review article engineered nanomaterials: knowledge gaps in
TRANSCRIPT
Review ArticleEngineered Nanomaterials: Knowledge Gaps in Fate,Exposure, Toxicity, and Future Directions
Arun Kumar,1 Prashant Kumar,2,3 Ananthitha Anandan,1 Teresa F. Fernandes,4
Godwin A. Ayoko,5 and George Biskos6,7
1 Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology New Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016, India2Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences (FEPS),University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK
3 Environmental Flow (EnFlo) Research Centre, FEPS, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK4 School of Life Sciences, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, UK5Nanotechnology and Molecular Sciences, School of Chemistry, Physics and Mechanical Engineering,Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia
6Department of Environment, University of the Aegean, University Hill, 81100 Mytilene, Greece7 Faculty of Applied Sciences, Delft University of Technology, 2628 BL Delft, The Netherlands
Correspondence should be addressed to Prashant Kumar; [email protected]
Received 22 January 2014; Revised 3 April 2014; Accepted 4 April 2014; Published 12 May 2014
Academic Editor: Marinella Striccoli
Copyright © 2014 Arun Kumar et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The aim of this study is to identify current knowledge gaps in fate, exposure, and toxicity of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs),highlight research gaps, and suggest future research directions. Humans and other living organisms are exposed to ENMs duringproduction or use of products containing them. To assess the hazards of ENMs, it is important to assess their physiochemicalproperties and try to relate them to any observed hazard. However, the full determination of these relationships is currently limitedby the lack of empirical data.Moreover,most toxicity studies donot use realistic environmental exposure conditions for determiningdose-response parameters, affecting the accurate estimation of health risks associated with the exposure to ENMs. Regulatoryaspects of nanotechnology are still developing and are currently the subject of much debate. Synthesis of available studies suggestsa number of open questions. These include (i) developing a combination of different analytical methods for determining ENMconcentration, size, shape, surface properties, and morphology in different environmental media, (ii) conducting toxicity studiesusing environmentally relevant exposure conditions and obtaining data relevant to developing quantitative nanostructure-toxicityrelationships (QNTR), and (iii) developing guidelines for regulating exposure of ENMs in the environment.
1. Introduction
Production and demand of engineered nanomaterials(ENMs) embedded in consumer products are growingsignificantly in the current years [1, 2]. ENMs can be directlyreleased into the air, water, sediment, and soil media duringtheir manufacturing, use, and disposal [3â9]. Nanosizeparticles are also sometimes unintentionally formed, suchas those arising from the combustion of fossil fuels inmotor vehicles and industries [3, 4]. In this review, ENMsrefer to particulate materials having at least one of threedimensions in the 1â100 nm size range (nanoscale). In
contrast, nanoparticles are particulate materials with allthree dimensions in the nanoscale.
ENMs are currently considered as an emerging class ofenvironmental contaminants. Recent research advances have(i) improved analytical capabilities for detecting them indifferent environmental media, (ii) increased availability ofrelated toxicity data, and (iii) increased public awareness.Nevertheless there are still many open questions that need tobe answered in order to fully understand their origin, fate,and toxicity.
ENMs pose risk to human health and the environmentvia oral, inhalation, and dermal exposure routes [10â15].
Hindawi Publishing CorporationJournal of NanomaterialsVolume 2014, Article ID 130198, 16 pageshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/130198
2 Journal of Nanomaterials
Table 1 summarises the key findings of recent studies relatedto their exposure assessment. These studies were selected toprovide information about research trends in the area of riskassessment of different ENMs by means of different exposureroutes. Most of these studies have focused on the frameworkdevelopment for (i) estimating exposure doses and risksfrom oral and inhalation exposure routes, (ii) prioritisingnanomaterials for monitoring and risk estimating purposes,and (iii) identifying research strategies for intelligent testingof ENMs for nanosafety. Furthermore, results of toxicitystudies suggest that ENMs can cross the cell membrane andinduce toxic effects on different organs [16â19]. For example,TiO2nanoparticles have been observed to induce DNA and
chromosomal damage in the liver [13, 20]. These effect-basedstudies also indicate that ENMs exert different toxicities ina particular target organ depending on their properties. Thishighlights the need for further investigations related to theexposure of ENMs.
To estimate the environmental and human health risksassociated with ENM exposure, information about their size,shape, and the dose-response relation is required [37, 44].The methodology suggested by the standard United StatesNational Research Council [45, 46] proposes four steps forperforming environmental andhumanhealth risk assessment(EHHRA) of chemicals and metals: (i) hazard identification,(ii) exposure assessment, (iii) dose-response assessment, and(iv) risk characterisation. A few studies have attempted toapply some of these steps for estimating risks of exposure toENMs (Table 1). However, very few studies have carried outexhaustive risk assessment process for ENMs, probably due tothe lack of required information on their fate, exposure, andtoxicity.
The aims of this article are to highlight present knowl-edge gaps in environmental fate, exposure, and toxicity ofENMs. The suitability of currently available toxicity data inconducting EHHRA is also analysed. Issues identified in thisstudy can help in developing efforts for addressing currentdata gaps for ENMs which can aid decision makers in thepolicy making process.
2. Scope
There are two main sources of nanomaterials in the environ-ment: natural and anthropogenic.Natural sources include butare not limited to volcanoes, viruses, ocean spray, dust storms,bacteria, and bush fires. Anthropogenic sources fall into twocategories: unintentionally produced nanomaterials such asthose from combustion aerosols, particularly motor vehicleexhaust emission, coal fly ash, and wielding operations andintentionally produced nanomaterials with tailored proper-ties.Thesemay include nanowires, nanotubes, quantum dots,and fullerenes, mostly composed of metals and metal oxides[47]. In addition, nanoparticles can be incidentally formedin both of these categories [38]. This review focuses on fourimportant aspects of the intentionally produced group ofENMs. These include (i) characterisation and application ofENMs, (ii) assessment of exposure to ENMs, (iii) hazardassessment, and (iv) environmental regulations. A literaturereview of published reports and journal articles is compiled
to map the existing knowledge and to identify current gaps.The reviewed studies include only key literature to highlightthe covered topics and do not represent the complete list ofall published studies so far due to the reasons of brevity. Theconcluding section presents issues on different aspects andfuture research needs.
3. Characterisation andApplication of Nanomaterials
3.1. Characterisation of ENMs. ENMs can be characterisedusing different techniques. Microscopy, in particular, hasbeen exceptionally useful in providing information about thesize and morphology of nanomaterials [48]. Scanning andtransmission electron microscopy (SEM and TEM, resp.),atomic force microscopy (AFM), scanning probemicroscopy(SPM), and scanning tunnelling microscopy (STM) haveall been extensively employed to observe morphological,compositional, and structural features of a wide range ofnanomaterials. SEM is a versatile technique that can deter-mine the morphology whilst TEM can be used for theobservation of the finest details of the internal structure ofmaterials [49]. High resolution images of the morphologyand topography of a sample can be obtained and composi-tional analysis of a material can also be carried out by moni-toring secondary X-rays produced by the electron-specimeninteraction.
A number of other methods are also available for thecharacterisation of nanomaterials in air [50]. These includetheir characterisation in terms of particle concentrationand size distribution by the condensation particle counter(CPC), differential mobility particle sizer (DMPS), differen-tial mobility spectrometer (DMS), fast mobility particle sizer(FMPS), electrical low pressure impactor (ELPI), and scan-ning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) [50, 51], as discussed inSection 4. The Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller (BET) methodis commonly used to evaluate the gas adsorption data andgenerate information about specific surface area and pore sizeof various types of nanoparticles [52]. Thermogravimetricanalysis (TG) is conveniently used to determine physicalchanges in materials. This technique provides quantitativemeasurement of mass change associated with transition andthermal degradation in the materials [53]. Characteristicthermogravimetric curves are given for specific materialsand chemical compounds due to unique sequence fromphysicochemical reactions occurring over specific temper-ature ranges and heating rates. Vibrational spectroscopytechniques, including the Fourier transform infrared (FTIR),the near-infrared, and the Raman spectroscopy, have alsobeen used to characterise nanomaterials. For example, Lopez-Lorente et al. [54] recently described the use of G-/D-bandintensity ratios in the Raman spectroscopic measurementsfor the determination of the purity of carbon nanotubesamples. In addition, X-ray diffraction is currently beingused for determining crystallinity of nanomaterials [55].Thisinformation is especially important in toxicity studies asmineralogical phase of nanomaterials can also influence toxiceffects [56].
Journal of Nanomaterials 3Ta
ble1:Samples
ummaryof
ENM-related
human
effectsand/or
riskassessmentstudies.
