Long-term simulation of lead concentrations in agricultural soils in relation to human adverse health effects.

Lead (Pb) exposure of consumers and the environment has been reduced over the past decades. Despite all measures taken, immission of Pb onto agricultural soils still occurs, with fertilizer application, lead shot from hunting activities, and Pb from air deposition representing major sources. Little is known about the intermediate and long-term consequences of these emissions. To gain more insight, we established a mathematical model that considers input from fertilizer, ammunition, deposition from air, uptake of Pb by crops, and wash-out to simulate the resulting Pb concentrations in soil over extended periods. In a further step, human oral exposure by crop-based food was simulated and blood concentrations were derived to estimate the margin of exposure to Pb-induced toxic effects. Simulating current farming scenarios, a new equilibrium concentration of Pb in soil would be established after several centuries. Developmental neurotoxicity represents the most critical toxicological effect of Pb for humans. According to our model, a Pb concentration of ~ 5 mg/kg in agricultural soil leads to an intake of approximately 10 µg Pb per person per day by the consumption of agricultural products, the dose corresponding to the tolerable daily intake (TDI). Therefore, 5 mg Pb/kg represents a critical concentration in soil that should not be exceeded. Starting with a soil concentration of 0.1 mg/kg, the current control level for crop fields, our simulation predicts periods of ~ 50 and ~ 175 years for two Pb immission scenarios for mass of Pb per area and year [scenario 1: ~ 400 g Pb/(ha × a); scenario 2: ~ 175 g Pb/(ha × a)], until the critical concentration of ~ 5 mg/kg Pb in soil would be reached. The two scenarios, which differ in their Pb input via fertilizer, represent relatively high but not unrealistic Pb immissions. From these scenarios, we calculated that the annual deposition of Pb onto soil should remain below ~ 100 g/(ha × a) in order not to exceed the critical soil level of 5 mg/kg. We propose as efficient measures to reduce Pb input into agricultural soil to lower the Pb content of compost and to use alternatives to Pb ammunition for hunting.

Biokinetics of Nanomaterials: the Role of Biopersistence.

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

High exposure to inorganic arsenic by food: the need for risk reduction.

Arsenic is a human carcinogen that occurs ubiquitously in soil and water. Based on epidemiological studies, a benchmark dose (lower/higher bound estimate) between 0.3 and 8 µg/kg bw/day was estimated to cause a 1 % increased risk of lung, skin and bladder cancer. A recently published study by EFSA on dietary exposure to inorganic arsenic in the European population reported 95th percentiles (lower bound min to upper bound max) for different age groups in the same range as the benchmark dose. For toddlers, a highly exposed group, the highest values ranged between 0.61 and 2.09 µg arsenic/kg bw/day. For all other age classes, the margin of exposure is also small. This scenario calls for regulatory action to reduce arsenic exposure. One priority measure should be to reduce arsenic in food categories that contribute most to exposure. In the EFSA study the food categories 'milk and dairy products,' 'drinking water' and 'food for infants' represent major sources of inorganic arsenic for infants and also rice is an important source. Long-term strategies are required to reduce inorganic arsenic in these food groups. The reduced consumption of rice and rice products which has been recommended may be helpful for a minority of individuals consuming unusually high amounts of rice. However, it is only of limited value for the general European population, because the food categories 'grain-based processed products (non rice-based)' or 'milk and dairy products' contribute more to the exposure with inorganic arsenic than the food category 'rice.' A balanced regulatory activity focusing on the most relevant food categories is required. In conclusion, exposure to inorganic arsenic represents a risk to the health of the European population, particularly to young children. Regulatory measures to reduce exposure are urgently required.

Manufactured nanomaterials: categorization and approaches to hazard assessment.

Nanotechnology offers enormous potential for technological progress. Fortunately, early and intensive efforts have been invested in investigating toxicology and safety aspects of this new technology. However, despite there being more than 6,000 publications on nanotoxicology, some key questions still have to be answered and paradigms need to be challenged. Here, we present a view on the field of nanotoxicology to stimulate the discussion on major knowledge gaps and the critical appraisal of concepts or dogma. First, in the ongoing debate as to whether nanoparticles may harbour a specific toxicity due to their size, we support the view that there is at present no evidence of 'nanospecific' mechanisms of action; no step-change in hazard was observed so far for particles below 100 nm in one dimension. Therefore, it seems unjustified to consider all consumer products containing nanoparticles a priori as hazardous. Second, there is no evidence so far that fundamentally different biokinetics of nanoparticles would trigger toxicity. However, data are sparse whether nanoparticles may accumulate to an extent high enough to cause chronic adverse effects. To facilitate hazard assessment, we propose to group nanomaterials into three categories according to the route of exposure and mode of action, respectively: Category 1 comprises nanomaterials for which toxicity is mediated by the specific chemical properties of its components, such as released ions or functional groups on the surface. Nanomaterials belonging to this category have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, depending on their chemical identity. Category 2 focuses on rigid biopersistent respirable fibrous nanomaterials with a specific geometry and high aspect ratio (so-called WHO fibres). For these fibres, hazard assessment can be based on the experiences with asbestos. Category 3 focuses on respirable granular biodurable particles (GBP) which, after inhalation, may cause inflammation and secondary mutagenicity that may finally lead to lung cancer. After intravenous, oral or dermal exposure, nanoscaled GBPs investigated apparently did not show 'nanospecific' effects so far. Hazard assessment of GBPs may be based on the knowledge available for granular particles. In conclusion, we believe the proposed categorization system will facilitate future hazard assessments.

