticle passage across epithelial barriers. WIREs Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 2009, 1:434-450.
38. Monopoli MP, Walczyk D, Campbell A, Elia G, Lynch I, Bombelli FB, Dawson KA. Physical-chemical aspects of protein corona: relevance to in vitro and in vivo biological impacts of nanoparticles. J Am Chem Soc 2011, 133:2525-2534.
39. Casals E, Pfaller T, Duschi A, Oostingh GJ, Puntes VF. Hardening of the nanoparticle-protein corona in metal (Au, Ag) and oxide (Fe3O4, CoO, and CeO2) nanoparticles. Small 2011, 7:3479-3486.
40. Lundqvist M, Stigler J, Elia G, Lynch I, Cedervall T, Dawson KA. Nanoparticle size and surface properties determine the protein corona with possible implications for biological impacts. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2008, 105:14265-14270.
41. Lundqvist M, Stigler J, Cedervall T, Berggard T, Flanagan MB, Lynch I, Elia G, Dawson K. The evolution of the protein corona around nanoparticles: a test study. ACS Nano 2011, 9:7503-7509.
42. Wiesner MR, Lowry GV, Casman E, Bertsch PM, Matson CW, Di Giullo RT, Liu J, Hochella MF Jr. Meditations on the ubiquity and mutability of nano-sized materials in the environment. ACS Nano 2011, 5:8466-8470.
43. Von der Kammer F, Ferguson PL, Holden PA, Masion A, Rogers KR, Klaine SJ, Koelmans AA, Horne N, Unrine JM. Analysis of engineered nanomaterials in complex matrices (environment and biota): general considerations and conceptual case studies. Environ Toxicol Chem 2012, 31:32-49.
44. Gottschalk F, Nowack B. The release of engineered nanomaterials to the environment. J Environ Monit 2011, 13:1145-1155.
45. Nowack B, Ranville JF, Diamond S, Gallego-Urrea JA, Metcalf C, Rose J, Horne N, Koelmans AA, Klaine SJ. Potential scenarios for nanomaterial release and subsequent alteration in the environment. Environ Toxicol Chem 2012, 31:50-59.
46. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009.
47. Rohlman DS, Anger WK, Lein PJ. Correlating neurobehavioral performance with biomarkers of organophosphorous pesticide exposure. Neurotoxicology 2011, 32:268-276.
48. Lein PH, Bonner MR, Farahat FM, Olson JR, Rohlman DS, Fenske RA, Lattal KM, Lasarev MR, Galvin K, Farahat TM, et al. Experimental strategy for translational studies of organophosphorus pesticide neurotoxicity based on real-world occupational exposures to chlorpyrifos. Neurotoxicology 2012, 33:660-668.
49. Cohen J, DeLoid G, Pyrgiotakis G, Demokritou P. Interactions of engineered nanomaterials in physiological media and implications for in vitro dosimetry. Nanotoxicology 2012 (Epub ahead of print).
50. Jones CF, Grainer DW. In vitro assessments of nanomaterial toxicity. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2009, 61:438-456.
51. Teeguarden JG, Hinderliter PM, Orr G, Thrall BD, Pounds JG. Particokinetics in vitro: dosimetry considerations for in vitro nanoparticle toxicity assessments. Toxicol Sci 2007, 95:300-312.
52. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Reference dose (RfD): description and use in health risk assessments. Background document. 1993. Accessed 28 February 2012. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/rfd.htm
53. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A review of the reference dose and reference concentration processes. Risk Assessment Forum. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2002.
54. Lehman AJ, Fitzhugh OG. 100-Fold safety factor. Assoc Food Drug Officials US Q Bull 1954, 18:33-35.
55. Rushton EK, Jiang J, Leonard SS, Eberly S, Castranova V, Biswas P, Elder A, Han X, Gelein R, Finkelstein J, Oberdorster G. Concept of assessing nanoparticle hazards considering nanoparticle dosimetric and chemical/biological response metrics. J Toxicol Environ Health Part A 2010, 73:445-461.
56. Crump KS. A new method for determining allowable daily intakes. Fund Appl Toxicol 1984, 4:854-871.
57. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Benchmark dose technical guidance. Risk Assessment Forum. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2012.
58. Dorne JLCM, Renwick AG. The refinement of uncertainty/safety factors in risk assessment by the incorporation of data on toxicokinetic variability in humans. Toxicol Sci 2005, 86:20-26.
59. World Health Organization. Chemical-specific adjustment factors for interspecies differences and human variability: guidance document for use of data in dose/concentration-response assessment. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2005.
60. Rulis AM, Levitt JA. FDA's food ingredient approval process. Safety assurance based on scientific assessment. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2009, 53:20-31.
61. Yokel RA, Au TC, MacPhail R, Hardas SS, Butterfield DA, Sultana R, Goodman M, Tseng MT, Dan M, Haghnazar H, et al. Distribution, elimination, and biopersistence to 90 days of a systemically introduced 30 nm ceria-engineered nanomaterial in rats. Toxicol Sci 2012, 127:256-268.
62. Chen Y-S, Hung Y-C, Lin L-W, Liau I, Hong M-Y, Huang GS. Size-dependent impairment of cognition in mice caused by the injection of gold nanoparticles. Nanotechnology 2010, 21:1-9.
63. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment. Appendix R8-15. Recommendations for nanomaterials applicable to Chapter R.8 Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health. Helsinki, Finland, 2012.
64. National Research Council (NRC). Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1993.
65. European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) and Joint Research Centre (JRC). Impact of engineered nanomaterials on health: considerations for benefit-risk assessment. Joint EASAC-JRC Report. No. 15. September 2011.
66. Subramanian V, Youtie J, Porter AL, Shapira P. Is there a shift to "active nanostructures"? J Nanopart Res 2010, 12:1-10.
67. Raffa V, Vittorio O, Riggion C, Cuschieri A. Progress in nanotechnology for healthcare. Min Invasive Ther 2010, 19:127-135.
68. United Nations Environment Program. Life cycle approaches: the road from analysis to practice. Paris, France, 2005.
69. Powers CM, Dana G, Gillespie P, Gwinn MR, Hendren CO, Long TC, Wang A, Davis JM. Comprehensive environmental assessment: a meta-assessment approach. Environ Sci Technol 2012, 46:9202-9208.
70. Chen Y-S, Hung Y-C, Liau I, Huang GS. Assessment of the in vivo toxicity of gold nanoparticles. Nanoscale Res Lett 2009, 4:858-864.
71. Dorne JLCM, Ragas AMJ, Frampton GK, Spurgeon DS, Lewis DF. Trends in human risk assessment of pharmaceuticals. Anal Bioanal Chem 2007, 387:1167-1172.
72. Calisto V, Esteves VI. Psychiatric pharmaceuticals in the environment. Chemosphere 2009, 77:1257-1274.
73. EPA. Nanomaterial Research Strategy. Office of Research and Development. EPA 620/K-09/011. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2009. Accessed 24 February 2012 Available at: www.epa.gov/nanoscience
74. Oberdorster G. Safety assessment for nanotechnology and nanomedicine: concepts of nanotoxicology. J Int Med 2009, 267:89-105.
75. Pidgeon N, Harthorn B, Satterfield T. Nanotechnology risk perceptions and communication: emerging technologies, emerging challenges. Risk Anal 2011, 31:1694-1700.
76. Yokel RA, MacPhail RC. Engineered nanomaterials: exposures, hazards, and risk prevention. J Occup Med Toxicol 2011, 6:7.