Reference
Expo
sure
route
ENMsc
onsid
ered
Stud
yfocus
Morgan[21]
NA
âDevelo
pmento
fprelim
inaryfram
eworkforrisk
analysisandris
kmanagem
ento
fENMs
usingexpertelicitatio
nandmentalm
odellin
gMaynard
andKu
empel[2]
Inhalation
âRe
view
ofairborne
nano
structured
particlesa
ndoccupatio
nalh
ealth
Wiesner
etal.[22]
NA
âAs
sessmento
frisk
sofm
anufacturednano
materials
Tsujietal.[23]
Inhalationandderm
alâ
Review
ofris
kassessmento
fENMsd
ueto
inhalationandderm
alroutes
Lam
etal.[10]
Inhalation
Carbon
nano
tubes
Review
ofcarbon
nano
tube
toxicityandassessmento
fpotentia
loccup
ationaland
environm
entalh
ealth
risks
Kand
likar
etal.[24]
Inhalation
Particleslessthan2.5đ
min
diam
eter
Health
riskassessmento
fnanop
articlesu
singexpertjudgment
Dankovice
tal.[11]
Inhalation
Fine
andultrafine
TiO
2Ca
lculationof
riskof
cancer
usingdo
se-respo
nseinformationforrats
Muellera
ndNow
ack[3]
NA
Ag,TiO
2,andcarbon
nano
tubes
Expo
sure
mod
ellin
gof
ENMsinenvironm
entu
singlife-cycle
perspectives
Liao
etal.[12]
Inhalation
Nano-/fine
TiO
2Mod
el-based
assessmentfor
human
inhalationexpo
sure
riskassessment
Krolletal.[25]
NA
âCu
rrentinvitro
metho
dsin
ENMsrisk
assessment:lim
itatio
nandchallenges
Shinoh
arae
tal.[26]
Inhalation
Fullerenes
Risk
assessment
Morim
otoetal.[27]
Inhalation
Fullerenes
Inflammogeniceffecto
fwell-c
haracterise
dfullerenesininhalationandintratracheal
instillationstu
dies
Tervon
enetal.[28]
NA
Fullerenes,carbon
nano
tubes,
CdS
e,Ag,andAl
Risk-based
classificatio
nsyste
mso
fnanom
aterials
OâBrie
nandCu
mmins[29]
NA
NA
Develo
pmento
fathree-levelrisk
assessmentstrategyforn
anom
aterials
Grie
gere
tal.[30]
NA
âStud
yof
currentresearchprioritiesfor
nano
materialsandredefin
ingof
risk-basedefforts
Chris
tensen
etal.[31]
Inhalation
Ag
Investigationof
feasibilityandchallenges
associated
with
cond
uctin
gHHRA
forA
gEN
Ms
andidentifi
catio
nof
related
datagaps
Chris
tensen
etal.[32]
Inhalation
TiO
2Investigationof
feasibilityandchallenges
associated
with
cond
uctin
gHHRA
forT
iO2
ENMsa
ndidentifi
catio
nof
related
datagaps
Gangw
aletal.[33]
Inhalation
TiO
2andAg
Metho
ddevelopm
entfor
determ
iningnano
materialsconcentrations
forT
oxCastinvitro
testing
foro
ccup
ationalexp
osurep
otentia
l
Anand
anandKu
mar
[34]
Oral
TiO
2andAg
Estim
ationof
riskto
humansd
ueto
expo
sure
ofEN
Msd
uringinadvertentingestio
nof
stream
water
usingliver
celllin
e-basedtoxicitydata
John
sonetal.[35]
Oral
TiO
2Stud
yon
fate,behaviour,and
environm
entalrisk
associated
with
sunscreenTiO
2EN
Ms;
HHRA
cond
uctedforingestio
nof
TiO
2particles
Kumar
etal.[36]
Inhalation
ENMs
Emissions
estim
ates
ofnano
materialsfro
mroad
vehicle
sinmegacity
Delhi
andassociated
health
impacts
Kumar
[37]
NA
ENMs
Makingac
asefor
human
health
risk-basedrank
ingnano
materialsin
water
form
onito
ring
purposes
Kumar
etal.[38]
NA
ENMs
Know
n,un
know
ns,and
awarenessrelated
tonano
materialsin
Indian
environm
ent
Sing
handKu
mar
[39]
NA
ENMs
Identifying
know
ledgeg
apsinassessinghealth
risks
duetoexpo
sure
ofnano
particlesfrom
contam
inated
edibleplants
Khann
aand
Kumar
[40]
NA
ENMs
Inclu
ding
nano
materialsmixturesinhu
man
health
riskassessment
Frater
etal.[41]
NA
ENMs
Amultistakeho
lder
perspectiveo
ntheu
seof
alternativeteststrategiesfor
nano
material
safetyassessment
Savolainen
etal.[42]
NA
ENMs
Nanosafetyin
Europe
2015â2025:towards
safeandsusta
inablenano
materialsand
nano
techno
logy
inno
vatio
nsSton
eetal.[43]
NA
ENMs
Prioritising
nano
safetyresearch
todevelopas
takeho
lder-driv
enintelligent
testingstrategy
HHRA
:hum
anhealth
riskassessment;NA:not
applicable;E
NM:eng
ineerednano
material.
4 Journal of Nanomaterials
3.2. Applications of ENMs. The list of areas of humanendeavour to which nanomaterials have been applied isgrowing rapidly. Many of these applications are a result of thespecial properties of nanomaterials such as their electrical,catalytic,mechanical, surface plasmon resonance and antimi-crobial properties [5, 57]. Some applications include sensors,thermoelectric materials, photocatalysts, dye-sensitised solarcells, and products such as paints, plastics, sprays, clean-ing agents, coatings, sunscreens, films, packing materials,nutraceuticals, and materials for drug delivery to name a few(see, e.g., Sadik et al. [48] andGoesmann andFledmann [58]).Exposure to nanomaterials may occur during the fabricationand various application and disposal stages of the ENM-containing products, as discussed in Section 4.
4. Assessment of Exposure to ENMs
To assess human exposure to ENMs during the differentstages of the life cycle of ENM-containing products, there isneed to estimate their quantities when released to the envi-ronment together with toxicity-related parameters such astheir size, morphology, and chemical composition. Althoughthe field of ENM monitoring is yet not established, it drawsfrom the existing detection and characterisation methodsfor monitoring particle pollution (e.g., measuring airbornenanoparticles in the air).
Inhalation of airborne ENMs is one the most importantroutes of entrance into the human body [59]. This is becausethese nanosized particles suspended in the air can spread overlong distances from the point of their release, resulting inuncontrollable human exposure. ENMs can also be disposedto the environment in liquid suspensions (e.g., wastewater)and in solidmedia (i.e., wastewater sludge). Human exposureto ENMs from liquid and solid media is possible throughswallowing or direct contact with the skin. Human exposureto the ENMs released into the terrestrial environment is lesslikely to occur, mainly due to their immobility.
4.1. Measuring ENMs in the Air. Nanosized particles can bereleased into the breathing air by both exhaust [50, 60â64]and nonexhaust sources [60, 62, 65â68]. These nanoscaleparticles undergo a number of physiochemical transforma-tions [69, 70], resulting in both spatial and temporal variationin their concentrations in both indoor [71â74] and outdoor[69, 70, 75] ambient environments. Nevertheless, it is stillchallenging to apportion the fraction of the ENMs in the totalnanoscale particulate material present in the atmosphericenvironment [67].
The optical and electrical mobility detection tech-niques used to measure the natural and combustion-derivednanoparticles in ambient air are also used to measure theconcentration of ENMs [50]. Optical techniques rely on thegrowth of nanomaterials by means of condensation and theirsubsequent counting by measuring the light they can scatter.The condensation particle counters (CPCs [76]) are widelyused for monitoring and research purposes. Although CPCscan measure extremely low concentrations, their detectionefficiency decreases markedly for materials having diametersbelow âŒ3 nm [77].
An alternative to optical counting is to measure thecurrent produced by particles having a known charge distri-bution using an aerosol electrometer (AE [78]). The numberconcentration of the sampled nanomaterials can be estimatedusing the current inducted by the collection of the chargedparticles on an electrometer filter, the flow rate throughthe AE, and the charge distribution on the particles. Thecharge distribution of particles can be controlled by using anaerosol particle charger [79] operating upstream of the AE.Compared to the CPCs, the AEs can detect particles of anysize. However, the threshold concentration for producing asignal above the signal-to-noise ratio is of the order of a fewtens to hundreds of particles per cm3 for typical flow ratesused through the AEs.
Sizing of particles in the gas phase can be achieved by anumber of techniques depending on the desired range [80].The most efficient instrument for determining the size ofparticles in the nanosize regime is the differential mobilityanalyzer (DMA [81]). DMAs classify airborne particles basedon their electrical mobility, which by knowing the chargedistribution and the morphology of the particles can be usedto estimate their size. Although a wide range of DMA designshave been described in the literature [82], the cylindricalDMA is routinely used in combination with CPCs formeasuring aerosol particle size distribution. To do so, theoperating conditions (mainly the electric field strength) ofthe DMAs are increased in steps or continuously scannedto select particles of different sizes before being counted bythe CPC. Typical scanning times of these systems take froma few seconds to a few minutes, depending on the desiredresolution of the measurements [83]. Recent advances in thefield have led to DMAs [84â86] and mobility spectrometers[50, 79] that can simultaneously classify particles in differentsize ranges, thereby reducing the time required to measurethe entire size distribution of the particles in subsecond timefractions.
The pulmonary toxic effects induced by inhalation ofENMs are best correlated with the surface area rather thanthe concentration of the particles [87]. Instruments that candirectly measure the surface rather than the number or themass of the particles are already available in themarket.Theseinstruments rely on the attachment of ions or radioactivespecies onto the surface of particles and measuring of theircurrent or radioactivity, respectively [88, 89]. In accordancewith recent guidelines defining benchmarks or referencethreshold values, surface area monitors that rely on theattachment of ions on the particles are also used to determinethe mean particle diameter and the number concentrationunder the assumption that those are spherical [90]. Given thatmany types of nanomaterials do not have a spherical shape,the estimation of the surface area by these instruments can bemisleading.
One of the greatest challenges in monitoring the con-centration of ENMs in the air is to distinguish them fromalready present background nanomaterials, which can alsovary in concentration, size, morphology, and composition,depending on the nature of natural and anthropogenicsources. Online distinction between engineered and back-ground nanomaterials can be made by probing their intrinsic
Journal of Nanomaterials 5
properties such as morphology, solubility, and volatility,provided that these are detectably different among the twospecies. Tandem differential mobility analysis (TDMA [91])can also be used to measure the intrinsic properties ofparticles such as morphology, vapour uptake, and volatility[92, 93]. Information on the chemical composition or thestructure of the airborne nanomaterials can also be obtainedby offline techniques such as electron microscopy [94]. Elec-tron microscopes can also be used for determining the ele-mental composition of nanoparticles, using techniques suchas electron dispersive X-ray (EDX) spectrometry [95, 96].These techniques, however, are time-consuming, expensive,of high complexity, and therefore inappropriate for systematicmonitoring.
4.2. Measuring ENMs in the Aquatic Environment. Methodsfor characterising nanomaterials suspended in liquid mediahave been developed over the past decades in view ofmonitoring and controlling their synthesis by liquid-basedtechniques. Dynamic light scattering (DLS) is the mostwidely used technique for measuring the size and shape ofnanoparticles in liquid suspensions [97]. In DLS, the solutionsample is illuminated by a monochromatic light source, andthe light scattered by the particles is continuously measuredby a photodetector. The recorded scattering fluctuations arethen processed in order to determine the translational androtational diffusion coefficients of the particles, which in turnare used to determine their size and shape [98]. A drawbackof DLS is that the larger particles in the samples can maskthe signal from the nanoparticles during the measurement[99]. Another drawback is that they are not suitable for theassessment of nanofibres or nanorods.
Another way of measuring the size distribution ofnanoparticles in liquid suspensions is by tracking andanalysing theirmotion.Nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA)measures the scattering generated from particles undergoingBrownian motion in order to estimate their diffusion coeffi-cients [100]. Although the signal of the larger particles inNTAcan also mask the signal produced by the smaller particlesdue to their stronger scattering, the effect is less importantthan in the DLS [101]. As a result NTA is preferred to DLS formeasuring nanosized particles.
Another technique for measuring particles with diam-eters down to the nanometer size range is flow field-flowfractionation (flow FFF [102]). In Flow FFF, the particles areseparated in a crossflow channel, where larger particles areimmobilised in an expanding channel faster than the smallerones due to differences in their diffusivity [103]. A variationof this method is the asymmetric flow FFF (AF4), which iscapable of fractionating particles andmacromolecules havingdiameters down to 2 nm [104]. AF4 can separate particleswith high resolution, thereby giving unique characterisationpossibilities for nanoparticles suspended in liquid media.
