Inhalation of rod-like carbon nanotubes causes unconventional allergic airway inflammation.

BACKGROUND: Carbon nanotubes (CNT) represent a great promise for technological and industrial development but serious concerns on their health effects have also emerged. Rod-shaped CNT are, in fact, able to induce asbestos-like pathogenicity in mice including granuloma formation in abdominal cavity and sub-pleural fibrosis. Exposure to CNT, especially in the occupational context, happens mainly by inhalation. However, little is known about the possible effects of CNT on pulmonary allergic diseases, such as asthma. METHODS: We exposed mice by inhalation to two types of multi-walled CNT, rigid rod-like and flexible tangled CNT, for four hours a day once or on four consecutive days. Early events were monitored immediately and 24 hours after the single inhalation exposure and the four day exposure mimicked an occupational work week. Mast cell deficient mice were used to evaluate the role of mast cells in the occurring inflammation. RESULTS: Here we show that even a short-term inhalation of the rod-like CNT induces novel innate immunity-mediated allergic-like airway inflammation in healthy mice. Marked eosinophilia was accompanied by mucus hypersecretion, AHR and the expression of Th2-type cytokines. Exploration of the early events by transcriptomics analysis reveals that a single 4-h exposure to rod-shaped CNT, but not to tangled CNT, causes a radical up-regulation of genes involved in innate immunity and cytokine/chemokine pathways. Mast cells were found to partially regulate the inflammation caused by rod-like CNT, but also alveaolar macrophages play an important role in the early stages. CONCLUSIONS: These observations emphasize the diverse abilities of CNT to impact the immune system, and they should be taken into account for hazard assessment.

Evaluating the Theoretical Background of STOFFENMANAGER® and the Advanced REACH Tool.

STOFFENMANAGER® and the Advanced REACH Tool (ART) are recommended tools by the European Chemical Agency for regulatory chemical safety assessment. The models are widely used and accepted within the scientific community. STOFFENMANAGER® alone has more than 37 000 users globally and more than 310 000 risk assessment have been carried out by 2020. Regardless of their widespread use, this is the first study evaluating the theoretical backgrounds of each model. STOFFENMANAGER® and ART are based on a modified multiplicative model where an exposure base level (mg m-3) is replaced with a dimensionless intrinsic emission score and the exposure modifying factors are replaced with multipliers that are mainly based on subjective categories that are selected by using exposure taxonomy. The intrinsic emission is a unit of concentration to the substance emission potential that represents the concentration generated in a standardized task without local ventilation. Further information or scientific justification for this selection is not provided. The multipliers have mainly discrete values given in natural logarithm steps (…, 0.3, 1, 3, …) that are allocated by expert judgements. The multipliers scientific reasoning or link to physical quantities is not reported. The models calculate a subjective exposure score, which is then translated to an exposure level (mg m-3) by using a calibration factor. The calibration factor is assigned by comparing the measured personal exposure levels with the exposure score that is calculated for the respective exposure scenarios. A mixed effect regression model was used to calculate correlation factors for four exposure group [e.g. dusts, vapors, mists (low-volatiles), and solid object/abrasion] by using ~1000 measurements for STOFFENMANAGER® and 3000 measurements for ART. The measurement data for calibration are collected from different exposure groups. For example, for dusts the calibration data were pooled from exposure measurements sampled from pharmacies, bakeries, construction industry, and so on, which violates the empirical model basic principles. The calibration databases are not publicly available and thus their quality or subjective selections cannot be evaluated. STOFFENMANAGER® and ART can be classified as subjective categorization tools providing qualitative values as their outputs. By definition, STOFFENMANAGER® and ART cannot be classified as mechanistic models or empirical models. This modeling algorithm does not reflect the physical concept originally presented for the STOFFENMANAGER® and ART. A literature review showed that the models have been validated only at the 'operational analysis' level that describes the model usability. This review revealed that the accuracy of STOFFENMANAGER® is in the range of 100 000 and for ART 100. Calibration and validation studies have shown that typical log-transformed predicted exposure concentration and measured exposure levels often exhibit weak Pearson's correlations (r is <0.6) for both STOFFENMANAGER® and ART. Based on these limitations and performance departure from regulatory criteria for risk assessment models, it is recommended that STOFFENMANAGER® and ART regulatory acceptance for chemical safety decision making should be explicitly qualified as to their current deficiencies.

Range-finding risk assessment of inhalation exposure to nanodiamonds in a laboratory environment.

This study considers fundamental methods in occupational risk assessment of exposure to airborne engineered nanomaterials. We discuss characterization of particle emissions, exposure assessment, hazard assessment with in vitro studies, and risk range characterization using calculated inhaled doses and dose-response translated to humans from in vitro studies. Here, the methods were utilized to assess workers' risk range of inhalation exposure to nanodiamonds (NDs) during handling and sieving of ND powder. NDs were agglomerated to over 500 nm particles, and mean exposure levels of different work tasks varied from 0.24 to 4.96 µg·m(-3) (0.08 to 0.74 cm(-3)). In vitro-experiments suggested that ND exposure may cause a risk for activation of inflammatory cascade. However, risk range characterization based on in vitro dose-response was not performed because accurate assessment of delivered (settled) dose on the cells was not possible. Comparison of ND exposure with common pollutants revealed that ND exposure was below 5 µg·m(-3), which is one of the proposed exposure limits for diesel particulate matter, and the workers' calculated dose of NDs during the measurement day was 74 ng which corresponded to 0.02% of the modeled daily (24 h) dose of submicrometer urban air particles.