Granular biodurable nanomaterials: No convincing evidence for systemic toxicity.

Nanomaterials are usually defined by primary particle diameters ranging from 1 to 100 nm. The scope of this review is an evaluation of experimental animal studies dealing with the systemic levels and putative systemic effects induced by nanoparticles which can be characterized as being granular biodurable particles without known specific toxicity (GBP). Relevant examples of such materials comprise nanosized titanium dioxide (TiO2) and carbon black. The question was raised whether GBP nanomaterials systemically accumulate and may possess a relevant systemic toxicity. With few exceptions, the 56 publications reviewed were not performed using established standard protocols, for example, OECD guidelines but used non-standard study designs. The studies including kinetic investigations indicated that GBP nanomaterials were absorbed and systemically distributed to rather low portions only. There was no valid indication that GPB nanomaterials possess novel toxicological hazard properties. In addition, no convincing evidence for a relevant specific systemic toxicity of GBP nanomaterials could be identified. The minority of the papers reviewed (15/56) investigated both nanosized and microsized GBP materials in parallel. A relevant different translocation of GBP nanomaterials in contrast to GBP micromaterials was not observed in these studies. There was no evidence that GPB nanomaterials possess toxicological properties other than their micromaterial counterparts.

Small difference in carcinogenic potency between GBP nanomaterials and GBP micromaterials.

Materials that can be described as respirable granular biodurable particles without known significant specific toxicity (GBP) show a common mode of toxicological action that is characterized by inflammation and carcinogenicity in chronic inhalation studies in the rat. This study was carried out to compare the carcinogenic potency of GBP nanomaterials (primary particle diameter 1-100 nm) to GBP micromaterials (primary particle diameter >100 nm) in a pooled approach. For this purpose, the positive GBP rat inhalation carcinogenicity studies have been evaluated. Inhalation studies on diesel engine emissions have also been included due to the fact that the mode of carcinogenic action is assumed to be the same. As it is currently not clear which dose metrics may best explain carcinogenic potency, different metrics have been considered. Cumulative exposure concentrations related to mass, surface area, and primary particle volume have been included as well as cumulative lung burden metrics related to mass, surface area, and primary particle volume. In total, 36 comparisons have been conducted. Including all dose metrics, GBP nanomaterials were 1.33- to 1.69-fold (mean values) and 1.88- to 3.54-fold (median values) more potent with respect to carcinogenicity than GBP micromaterials, respectively. Nine of these 36 comparisons showed statistical significance (p < 0.05, U test), all of which related to dose metrics based on particle mass. The maximum comparative potency factor obtained for one of these 9 dose metric comparisons based on particle mass was 4.71. The studies with diesel engine emissions did not have a major impact on the potency comparison. The average duration of the carcinogenicity studies with GBP nanomaterials was 4 months longer (median values 30 vs. 26 months) than the studies with GBP micromaterials, respectively. Tumor rates increase with age and lung tumors in the rat induced by GBP materials are known to appear late, that is, mainly after study durations longer than 24 months. Taking the different study durations into account, the real potency differences were estimated to be twofold lower than the relative potency factors identified. In conclusion, the chronic rat inhalation studies with GBP materials indicate that the difference in carcinogenic potency between GBP nanomaterials and GBP micromaterials is low can be described by a factor of 2-2.5 referring to the dose metrics mass concentration.

Suitability of the limit dose in evaluating reproductive toxicity of substances and preparations.

An oral dose of 1000 mg/kg body weight/day is mentioned in Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and European Union (EU) guidelines as a default maximum dose in limit tests for studies on reproductive toxicity. This paper investigated whether upper range human exposure data from the workplace are supportive of this limit dose as an upper limit of possible human exposure. To this end, published exposure data as well as data from the database MEGA of the German "Berufsgenossenschaften" were evaluated. These data indicate that exposure concentrations in the range of 500 to 2000 mg/m(3) (time-weighted averages) can be considered high human exposures to volatile compounds. Inhalation exposure to aerosols and dermal exposure result in lower dose levels. By applying suitable extrapolation factors, it was concluded that occupational exposures up to 325 mg/m(3) can reliably be assessed with limit tests using a dose level of 1000 mg/kg/day. The limit dose has been proposed for use in the EU as a starting point to derive specific concentration limits for hazard classification of preparations containing reproductive toxicants, with the objective to consider the potency of the substances. This analysis shows that for some groups of chemicals, instead of the limit dose, the putative maximum levels of human exposure should be taken into account when deriving concentration limits for the classification of preparations. Furthermore, possible deviations from a linear correlation between concentration in the preparation and exposure should be considered.