5. Hazard Assessment
5.1. Toxicity Data Availability. Many studies are currentlyfocusing on understanding toxic effects of ENMs in invitro and in vivo studies on different species (rats, fishes,
algae, daphnids, and bacteria, amongst others). Among thesestudies, rats as animalmodels are used for obtaining referencedoses. Very few toxicity studies are currently available whichprovide complete information on experimental conditions(i.e., nanoparticles characteristics, animal- or cell line-relatedinformation, exposure duration and frequency, and exposuremedium and endpoints observed). To illustrate this aspect,summary of toxicity studies on nano-TiO
2-based ENMs for
oral and inhalation exposure routes is presented in Tables 2and 3, respectively. Review of these studies indicates thatdifferent works have used varying experimental conditionsand endpoints for observing effects, making it challengingto obtain data for systematic comparison and risk estimationpurposes. For example, there is a lack of detailed datasetfrom toxicological and epidemiological studies on inhalationtoxicity to humans. To circumvent this issue, animal dataare used for determining toxicity parameters for humanexternal and lung doses [44]. Although use of animal datafor reference dose quantification is a standard methodol-ogy in the absence of toxicity data on humans, there isinherent uncertainty in extrapolating findings on animalsto humans (i.e., interspecies uncertainty). Further, thereexists a difficulty in finding out toxicity studies with detailedinformation on experimental descriptions for comparisonpurposes. For example, OâBrien andCummins [105] screenedmany studies of TiO
2particles to identify toxicity works that
are suitable for providing ingestion and inhalation-relatedanimal data. After a thorough review, they were able tofinally use findings from the following studies related to (i)inhalation (endpoint: lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) test [106â108]) and (ii) ingestion (endpoint: liver kidney and spleencoefficient; blood biomarker assays and histopathologicalexamination [109]). These observations clearly indicate aneed for standardising toxicity conditions for observing agiven endpoint and facilitating easy comparison of toxicitydata [110]. During the use of animal toxicity data, there isalso a need for the accounting of the effects of animal speciesor strain on toxic effects and subsequently on dose-responseparameters. For example, Kuempel et al. [44] discussed theexposure of ultrafine and fine TiO
2particles to rat strains
(Sprague-Dawley,Wistar, Fischer 344, and Long Evans).Theyfound a difference in observed lung burden doses, indicatinga need to consider the effect of rat strain type on dose-response parameter since this can influence benchmark doselimit values that are normally calculated using dose-responsedata.
Furthermore, some researchers have studied ENM-basedtoxicity on cell lines (see Tables 2 and 3). These studies areeasier to conduct than in vivo studies. However, findings of invitro studies cannot be directly used to understand toxicityof ENMs to the target organs as toxic effects on cell linescannot represent toxic effects on the whole target organ.These data are sometimes less useful than those obtainedfrom animal models (e.g., rats) as findings of toxicity studieson cells cannot be easily extrapolated for determining toxicityto either human cell line or to human target organ. However,this step is not required if toxicity data is directly availablefor human cell line and/or human organs. There is a needfor identifying mechanisms for extrapolating the findings of
6 Journal of Nanomaterials
Table 2: Oral toxicity of TiO2 to rats and in vitro data on rat cell lines.
Reference Exposed animals/cell line type Experimental design Endpoint
Hussain et al. [111] BRL 3A rat liver cell line Exposure of TiO2 particles for 24 hoursin vitro to 40 nm TiO2 particles
Cytotoxicity; mitochondrial function
Trouiller et al. [13] RatsExposure of TiO2 particles (21 nm size,75% anatase, and 25% rutile) throughdrinking water
DNA single and double strand breakage;chromosomal damage in vivo; DNAdeletions in offspring
Kocbek et al. [112] HEK cells Effect of TiO2 and ZnO particles on HEKcells in vitro Cytotoxicity
ENM: engineered nanomaterial; HEK cells: human embryonic kidney cells; ROS: reactive oxygen species.
Table 3: Inhalation toxicity of TiO2 to rats and in vitro data on rat cell lines.
Reference Exposed animals/cellline Experimental design Endpoint
Henrich et al. [113] Wistar rats;inhalation
Chronic inhalation (24 months); 10mg/m3
TiO2 particles (15â40 nm size; mass-medianaerodynamic diameter = 800 nm)
Carcinogenicity; histology; DNA addicts;alveolar lung clearance
Bermudez et al. [106] Hamster and rat;inhalation
Subchronic inhalation (3.25 months);10â250mg/m3 pigmentary TiO2 particles(assumed diameter = 300 nm; mass-medianaerodynamic diameter = 1400 nm)
Inflammatory response; cytotoxicity; lungcell proliferation; histopathology
Hohr et al. [108] Rat; instillation 16 h instillation; 1â6mg (diameter =20â30 nm and 180 nm)
Acute inflammatory response; celldamage
Bermudez et al. [107] Hamster and rat;inhalation
Subchronic inhalation (13 weeks);0.5â10mg/m3; diameter = 21 nm;mass-median aerodynamicdiameter = 1370 nm)
Inflammatory response; cytotoxicity; lungcell proliferation; histopathology
Renwick et al. [114] Rat; instillation 24 h instillation; 0.125â0.5mg(diameter = 29 nm and 250 nm)
Inflammatory response; epithelial injury;alveolar macrophage toxicity; lungclearance
Warheit et al. [115] Rat; instillation24 h, 1-week, 1-month, and 3-monthinstillation; 129.4 nm; 149.4 nm; 136 nm;382 nm
Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluidinflammatory markers; cell proliferation;histopathology
Grassian et al. [116] Rat; inhalation 4 h duration and 10-day duration; 3.5 nm Total protein content; LDH activity;inflammatory cytokines; histopathology
Li et al. [117] Rat; inhalation Three-day inhalation; 3 nm; 20 nm BAL fluid biochemical parameters;histopathology
Lui et al. [118] Rat; instillation One-week instillation; 5â50 nm
Histopathology; blood biochemicalparameters; LDH, alkaline phosphatase,and acid phosphatase activity; alveolarmacrophage phagocytotic ability
Falck et al. [56] Bronchial cells(BEAS 2B)
Exposure to 8 doses (1â100đg/cm2) of TiO2particles: (1) nanorutile, (2) anatase with size<25 nm, and (3) fine rutile with size <5đmfor 24, 28, and 72 hours of exposure
DNA damage
Bhattacharya et al. [20] Bronchial cells(human BEAS 2B)
Toxicity of TiO2 particles in anatase crystalphase (size: <100 nm)
Reactive oxygen species (ROS)production; DNA adduct formation
Bhattacharya et al. [20] Lung fibroblast cells(IMR-90)
Toxicity of TiO2 particles in anatase crystalphase (size: <100 nm) Cytotoxicity
in vitro studies to in vivo studies. In this direction, somestudies have used an endpoint that can be easily compared inin vitro and in vivo toxicity studies. For example, Faux et al.[119] used pulmonary inflammation as a response functionfor toxicity to epithelial cells in the centriacinar region of the
lungs and in a petri dish. They reported that in vivo response(i.e., an increase in polymorphonuclear leukocytes in bron-choalveolar lavage fluid from rats) and in vitro response (i.e.,an increase in inflammatory cytokine interleukin-8 mRNAin human alveolar epithelial cell line A549) were found to
Journal of Nanomaterials 7
be comparable. More studies are required to explore thisapproach which can increase the usefulness of in vitro studiesin the interest of time and cost.
On the other hand, recent studies are also consideringthe prospects of using alternative test methods to understandhealth risk and toxic effects of different chemicals. Forexample, the U.S. National Research Councilâs report [120]focuses on toxicity of chemicals to humans and suggestsusing alternative test methods to improve understanding.Studies are exploring suitability of alternative test methods(high throughput systems, in silico and in vitro models) forscreening large number of samples containing ENMs and forreducing increased burden on animal testing [41, 43, 120]. Forexample, Frater et al. [41] applied predictive modelling and invitromodelling for selecting carbon nanotubes in short-terminhalation or instillation studies. Similarly, Puzyn et al. [121]used experimental testing and quantum-mechanics-basedcomputational modeling for studying cytotoxicity of metaloxide nanoparticles to E. coli. These recent efforts indicatethe feasibility of using alternative test methods for toxicitystudies in order to obtain data relevant to the dose-responsestep. These methods have also been mentioned in EuropeanParliament and Council directives [122, 123]. However, moreefforts are clearly needed to improve toxicity screening ofincreasing number of nanomaterials.
5.2. Effect of Physiochemical Characteristics of ENMs onToxicity. Physical and chemical properties of the ENMs havebeen shown to influence their toxicity [124â127]. There iscurrently a need for additional data providing informationon the effects of ENMs characteristics (i.e., size, shape,chemical composition, and degree of agglomeration) ontheir toxicity [44]. ENM size in the environment dependson media characteristics. For example, ENM size in waterdepends on water physicochemical characteristics, such asionic strength, pH solution, and presence of other co-ions[128].Therefore the size of the ENMs needs to be determinedin the exposure media and this needs to be related to theresults from the hazard studies. Some studies have assessedthe effect of size on ENM-induced toxicities to determinesize-dependent dose-response model of ENMs for a givenendpoint. For example, Falck et al. [56] observed that thelowest dose inducing DNA damage on bronchial cells BEAS2B is 1 đg/cm2 for fine rutile, 10 đg/cm2 for nanoanatase,and 80 đg/cm2 for nanorutile (see Table 2). Furthermore,particle size also affects extent of deposition in lungs duringinhalation and its subsequent deposition in lungs and otherorgans as noted in Table 3 [44, 124]. For example, clearanceof nanoparticles was found to be smaller than that of largerparticles during inhalation exposure [124â126]. The findingof the Falck et al. [56] study also indicated the effect ofcrystallinity of nanoparticles on lowest dose inducing DNAdamage. Further, chemical composition of ENMs also affectsthe extent of their toxicity [29]. For example, extent of toxicityof TiO
2and Ag nanoparticles differ for a given media. This
information highlights the effects of size, shape, phase, andchemical composition on toxicity of ENMs and indicatesa need for incorporating these factors into estimating the
ENM-based toxicity reference limits for animal and humanexposure.
5.3. Nanomaterials Cooccurrence. There exists a possibilityof cooccurrence of ENMs in the environment, indicating achance of exposure to different types of ENMs simultane-ously. To estimate human health risks due to exposure ofmore than one type of ENM in the environment, relatedtoxicity data are required. Although data on exposure of indi-vidual ENMs to animals and human cell lines are available,data are still lacking on the effect of interaction with otherchemicals and any possible subsequent synergistic or antag-onistic effects on different target organs/organisms [40]. Forexample, Gou et al. [129] noted that synergism between theENMs made of Ag and TiO
2is plausible on bacteria. As this
study was conducted on bacteria, the obtained informationabout interaction of Ag and TiO
2particles cannot be used in
EHHRA. To properly incorporate exposure of more than onetype of ENM, information about cooccurrence of differentENMs in a given medium, chances of exposure of more thanone type of ENM from a given exposuremedium, and data ontoxicity due to mixture of ENMs for a given target organ arerequired. For example, carbon nanotubes and fullerenes areemitted into the environment during combustion processesand coexist in air [130]. Both of these carbon-based ENMsaffect alveoli region of lungs. A review by Aschberger et al.[131] indicates that toxicity studies are available only forcarbon nanotubes or for fullerenes. However, these twotypes of carbon-based nanomaterials have not been studiedtogether in toxicity studies. The information about effects ofpossible interactions of two or more than two ENMs on agiven target organ need to be gathered to determine resultantdose-response curves.
Currently, the conventional approach is to develop dose-response curves for a given endpoint using exposure ofsingle type of contaminant. To account for toxicity due tocooccurring ENMs, one simplified approach could be touse reference values of exposure of single ENMs to targetorgan without assuming interaction with the other typesof ENMs. It is similar to the USEPAâs dose-addition-basedrisk assessment methodology [46, 132]. This methodologyassumes that contaminants in mixture behaves similarly tohow they would behave if they were present individually inwater [45, 46]. However, this approach might not capturethe realistic effect of action on site, and two or more ENMsmight be affecting. Towards this, the first attempt could bemade by calculating the USEPAâs interaction-based hazardindex (HI), as seen in (1) [46, 132], for a mixture of ENMs.The HI is generally used for chemicals. In (1), HQ
đis hazard
quotient for đth chemical; đđđis toxic hazard of the đth
chemical relative to the total hazard from all chemicalspotentially interacting with đth chemical. The magnitudeof interaction between chemicals is represented by đ
đđ(an
interaction magnitude parameter, default value = 5 [46]).The strength of evidence that đth chemical influences thetoxicity of đth chemical is represented by đ”
đđ(i.e., weight-of-
evidence factor (2a)). Also, đđđin (1) indicates a degree to
which đth chemical and đth chemical are present in equitoxicamounts (2b). For the case of two chemicals, đ value is
8 Journal of Nanomaterials
1 as HQ12= HQ
2/[HIadd âHQ
1] = HQ
2/[HQ2]. B can be
assigned to default value of 0.5 based on guidelines from theUSEPA [46] methodology, as also used by studies elsewhere[133, 134].
HIint =đ
â
đ=1
HQđ
đ
â
đ = đ
(đđđĂđđđ
đ”đđĂđđđ) . (1)
đđđ=
HQđ
HIadd âHQđ
(2a)
đđđ=
âHQđĂHQ
đ
0.5 Ă (HQđ+HQ
đ). (2b)
The USEPAâs risk assessment methodology for chemicals forestimating risks can only be used for estimating risks due toexposure of mixture of ENMs provided this equation holdstrue for ENMs mixture as well. Currently, not much workhas been conducted to understand applicability of (1) and((2a) and (2b)) in this regard. The first step towards thisapproach is to gather information about all parameters usedin these two equations.The following steps are encouraged tomodify current ENM-related occurrence and toxicity studies:(i) calculate the chance of cooccurrence of different ENMs ina given medium, (ii) develop groups of cooccurring ENMsinfluencing a given endpoint, and (iii) obtain dose-responsedata during simultaneous exposure of two or more ENMs totarget models under study if available or conduct studies toobtain these data to assess the effect of cooccurrence of ENMson toxicity endpoints. Using this additional information, theUSEPA methodology for mixture of chemicals ((1), (2a) and(2b)) may be applied to estimate risks due to exposure ofENMs, until detailed methodology for mixture of ENMs isavailable.
5.4. Fate of ENMs inOrganisms and Translocation Assessment.Inhaled or ingested ENMs could be translocated to differentparts of the body through systemic distribution [135]. Asa result, the exposure of ENMs from one particular routemight result in exposure of ENMs to different organs. Thus,exposure assessment and dose-response assessment stagesneed to consider this aspect for assessing overall toxicity froma given exposure route.
During inhalation exposure, ENMs may deposit in lungswhere they may disaggregate into smaller particles in thealveolar lining fluid, resulting in exposure of both nanosizeand micron-size particles to interior parts of the lungs [136].Once particles are deposited in the respiratory tract, clearancemechanisms such asmucociliary clearance in airways or alve-olar macrophage-mediated clearance in gas-exchange regiongovern deposition, clearance, and translocation of particlesto other regions [124â126]. This translocation happens whenparticles enter in the lymph or blood circulation. Thus, theENMs exposed through inhalation route reach to lungs aswell as in other organs.
Similar observations have been found in the case oforal exposure of ENMs. For example, the biodistribution
experiment by Wang et al. [137] on adult mice showed thatorally administered TiO
2was found to be retained mainly
in the liver, spleen, kidneys, and lung tissues, indicatingtranslocation of TiO
2particles to other tissues and organs
after uptake by gastrointestinal tract. The work of Park et al.[138] reported that, when mice were orally treated with1mg/kg Ag particles for 14 days, small-sized Ag particles(22 nm, 42 nm, and 71 nm) were found to be distributed tobrain, lung, liver, kidney, and testis. However, large-sized Agparticles (323 nm) were not detected in these organ tissues,indicating an effect of size on translocation. Furthermore, arecent study by van der Zande et al. [139] noticed in vivoformation of silver nanoparticles in rat organs during theiroral exposure to silver salts over a study duration of 28 days.These findings indicate the possibility of in vivo formationof nanoparticles, which also needs to be considered inestimating exposure dose of nanoparticles in risk assessmentprocess.
5.5. Toxicity Study Duration. Although data from acute- orsubchronic studies on animal toxicity studies [13, 140] areavailable, they do not represent fully the toxicity of ENMs totarget organs during long-term exposure. Thus, uncertaintyon extrapolation from subchronic to chronic exposure datastill exists. As chronic studies are expensive, there is a needfor developing short-term tests to simulate chronic exposurescenario. In these studies, biological indictorswhose responsecan be extended based on causal relationship for long-termexposure need to be explored in detail [44]. In addition, therecould be differences in toxicodynamics and toxicokineticresponse in short- and long-term studies during the use oflow concentration of ENMs, which need to be considered inthese short-term tests. Overall, there is a need for conductingmore long-term toxicity studies or combining experimentaldata [29] and simulation-based hybrid approach to predictlong-term toxicity effects.
5.6. Quantitative Nanostructure-Toxicity Relationship(QNTR). Quantitative structure-activity relationship(QSAR) has been widely used in pharmacology and relatedfields to predict the toxicity of drugs without the need fortedious, time-consuming, and expensive animal testing.An analogue of the model, QNTR, has been extended tonanomaterials. In this context, Winkler et al. [141] recentlynoted that structural properties of nanomaterials, whichinfluence toxicity, may include size, shape, surface area, anddegree of electrostatic interaction between nanomaterials andtheir cellular environments as well as other physicochemicalproperties of nanomaterials. These properties have beenused as descriptors [121, 141, 142] for the prediction of theproperties of new materials or for the explaining of theirbiological effects. In many instances, such predictions arefacilitated by the use of multivariate data analysis techniquesincluding regression models and artificial neural networksand verified by cross-validation, using training and validationdata sets [143].
Emerging results from these types of studies indicatethat the structural properties, which influence the toxicityof nanomaterials, can reside both in the core and on the
Journal of Nanomaterials 9
surface of the materials [141, 144]. However, to extend QSARto QNTR effectively, a number of challenges need to beaddressed. Winkler et al. [141] have mentioned some of thesechallenges as
(i) lack of adequate definition and understanding ofthe biologically important entities that moderate theadverse effects of nanomaterials,
(ii) need to choose the right assays that can be used tomodel and correlate the toxic effects of nanomaterialsin vitro and in vivo,
(iii) accurate modeling of the complex interactionsbetween nanomaterials and biological systems,
(iv) understanding of the relationship between QNTRmethods and other computational approaches such asquantum chemistry and molecular dynamics.
These challenges arise due to following data gaps: (i) lack ofsufficient empirical data on the composition of biocorona onthe surfaces of nanomaterials; (ii) lack of in vitro data thatcan be used to predict in vivo effects of nanomaterials, and(iii) the paucity of descriptors that can specifically be usedfor nanomaterials [141]. Despite these challenges and datagaps, progress has been made in probing and understandingthe interactions of nanomaterials with their biological envi-ronments. For example, Lynch and Dawson [145] describedthe use, strengths, and shortcomings of surface plasmonresonance, magnetic nanosensor arrays, surface adsorptionindex, isothermal titration calorimetry, shotgun proteomicsanalysis, fluorescence correlation spectroscopy, size exclusionchromatography, and liquid chromatography-tandem massspectrometry in increasing the understanding of the interac-tion of nanomaterials with environmental molecules.
However, the gaps in knowledge must be fully identifiedand understood before an internationally acceptableapproach to QNTR is proposed, which can appeal toall stakeholders. An important initiative taken towardsachieving this goal was captured by a recent workshop(http://www.cost.eu/events/qntr) on the use of QNTRmethods in modelling the biological effects of nanomaterials.This workshop highlighted the challenges envisaged andthe proposed methods of overcoming these challenges.It also proposed short- to long-term steps that could betaken to address the challenges (Table 4). In a similardevelopment, Stone et al. [43] reported that a EuropeanCommission funded a project, which was undertaken toidentify the framework of future research priorities forthe development of an intelligent testing strategy (ITS) forevaluating nanomaterials safety without the need for case-by-case assessment of human and environmental exposure.Some short-, medium-, and long-term research prioritiesemanating from the project are also included in Table 4.Readers interested in the full report are encouraged to visithttp://www.nano.hw.ac.uk/research-projects/itsnano.html[43].
6. Environmental Regulations of ENMs
A review of literature indicates that not much information isavailable on the regulation of ENM-related exposure [8, 67].The scope of different available regulations and guidelines inthe USA, European Union, and WHO is limited to organiccompounds and toxic substances, but they do not specificallyaddress ENM-related pollution. Air quality directives set bythe US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and theEuropean Commission (EC) include concentration limitsfor particulate pollution [146, 147]. These limits, however,refer to mass concentration measurements (i.e., PM
10and
PM2.5), which are not appropriate for airborne nanoparticles
[75, 148]. Some studies have attempted to understand thesuitability of current regulations in handling ENM pollution.For example, Beaudrie et al. [110] analysed U.S. FederalEnvironmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) regulations fortheir adequacy and application to ENMs using a life-cycleframework. They found that existing regulations for con-trolling occupational exposure and environmental pollution(e.g., the OSHA Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean WaterAct) do not provide provisions for addressing regulation ofENM-related environmental pollution. Finding of this studyindicated that there is a need for investigating suitability ofcurrent regulations for controlling environmental pollutionof ENMs. As the development of environmental regulationfor ENMs is still undergoing, regulatory bodies of somecountries such as the US [95], UK [41, 120], and Australia [62,63] are investigating if ENM-based products could be treatedas new classes of existing substances, which are currentlybeing regulated. Towards this, many countries have startedcollecting nanospecific data from each product and buildinga database so that it can be used in regulating ENMs. Forexample, the US is collecting substance-specific informationfor ENMs from different products for regulating ENMs [149].It appears that regulatory bodies may continue to use existingregulations to address ENM pollution until ENM-relatedregulation is structured and approved. In this regard, somestudies have suggested communication of nanospecific infor-mation of products to all stakeholders (manufacturers, users,and regulatory bodies) in an effective manner. For example,Nowack et al. [150] analysed release and behaviour of ENMsfor the context of major accident prevention and suggested toinclude nanospecific data in material safety data sheets on acompulsory basis. Furthermore, a notable amount of currentresearch is focusing on prioritising ENM-related researchissues and exposure metrics to develop stakeholder-drivenintelligent testingmethods and strategies. For example, recentwork of Stone et al. [43] used opinions of experts fromgovernment, academia, industry, funders, and NGOs forsystematically identifying a need for information in the areasof physicochemical characterisation, exposure identification,and hazard identification and modelling approaches forshort-, medium-, and long-term time scales. There is clearlya need for initiating regulatory efforts to develop guidelinesand monitoring metrics for regulating the presence of ENMsin water, air, and soil media. Whether these limits should be
10 Journal of Nanomaterials
Table 4: Desirable (achievable) outcomes of quantitative nanostructure-toxicity relationship (QNTR) in the next ten years adapted frompublished studies (Winkler et al. [141]; Stone et al. [43]).
Short-term Medium-term Long-term
(i) Fully characterised nanomaterials that canbe used in experiments
(i) Appreciable data on in vivo effectsof nanomaterials
(i) Sufficient in vitro and in vivo information onnanomaterials to assist the development ofregulatory measures
(ii) In vitro assays that are useful for theassessment of toxicologically relevant effects
(ii) Robust in vivomodels forpredicting the endpoints ofnanomaterialsâ interaction withbiological systems
(ii) Reliable models for prediction andrisk-based classification of nanomaterials
(iii) Fast and highly efficient methods formeasuring and modelling the interaction ofnanomaterials with biological systems
(iii) In-depth understanding of themechanism of nanomaterials toxicity
(iii) Integration of the data into legalframework, life-cycle assessment, and decisiontrees
(iv) Specific descriptors for modelling therelationships among the structures andtoxicity properties of nanomaterials
(iv) Information on cohort andpopulation; direct and indirect;short-/long-term reversible andirreversible effects
(iv) Implementation of risk assessmentframeworks
based on number,mass or surface area concentrations are stillcontentious [8].
7. Summary, Conclusions, andFuture Directions
This article provides current status of knowledge in areasof measurements, characterisation, and environmental riskassessment of the ENMs besides identifying the research gapsand future directions. The proposed future steps could helpin (i) providing information about monitoring of ENMs anddose-response parameters reflecting environmental exposureconditions, and (ii) developingQNTR.The summary and keyconclusions on the topic areas covered are listed below.
(i) The field of ENM monitoring is yet fairly newand therefore the monitoring methods are generallyadopted from the existing techniques for monitoringparticle pollution in air and water environments. Thegreatest challenge in monitoring the concentrationof ENMs in any environment is to distinguish themfrom the background nanomaterials.
(ii) Methods are available for measuring particle numberconcentration and characteristics. Particle concen-tration and size distribution can be measured usinginstruments such as DLS, CPC, DMPS, FMPS, ELPI,and SMPS. Surface characterisation of nanomaterialsis generally conducted using SEM, TEM, EDX, BET,TG, FTIR, near-infrared, and Ramanâs spectroscopymethods. These methods are usually complicated,time-consuming, and expensive, thereby makingthem inappropriate for routine monitoring of ENMsin different environmental media.
(iii) Current toxicity studies do not use realistic expo-sure conditions during dose-response experimentsand hence these are inappropriate for the EHHRAof ENMs. In addition, recent studies have starteddeveloping relationships between structural proper-ties of nanomaterials and toxicity (i.e., QNTR) foruse in the dose-response step. However, this approach
needs extensive empirical data on physicochemicalcharacteristics and toxicity of ENMs. Such data arecurrently unavailable in abundance and need to besystematically obtained.
(iv) In order to address mixture toxicity issue in theEHHRA of ENMs, the following steps are proposed.(i) Calculate chances of cooccurrence of differentENMs in a given medium. (ii) Develop groups ofcooccurring ENMs influencing a given endpoint.(iii) Obtain dose-response data during simultaneousexposure of two or more ENMs to target cell lineor target organ or animal used in toxicity studies.And (iv) use the USEPA methodology for mixture ofchemicals for conducting risk estimation of exposureof ENMs until detailed methodology for mixture ofENMs is available. These steps need to be pursued forinvestigating their appropriateness in assessing healthrisks due to exposure to ENMs.
(v) Despite increased awareness in public and recentreporting of ENMs in environment, not much infor-mation is yet available to regulate them due to thecontinuing technical difficulties.
Figure 1 presents the interlinking of identified factorsaffecting the EHHRA of ENMs. The following directions forfuture research works can assist in filling the research gaps onthe topic areas covered:
(i) developing a combination of different analyticalmethods for determining ENM mass concentration,particle concentration, and morphological informa-tion,
(ii) conducting toxicity studies using conditions relevantto environmental exposure of ENMs for humans toobtain dose-response information useful in EHHRAof ENMs,
(iii) obtaining relevant data in order to develop QNTRrelationships,
Journal of Nanomaterials 11
ENMs disposed/discharged in environmentENM-related products
Negative feedback (modification of product characteristics)
Synthesis method/ chemistry
Exposure
Health risk?
Risk estimationExperimental toxicity
data
No
Yes
Yes
No
Formulateguidelines (i.e. reference concentration value)
Regulation available?
Reduce risk
ENM physiochemical properties
Study type (in vivo)inorvitro
Study duration
Cooccurrene of ENMs
Modeled toxicity data (QNTR)
Negative feedback (minimize exposure by using control measures)
Fate in ENMs in human body
Positive feedback
Figure 1: Schematic showing interlinkages of different factors for determining environmental and health risks due to ENM exposure.
(iv) initiating efforts for formulating guidelines for regu-lating presence of ENMs in different environmentalmedia.
Conflict of Interests
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper.
Acknowledgments
Arun Kumar thanks the IIT Delhi and the Department ofScience and Technology, India (Grant no. DST/TM/WTI/2K11/301) for the funding support. Prashant Kumar greatlyacknowledges the EPSRC and Surrey University for thestudent support and instrument research grants. Exceptotherwise indicated, the views expressed in this paper arethose of the authors.
References
[1] M. C. Roco and W. S. Bainbridge, âSocietal implicationsof nanoscience and nanotechnology,â in Nanoscale, Sceince,Engineering and Technology (NSET) Workshop Report, p. 280,Springer (Formerly Kluwer) Publications, 2001, http://www.wtec.org/loyola/nano/NSET.Societal.Implications/nanosi.pdf.
[2] A. D. Maynard and E. D. Kuempel, âAirborne nanostructuredparticles and occupational health,â Journal of NanoparticleResearch, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 587â614, 2005.
[3] N. C. Mueller and B. Nowack, âExposure modeling of engi-neered nanoparticles in the environment,â Environmental Sci-ence & Technology, vol. 42, no. 12, pp. 4447â4453, 2008.
[4] H. P. Jarvie, H. Al-Obaidi, S. M. King et al., âFate of silicananoparticles in simulated primary wastewater treatment,âEnvironmental Science & Technology, vol. 43, no. 22, pp. 8622â8628, 2009.
[5] T. Xia, N. Li, and A. E. Nel, âPotential health impact ofnanoparticles,â Annual Review of Public Health, vol. 30, pp. 137â150, 2009.
[6] F. Gottschalk, T. Sonderer, R. W. Scholz, and B. Nowack, âMod-eled environmental concentrations of engineered nanomate-rials (TiO
2, ZnO, Ag, CNT, fullerenes) for different regions,â
Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 43, no. 24, pp. 9216â9222, 2009.
[7] D. Brouwer, âExposure tomanufactured nanoparticles in differ-ent workplaces,â Toxicology, vol. 269, no. 2-3, pp. 120â127, 2010.
[8] P. Kumar, P. Fennell, and A. Robins, âComparison of thebehaviour of manufactured and other airborne nanoparticlesand the consequences for prioritising research and regulationactivities,â Journal of Nanoparticle Research, vol. 12, no. 5, pp.1523â1530, 2010.
[9] P. Kumar andA.N.Al-Dabbous, âEmission, transformation andfate of nanoparticles in the atmosphere,â inEngineeredNanopar-ticles and the Environment: Biophysicochemical Processes andBiotoxicity, N. Senesi, Ed., vol. 4 of IUPAC-Sponsored WileyBook Series, 2014.
[10] C.-W. Lam, J. T. James, R. McCluskey, S. Arepalli, and R. L.Hunter, âA review of carbon nanotube toxicity and assessmentof potential occupational and environmental health risks,âCritical Reviews in Toxicology, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 189â217, 2006.
[11] D. Dankovic, E. Kuempel, andM.Wheeler, âAn approach to riskassessment for TiO
2,â Inhalation Toxicology, vol. 19, no. 1, pp.
205â212, 2007.[12] C.-M. Liao, Y.-H. Chiang, and C.-P. Chio, âModel-based assess-
ment for human inhalation exposure risk to airborne nano/fine
12 Journal of Nanomaterials
titanium dioxide particles,â Science of the Total Environment,vol. 407, no. 1, pp. 165â177, 2008.
[13] B. Trouiller, R. Reliene, A. Westbrook, P. Solaimani, and R. H.Schiestl, âTitanium dioxide nanoparticles induce DNA damageand genetic instability in vivo in mice,â Cancer Research, vol. 69,no. 22, pp. 8784â8789, 2009.
[14] G. Biskos and A. Schmidt-Ott, âAirborne engineered nanopar-ticles: potential risks and monitoring challenges for assessingtheir impacts on children,â Paediatric Respiratory Reviews, vol.13, no. 2, pp. 79â83, 2012.
[15] Y. Morimoto, N. Kobayashi, N. Shinohara, T. Myojo, I. Tanaka,and J. Nakanishi, âHazard assessments of manufactured nano-materials,â Journal of Occupational Health, vol. 52, no. 6, pp.325â334, 2010.
[16] B. Nowack and T. D. Bucheli, âOccurrence, behavior and effectsof nanoparticles in the environment,â Environmental Pollution,vol. 150, no. 1, pp. 5â22, 2007.
[17] C. A. Poland, R. Duffin, I. Kinloch et al., âCarbon nanotubesintroduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study,â Nature Nanotechnology, vol.3, no. 7, pp. 423â428, 2008.
[18] J. P. Ryman-Rasmussen, J. E. Riviere, and N. A. Monteiro-Riviere, âPenetration of intact skin by quantum dots withdiverse physicochemical properties,â Toxicological Sciences, vol.91, no. 1, pp. 159â165, 2006.
[19] D.W. Porter, A. F.Hubbs, R. R.Mercer et al., âMouse pulmonarydose- and time course-responses induced by exposure tomulti-walled carbon nanotubes,â Toxicology, vol. 269, no. 2-3, pp. 136â147, 2010.
[20] K. Bhattacharya, M. Davoren, J. Boertz, R. P. F. Schins, E. Hoff-mann, and E. Dopp, âTitanium dioxide nanoparticles induceoxidative stress and DNA-adduct formation but not DNA-breakage in human lung cells,â Particle and Fibre Toxicology, vol.6, article 17, 2009.
[21] K. Morgan, âDevelopment of a preliminary framework forinforming the risk analysis and risk management of nanopar-ticles,â Risk Analysis, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 1621â1635, 2005.
[22] M. R. Wiesner, G. V. Lowry, P. Alvarez, D. Dionysiou, and P.Biswas, âAssessing the risks of manufactured nanomaterials,âEnvironmental Science & Technology, vol. 40, no. 14, pp. 4336â4345, 2006.
[23] J. S. Tsuji, A. D. Maynard, P. C. Howard et al., âResearchstrategies for safety evaluation of nanomaterials, part IV: riskassessment of nanoparticles,â Toxicological Sciences, vol. 89, no.1, pp. 42â50, 2006.
[24] M. Kandlikar, G. Ramachandran, A.Maynard, B.Murdock, andW. A. Toscano, âHealth risk assessment for nanoparticles: a casefor using expert judgment,â Journal of Nanoparticle Research,vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 137â156, 2007.
[25] A. Kroll, M. H. Pillukat, D. Hahn, and J. Schnekenburger,âCurrent in vitro methods in nanoparticle risk assessment:limitations and challenges,â European Journal of Pharmaceuticsand Biopharmaceutics, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 370â377, 2009.
[26] N. Shinohara, M. Gamo, and J. Nakanishi, âRisk assessment ofmanufactured nanomaterialsâfullerene (C60),â InterimReport,Executive Summary,NEDOProjectâResearch andDevelopmentof Nanoparticle Characterization Methods, P06041, 2009.
[27] G. L. Baker, A. Gupta, M. L. Clark et al., âInhalation toxicityand lung toxicokinetics of C
60fullerene nanopaticles and
microparticles,âToxicological Sciences, vol. 101, no. 1, pp. 122â131,2008.
[28] T. Tervonen, I. Linkov, J. R. Figueira, J. Steevens, M. Chappell,andM.Merad, âRisk-based classification systemof nanomateri-als,â Journal of Nanoparticle Research, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 757â766,2009.
[29] N. OâBrien and E. Cummins, âDevelopment of a three-levelrisk assessment strategy for nanomaterials,â in Nanomaterials:Risks and Benefits, I. Linkov and J. Steevens, Eds., pp. 161â178,Springer, The Netherlands, 2009.
[30] K. D. Grieger, A. Baun, and R. Owen, âRedefining risk researchpriorities for nanomaterials,â Journal of Nanoparticle Research,vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 383â392, 2010.
[31] F. M. Christensen, H. J. Johnston, V. Stone et al., âNano-silverâfeasibility and challenges for human health risk assessmentbased on open literature,âNanotoxicology, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 284â295, 2010.
[32] F. M. Christensen, H. J. Johnston, V. Stone et al., âNano-TiO2â
easibility and challenges for human health risk assessmentbased on open literature,â Nanotoxicology, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 110â124, 2011.
[33] S. Gangwal, J. S. Brown, A. Wang et al., âInforming selection ofnanomaterial concentrations for ToxCast in vitro testing basedon occupational exposure potential,â Environmental HealthPerspectives, vol. 119, no. 11, pp. 1539â1546, 2011.
[34] A. Anandan and A. Kumar, âExposures to TiO2and Ag
nanoparticles: what are human health risks?â Science andSociety, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 155â162, 2011.
[35] A. C. Johnson, M. J. Bowes, A. Crossley et al., âAn assessmentof the fate, behaviour and environmental risk associated withsunscreen TiO
2nanoparticles in UK field scenarios,â Science of
the Total Environment, vol. 409, no. 13, pp. 2503â2510, 2011.[36] P. Kumar, B. R. Gurjar, A. S. Nagpure, and R. M. Harrison,
âPreliminary estimates of nanoparticle number emissions fromroad vehicles in megacity Delhi and associated health impacts,âEnvironmental Science & Technology, vol. 45, no. 13, pp. 5514â5521, 2011.
[37] A. Kumar, âMaking a case for human health risk-based rankingof nanoparticles in water for monitoring purposes,â Environ-mental Science & Technology, vol. 46, no. 10, pp. 5267â5268,2012.
[38] P. Kumar, A. Kumar, and J. R. Lead, âNanoparticles in the Indianenvironment: known, unknowns and awareness,â Environmen-tal Science & Technology, vol. 46, no. 13, pp. 7071â7072, 2012.
[39] D. Singh and A. Kumar, âIdentifying knowledge gaps inassessing health risks due to exposures of nanoparticles fromcontaminated edible plants,â in Management of Water, Energyand Bio-Resources in the Era of Climate Change: Emerging Issuesand Challenges, pp. 229â242, Springer, 2014.
[40] I. Khanna and A. Kumar, âIncluding nanoparticles mixturesin human health risk assessment,â Integrated EnvironmentalAssessment and Management, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 144, 2014.
[41] L. Frater, E. Stokes, R. Lee, and T. Oriola, An Overview of theFramework of Current Regulation Affecting the Development andMarketing of Nanomaterials, ESRC Centre for Business Rela-tionshipsAccountability Sustainability and Society (BRASS),Cardiff University:, Cardiff, UK, 2006, http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file36167.pdf.
[42] K. Savolainen, U. Backman, D. Brouwer et al., Nanosafety inEurope 2015â2025: Towards Safe and Sustainable Nanomaterialsand Nanotechnology Innovations, Finnish Institute of Occupa-tional Health, 2013.
[43] V. Stone, S. Pozzi-Mucelli, L. Tran et al., âITS-NANOâprioritising nanosafety research to develop a stakeholder driven
Journal of Nanomaterials 13
intelligent testing strategy,â Particle and Fibre Toxicology, vol. 11,article 9, 2014.
[44] E. Kuempel, C. Tran, V. Castranova, and A. Bailer, âLungdosimetry and risk assessment of nanoparticles: evaluatingand extending current models in rats and humans,â InhalationToxicology, vol. 18, no. 10, pp. 717â724, 2006.
[45] USEPA, âGuidelines for health risk assessment of chemicalmixtures,â Federal Register, vol. 51, no. 185, pp. 34014â34025,1986.
[46] USEPA, âSupplementary guidance for conducting health riskassessment of chemical mixtures,â EPA/630/R-00/002 Cincin-nati, Ohio, USA, ORD/NCEA, 2000.
[47] O. A. Sadik, âAnthropogenic nanoparticles in the environment,âEnvironmental Science: Processes & Impacts, vol. 15, pp. 19â20,2013.
[48] O. A. Sadik, A. L. Zhou, S. Kikandi, N. Du, Q. Wang, andK. Varner, âSensors as tools for quantitation, nanotoxicityand nanomonitoring assessment of engineered nanomaterials,âJournal of Environmental Monitoring, vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 1782â1800, 2009.
[49] A. J. Koster, U. Ziese, A. J. Verkleij, A. H. Janssen, and K. P. DeJong, âThree-dimensional transmission electron microscopy: anovel imaging and characterization technique with nanometerscale resolution for materials science,â Journal of PhysicalChemistry B, vol. 104, no. 40, pp. 9368â9370, 2000.
[50] P. Kumar, A. Robins, S. Vardoulakis, and R. Britter, âA reviewof the characteristics of nanoparticles in the urban atmosphereand the prospects for developing regulatory controls,â Atmo-spheric Environment, vol. 44, no. 39, pp. 5035â5052, 2010.
[51] L. Morawska, H. Wang, Z. Ristovski et al., âJEM spotlight:environmental monitoring of airborne nanoparticles,â Journalof EnvironmentalMonitoring, vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 1758â1773, 2009.
[52] M. Kruk and M. Jaroniec, âGas adsorption characterizationof ordered organic-inorganic nanocomposite materials,â Chem-istry of Materials, vol. 13, no. 10, pp. 3169â3183, 2001.
[53] M. V. Borrachero, J. Paya, M. Bonilla, and J. Monzo, âThe use ofthermogravimetric analysis technique for the characterizationof construction materials: the gypsum case,â Journal of ThermalAnalysis and Calorimetry, vol. 91, no. 2, pp. 503â509, 2008.
[54] A. Lopez-Lorente, B. M. Simonet, and M. Valcarcel, âRamanspectroscopic characterization of single walled carbon nan-otubes: influence of the sample aggregation state,â Analyst, vol.139, pp. 290â298, 2014.
[55] J. Gaury, E. M. Kelder, E. Bychkov, and G. Biskos, âCharacteri-zation of Nb-doped WO3 thin films produced by ElectrostaticSpray Deposition,âThin Solid Films, vol. 534, pp. 32â39, 2013.
[56] G. C. M. Falck, H. K. Lindberg, S. Suhonen et al., âGenotoxiceffects of nanosized and fine TiO
2,â Human and Experimental
Toxicology, vol. 28, no. 6-7, pp. 339â352, 2009.[57] J. Chapman, T. Sullivan, and F. Regan, âNanoparticles: what are
they?â in Nanoparticles in Anti-Microbial Materials: Use andCharacterization, RSC Nanoscience & Nanotechnology No. 23,chapter 1, Royal Society of Chemistry, 2012.
[58] H. Goesmann and C. Feldmann, âNanoparticulate functionalmaterials,â Angewandte Chemie International Edition, vol. 49,no. 8, pp. 1362â1395, 2010.
[59] G. Oberdorster, A. Maynard, K. Donaldson et al., âPrinciplesfor characterizing the potential human health effects fromexposure to nanomaterials: elements of a screening strategy,âParticle and Fibre Toxicology, vol. 2, article 8, pp. 1â35, 2005.
[60] P. Kumar, A. Robins, and H. Apsimon, âNanoparticle emissionsfrom biofuelled vehicles-their characteristics and impact onthe number-based regulation of atmospheric particles,â Atmo-spheric Science Letters, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 327â331, 2010.
[61] P. Kumar, A. Robins, S. Vardoulakis, and P. Quincey, âTechnicalchallenges in tackling regulatory concerns for urban atmo-spheric nanoparticles,â Particuology, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 566â571,2011.
[62] D. M. Bowman and G. A. Hodge, âNanotechnology: mappingthe wild regulatory frontier,â Futures, vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 1060â1073, 2006.
[63] K. Ludlow, D. Bowman, and G. Hodge, A Review of PossibleImpacts of Nanotechnology onAustraliaâs Regulatory Framework,Monash Centre for Regulatory Studies, Monash University,Melbourn, Australia, 2007, http://www.innovation.gov.au/Industry/Nanotechnology/NationalEnablingTechnologies-Strategy/Documents//MonashReport2007.pdf.
[64] A. N. Al-Dabbous and P. Kumar, âThe influence of roadsidevegetation barriers on airborne nanoparticles and pedestriansexposure under varying wind conditions,â Atmospheric Envi-ronment, vol. 90, pp. 113â124, 2014.
[65] P. Kumar, M. Mulheron, B. Fisher, and R. M. Harrison,âNew directions: airborne ultrafine particle dust from buildingactivitiesâa source in need of quantification,â AtmosphericEnvironment, vol. 56, pp. 262â264, 2012.
[66] P. Kumar, M. Mulheron, and C. Som, âRelease of ultrafineparticles from three simulated building processes,â Journal ofNanoparticle Research, vol. 14, no. 4, article 0771, 2012.
[67] P. Kumar, L. Pirjola, M. Ketzel, and R. M. Harrison, âNanopar-ticle emissions from 11 non-vehicle exhaust sourcesâa review,âAtmospheric Environment, vol. 67, pp. 252â277, 2013.
[68] P. Kumar and L. Morawska, âRecycling concrete: an undiscov-ered source of ultrafine particles,â Atmospheric Environment,vol. 90, pp. 51â58, 2014.
[69] P. Kumar, A. Robins, and R. Britter, âFast response measure-ments of the dispersion of nanoparticles in a vehicle wake anda street canyon,â Atmospheric Environment, vol. 43, no. 38, pp.6110â6118, 2009.
[70] M. Carpentieri and P. Kumar, âGround-fixed and on-boardmeasurements of nanoparticles in the wake of a movingvehicle,â Atmospheric Environment, vol. 45, no. 32, pp. 5837â5852, 2011.
[71] P. Joodatnia, P. Kumar, and A. Robins, âThe behaviour of trafficproduced nanoparticles in a car cabin and resulting exposurerates,â Atmospheric Environment, vol. 65, pp. 40â51, 2013.
[72] P. Joodatnia, P. Kumar, and A. Robins, âFast response sequentialmeasurements and modelling of nanoparticles inside and out-side a car cabin,âAtmospheric Environment, vol. 71, pp. 364â375,2013.
[73] R. Goyal, M. Khare, and P. Kumar, âIndoor air quality: currentstatus, missing links and future road map for India,â Journal ofEnvironment and Civil Engineering, vol. 2, p. 118, 2012.
[74] R. Goyal and P. Kumar, âIndoor-outdoor concentrations ofparticulate matter in nine microenvironments of a mix-usecommercial building in megacity Delhi,â Air Quality, Atmo-sphere & Health, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 747â757, 2013.
[75] P. Kumar, M. Ketzel, S. Vardoulakis, L. Pirjola, and R. Britter,âDynamics and dispersion modelling of nanoparticles fromroad traffic in the urban atmospheric environmentâa review,âJournal of Aerosol Science, vol. 42, no. 9, pp. 580â603, 2011.
14 Journal of Nanomaterials
[76] J. K. Agarwal and G. J. Sem, âContinuous flow, single-particle-counting condensation nucleus counter,â Journal of AerosolScience, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 343â357, 1980.
[77] P. H. McMurry, âA review of atmospheric aerosol measure-ments,â Atmospheric Environment, vol. 34, no. 12-14, pp. 1959â1999, 2000.
[78] A. Schmidt-Ott and T. Kauffeldt, âAssessment of particulate airpollution by new sensor concepts,â in Recent Developments inMeasurement and Assessment of Air Pollution, vol. 1443, pp. 517â528, V D I-V D E-Verlag Gmbh, Dusseldorf, Germany, 1999.
[79] G. Biskos, K. Reavell, and N. Collings, âDescription and theo-retical analysis of a differential mobility spectrometer,â AerosolScience and Technology, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 527â541, 2005.
[80] G. Biskos, V. Vincent, C. U. Yurteri, and A. Schmidt-Ott,âGeneration and sizing of particles for aerosol-based nanotech-nology,â Kona Powder and Particle Journal, vol. 26, pp. 13â35,2008.
[81] E. O. Knutson and K. T. Whitby, âAerosol classification byelectric mobility: apparatus, theory, and applications,â Journalof Aerosol Science, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 443â451, 1975.
[82] R. C. Flagan, âOn differential mobility analyzer resolution,âAerosol Science and Technology, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 556â570, 1999.
[83] S. C. Wang and R. C. Flagan, âScanning electrical mobilityspectrometer,â Aerosol Science and Technology, vol. 13, no. 2, pp.230â240, 1990.
[84] D.-R. Chen, W. Li, and M.-D. Cheng, âDevelopment of amultiple-stage differential mobility analyzer (MDMA),âAerosolScience and Technology, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 217â230, 2007.
[85] M. Giamarelou, M. Stolzenburg, and G. Biskos, âThe multiplemonodisperse outlet differential mobility analyzer: derivationof its transfer function and resolution,â Aerosol Science andTechnology, vol. 46, no. 9, pp. 951â965, 2012.
[86] M. Giamarelou, M. Stolzenburg, D.-R. Chen, and G. Biskos,âComparison between the theoretical and experimentalperformance of a differential mobility analyzer with threemonodisperse-particle outlets,â Aerosol Science and Technology,vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 406â416, 2013.
[87] G. Oberdorster, V. Stone, and K. Donaldson, âToxicology ofnanoparticles: a historical perspective,â Nanotoxicology, vol. 1,no. 1, pp. 2â25, 2007.
[88] K.-S. Woo, D.-R. Chen, D. Y. H. Pui, and W. E. Wilson, âUseof continuous measurements of integral aerosol parameters toestimate particle surface area,â Aerosol Science and Technology,vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 57â65, 2001.
[89] M. I. Gini, C. G. Helmis, and K. Eleftheriadis, âCascadeepiphaniometer: an instrument for aerosol âFuchsâ surface areasize distribution measurements,â Journal of Aerosol Science, vol.63, pp. 87â102, 2013.
[90] C. Asbach, H. Kaminski, D. von Barany et al., âComparabilityof portable nanoparticle exposure monitors,â The Annals ofOccupational Hygiene, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 606â621.
[91] D. J. Rader and P. H. McMurry, âApplication of the tandemdifferential mobility analyzer to studies of droplet growth orevaporation,â Journal of Aerosol Science, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 771â787, 1986.
[92] A. Schmidt-Ott, âIn situmeasurement of the fractal dimension-ality of ultrafine aerosol particles,â Applied Physics Letters, vol.52, no. 12, pp. 954â956, 1988.
[93] G. Biskos, L. M. Russell, P. R. Buseck, and S. T. Martin,âNanosize effect on the hygroscopic growth factor of aerosolparticles,â Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 33, no. 7, Article IDL07801, 2006.
[94] H. Fissan andD. Y.H. Pui, âCharacterization of nanoparticles inthe gas-borne state and on surface,â Nanostructured Materials,vol. 9, no. 1-8, pp. 63â66, 1997.
[95] A. Maynard, D. Bowman, and G. Hodge, âThe problem ofregulating sophisticatedmaterials,âNatureMaterials, vol. 10, no.8, pp. 554â557, 2011.
[96] A. Voliotis, S. Benzantakos, M. Gaimarelou, M. Valenti, P.Kumar, and G. Biskos, âNanoparticle emissions from tradi-tional pottery manufacturing,â Environmental Science: Process& Impacts, 2014.
[97] B. J. Berne and R. Pecora, Dynamic Light Scattering, Dover,Mineola, NY, USA, 2000.
[98] R. Pecora, âDynamic light scattering measurement of nanome-ter particles in liquids,â Journal of Nanoparticle Research, vol. 2,no. 2, pp. 123â131, 2000.
[99] M. Filella, J. Zhang, M. E. Newman, and J. Buffle, âAnalyticalapplications of photon correlation spectroscopy for size distri-bution measurements of natural colloidal suspensions: capabil-ities and limitations,â Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemicaland Engineering Aspects, vol. 120, no. 1â3, pp. 27â46, 1997.
[100] I.Montes-Burgos, D.Walczyk, P. Hole, J. Smith, I. Lynch, and K.Dawson, âCharacterisation of nanoparticle size and state priorto nanotoxicological studies,â Journal of Nanoparticle Research,vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 47â53, 2010.
[101] R. F. Domingos, M. A. Baalousha, Y. Ju-Nam et al., âChar-acterizing manufactured nanoparticles in the environment:multimethod determination of particle sizes,â EnvironmentalScience & Technology, vol. 43, no. 19, pp. 7277â7284, 2009.
[102] K.-G. Wahlund and L. Nilsson, âFlow FFFâBasics and KeyApplications,â in Field-Flow Fractionation in Biopolymer Analy-sis, S. K. R.Williams and K. D. Caldwell, Eds., pp. 1â21, Springer,Vienna, 2012.
[103] M. Hassellov, F. von der Kammer, and R. Beckett, âCharacter-isation of aquatic colloids and macromolecules by field-flowfractionation,â in Environmental Colloids and Particles, K. J.Wilkinson and J. R. Lead, Eds., pp. 223â276, JohnWiley & Sons,New York, NY, USA, 2007.
[104] J. R. Runyon, M. Ulmius, and L. Nilsson, âA perspective on thecharacterization of colloids and macromolecules using asym-metrical flow field-flow fractionation,â Colloids and Surfaces A:Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, vol. 442, pp. 25â33,2014.
[105] N. Oâbrien and E. Cummins, âRanking initial environmentaland human health risk resulting from environmentally relevantnanomaterials,â Journal of Environmental Science and HealthPart A, vol. 45, no. 8, pp. 992â1007, 2010.
[106] E. Bermudez, J. B. Mangum, B. Asgharian et al., âLong-termpulmonary responses of three laboratory rodent species to sub-chronic inhalation of pigmentary titanium dioxide particles,âToxicological Sciences, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 86â97, 2002.
[107] E. Bermudez, J. B. Mangum, B. A. Wong et al., âPulmonaryresponses of mice, rats, and hamsters to subchronic inhalationof ultrafine titanium dioxide particles,â Toxicological Sciences,vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 347â357, 2004.
[108] D. Hohr, Y. Steinfartz, R. P. F. Schins et al., âThe surface arearather than the surface coating determines the acute inflamma-tory response after instillation of fine and ultrafine TiO
2in the
rat,â International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health,vol. 205, no. 3, pp. 239â244, 2002.
[109] Z.Wang, E. Han, F. Liu, andW. Ke, âThermal behavior of nano-TiO2in fire-resistant coating,â Journal of Materials Science and
Technology, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 547â550, 2007.
Journal of Nanomaterials 15
[110] C. E. H. Beaudrie, M. Kandlikar, and T. Satterfield, âFromcradle-to-grave at the nanoscale: gaps in U.S. regulatory over-sight along the nanomaterial life cycle,â Environmental Science& Technology, vol. 47, no. 11, pp. 5524â5534, 2013.
[111] S. M. Hussain, K. L. Hess, J. M. Gearhart, K. T. Geiss, and J. J.Schlager, âIn vitro toxicity of nanoparticles in BRL 3A rat livercells,â Toxicology in Vitro, vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 975â983, 2005.
[112] P. Kocbek, K. Teskac, M. E. Kreft, and J. Kristl, âToxicologicalaspects of long-term treatment of keratinocytes with ZnO andTiO2nanoparticles,â Small, vol. 6, no. 17, pp. 1908â1917, 2010.
[113] U. Henrich, R. Fuhst, S. Rittinghausen et al., âChronic inhala-tion exposure of wistar rats and two different strains of miceto diesel engine exhaust, carbon black, and titanium dioxide,âInhalation Toxicology, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 533â556, 1995.
[114] L. C. Renwick, D. Brown, A. Clouter, and K. Donaldson,âIncreased inflammation and altered macrophage chemotacticresponses caused by two ultrafine particle types,â Occupationaland Environmental Medicine, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 442â447, 2004.
[115] D. B. Warheit, T. R. Webb, K. L. Reed, S. Frerichs, and C. M.Sayes, âPulmonary toxicity study in rats with three forms ofultrafine-TiO
2particles: differential responses related to surface
properties,â Toxicology, vol. 230, no. 1, pp. 90â104, 2007.[116] V. H. Grassian, P. T. OâShaughnessy, A. Adamcakova-Dodd, J.
M. Pettibone, and P. S. Thorne, âInhalation exposure study oftitanium dioxide nanoparticles with a primary particle size of 2to 5 nm,â Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 115, no. 3, pp.397â402, 2007.
[117] J. Li, Q. Li, J. Xu et al., âComparative study on the acutepulmonary toxicity induced by 3 and 20 nm TiO
2primary
particles inmice,â Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology,vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 239â244, 2007.
[118] R. Liu, L. Yin, Y. Pu et al., âPulmonary toxicity induced bythree forms of titanium dioxide nanoparticles via intra-trachealinstillation in rats,â Progress in Natural Science, vol. 19, no. 5, pp.573â579, 2009.
[119] S. P. Faux, C. L. Tran, B. G.Miller, A. D. Jones, C.Monteiller, andK. Donaldson, âIn vitro determinants of particulate toxicity: thedose metric for poorly soluble dusts,â HSE Res. Rep 154, 2003.
[120] U. The Royal Society & The Royal Academy of Engineering:London, âNanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunitiesand Uncertainties,â 2004, http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/pub-lications/list/reports/nanoscience nanotechnologies.pdf.
[121] T. Puzyn, B. Rasulev, A. Gajewicz et al., âUsing nano-QSAR topredict the cytotoxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles,â NatureNanotechnology, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 175â178, 2011.
[122] EC, âEuropean Parliament and Council: Regulation (EC) No1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation,Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), estab-lishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC)No 793/93and Commission; Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well asCouncil Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. OfficialJournal of the European Union; 2006:1-849,â 2006.
[123] EC, âEuropean Union: Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009on Cosmetic Products. 2009, 59-209,â 2009.
[124] G. Oberdorster, J. Ferin, and B. E. Lehnert, âCorrelationbetween particle size, in vivo particle persistence, and lunginjury,â Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 102, no. 5, pp.173â179, 1994.
[125] G. Oberdorster, Z. Sharp, V. Atudorei et al., âTranslocation ofinhaled ultrafine particles to the brain,â Inhalation Toxicology,vol. 16, no. 6-7, pp. 437â445, 2004.
[126] G. Oberdorster, Z. Sharp, V. Atudorei et al., âExtrapulmonarytranslocation of ultrafine carbon particles following whole-body inhalation exposure of rats,â Journal of Toxicology andEnvironmentalHealth Part A, vol. 65, no. 20, pp. 1531â1543, 2002.
[127] M. Geiser, B. Rothen-Rutishauser, N. Kapp et al., âUltrafineparticles cross cellular membranes by nonphagocytic mecha-nisms in lungs and in cultured cells,â Environmental HealthPerspectives, vol. 113, no. 11, pp. 1555â1560, 2005.
[128] A. A. Keller, H. Wang, D. Zhou et al., âStability and aggregationof metal oxide nanoparticles in natural aqueous matrices,âEnvironmental Science & Technology, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 1962â1967, 2010.
[129] N. Gou, A. Onnis-Hayden, and A. Z. Gu, âMechanistic toxicityassessment of nanomaterials by whole-cell-array stress genesexpression analysis,â Environmental Science & Technology, vol.44, no. 15, pp. 5964â5970, 2010.
[130] L. E. Murr and K. M. Garza, âNatural and anthropogenicenvironmental nanoparticulates: their microstructural char-acterization and respiratory health implications,â AtmosphericEnvironment, vol. 43, no. 17, pp. 2683â2692, 2009.
[131] K. Aschberger, C. Micheletti, B. Sokull-Kluttgen, and F. M.Christensen, âAnalysis of currently available data for character-ising the risk of engineered nanomaterials to the environmentand human healthâlessons learned from four case studies,âEnvironment International, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1143â1156, 2011.
[132] USEPA, âProposed category for persistent, bioaccumulative andtoxic chemicals,â Fed Regist, vol. 63, no. 192, pp. 53417â53423,1998.
[133] L. K. Teuschler, âDeciding which chemical mixtures risk assess-ment methods work best for what mixtures,â Toxicology andApplied Pharmacology, vol. 223, no. 2, pp. 139â147, 2007.
[134] M. M. Mumtaz, W. A. Suk, and R. S. H. Yang, Principles andPractice of Mixtures Toxicology, WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH &Co. KGaA, Weinheim, Germany, 2010.
[135] J. H. Sung, J. H. Ji, J. D. Park et al., âSubchronic inhalationtoxicity of silver nanoparticles,â Toxicological Sciences, vol. 108,no. 2, pp. 452â461, 2009.
[136] Y. Fujitani, T. Kobayashi, K. Arashidani, N. Kunugita, and K.Suemura, âMeasurement of the physical properties of aerosolsin a fullerene factory for inhalation exposure assessment,âJournal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, vol. 5, no.6, pp. 380â389, 2008.
[137] J. Wang, G. Zhou, C. Chen et al., âAcute toxicity and biodistri-bution of different sized titanium dioxide particles in mice afteroral administration,â Toxicology Letters, vol. 168, no. 2, pp. 176â185, 2007.
[138] E.-J. Park, E. Bae, J. Yi et al., âRepeated-dose toxicity andinflammatory responses inmice by oral administration of silvernanoparticles,â Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology,vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 162â168, 2010.
[139] M. van der Zande, R. J. Vandebriel, E. Van Doren et al.,âDistribution, elimination, and toxicity of silver nanoparticlesand silver ions in rats after 28-day oral exposure,â ACS Nano,vol. 6, no. 8, pp. 7427â7442, 2012.
[140] Y. S. Kim, M. Y. Song, J. D. Park et al., âSubchronic oral toxicityof silver nanoparticles,â Particle and Fibre Toxicology, vol. 7,article 20, pp. 2â11, 2010.
16 Journal of Nanomaterials
[141] D. A. Winkler, E. Mombelli, A. Pietroiusti et al., âApplyingquantitative structure-actitivyt relationship approaches to nan-otoxicology: current status and future potential,âToxicology, vol.313, pp. 15â23, 2013.
[142] V. C. Epa, F. R. Burden, C. Tassa, R. Weissleder, S. Shaw, and D.A. Winkler, âModelling biological activities of nanoparticles,âNano Letters, vol. 12, pp. 5808â5812, 2012.
[143] T. C. Le, V. C. Epa, F. R. Burden, and D. A. Winkler, âQuan-titative structure-property relationship modelling of diversematerials properties,âChemical Reviews, vol. 112, pp. 2889â2919,2012.
[144] D. Fourches, D. Pu, C. Tassa et al., âQuantitative nanostruc-tureâactivity relationship modeling,â ACS Nano, vol. 4, no. 10,pp. 5703â5712, 2010.
[145] I. Lynch andK. A. Dawson, âProtein-nanoparticle interactions,âNano Today, vol. 3, no. 1-2, pp. 40â47, 2008.
[146] M. R. Heal, P. Kumar, and R.M. Harrison, âParticles, air quality,policy and health,â Chemical Society Reviews, vol. 41, pp. 6606â6630, 2012.
[147] P. Kumar, S. Jain, B. R. Gurjar et al., âNew directions: can a âblueskyâ return to Indian megacities?â Atmospheric Environment,vol. 71, pp. 198â201, 2013.
[148] P. Kumar, L. Morawska, W. Birmili et al., âUltrafine particles incities,â Environment International, vol. 66, pp. 1â10, 2014.
[149] USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, âControlof Nanoscale Materials under the Toxic Substances Con-trol Act,â U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofPollution Prevention and Toxics, 2014, http://www.epa.gov/oppt/nano/#nanomaterials.
[150] B. Nowack, N. Mueller, H. Krug, and P.Wick, âHow to considerengineered nanomaterials inmajor accident regulations?â Envi-ronmental Sciences Europe, vol. 26, no. 1, p. 2, 2014.
Submit your manuscripts athttp://www.hindawi.com
ScientificaHindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
CorrosionInternational Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Polymer ScienceInternational Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
CeramicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
CompositesJournal of
NanoparticlesJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
International Journal of
Biomaterials
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
NanoscienceJournal of
TextilesHindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Journal of
NanotechnologyHindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Journal of
CrystallographyJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
CoatingsJournal of
Advances in
Materials Science and EngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Smart Materials Research
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
MetallurgyJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
BioMed Research International
MaterialsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Nano
materials
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Journal ofNanomaterials