Abstract
The aim of this paper is to describe the process and challenges in building exposure scenarios for engineered nanomaterials (ENM), using an exposure scenario format similar to that used for the European Chemicals regulation (REACH). Over 60 exposure scenarios were developed based on information from publicly available sources (literature, books, and reports), publicly available exposure estimation models, occupational sampling campaign data from partnering institutions, and industrial partners regarding their own facilities. The primary focus was on carbon-based nanomaterials, nano-silver (nano-Ag) and nano-titanium dioxide (nano-TiO2), and included occupational and consumer uses of these materials with consideration of the associated environmental release. The process of building exposure scenarios illustrated the availability and limitations of existing information and exposure assessment tools for characterizing exposure to ENM, particularly as it relates to risk assessment. This article describes the gaps in the information reviewed, recommends future areas of ENM exposure research, and proposes types of information that should, at a minimum, be included when reporting the results of such research, so that the information is useful in a wider context.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Auffan M, Pedeutour M, Rose J, Masion A, Ziarelli F, Borschneck D, Chaneac C, Botta C, Chaurand P, Labille J, Bottero JY (2010) Structural degradation at the surface of a TiO2-based nanomaterial used in cosmetics. Environ Sci Technol 44:2689–2694
Balbus JM, Maynard AD, Colvin VL, Castranova V, Daston GP, Denison RA, Dreher KL, Goering PL, Goldberg AM, Kulinowski KM, Monteiro-Riviere NA, Oberdorster G, Omenn GS, Pinkerton KE, Ramos KS, Rest KM, Sass JB, Silbergeld EK, Wong BA (2007) Meeting report: hazard assessment for nanoparticles—report from an interdisciplinary workshop. Environ Health Perspect 115:1654–1659
Borm PJ, Robbins D, Haubold S, Kuhlbusch T, Fissan H, Donaldson K, Schins R, Stone V, Kreyling W, Lademann J, Krutmann J, Warheit D, Oberdorster E (2006) The potential risks of nanomaterials: a review carried out for ecetoc. Part Fibre Toxicol 3:11
Bouwmeester H, Lynch I, Marvin HJ, Dawson KA, Berges M, Braguer D, Byrne HJ, Casey A, Chambers G, Clift MJ, Elia G, Fernandes TF, Fjellsbo LB, Hatto P, Juillerat L, Klein C, Kreyling WG, Nickel C, Riediker M, Stone V (2011) Minimal analytical characterization of engineered nanomaterials needed for hazard assessment in biological matrices. Nanotoxicology 5:1–11
Boxall ABA, Chaudhry Q, Jones A, Jefferson B, Watts CD (2008) Current and future predicted environmental exposure to engineered nanoparticles. Central Science Laboratory, Sand Hutton, UK
Brouwer D (2010) Exposure to manufactured nanoparticles in different workplaces. Toxicology 269:120–127
Brouwer DH, Semple S, Marquart J, Cherrie JW (2001) A dermal model for spray painters. Part i: subjective exposure modelling of spray paint deposition. Ann Occup Hyg 45:15–23
Brouwer DH, Berges M, Virji MA, Fransman W, Bello D, Hodson L, Gabriel S, Tielemans E (2012) Harmonization of measurement strategies for exposure to manufactured nano-objects: Report of a workshop. Annal Occup Hyg 56(1):1–9. doi:10.1093/annhyg/mer099
Donaldson K, Stone V, Tran CL, Kreyling W, Borm PJ (2004) Nanotoxicology. Occup Environ Med 61:727–728
ECETOC (2011) Targeted risk assessment (tra) tools. http://www.ecetoc.org/tra. Accessed 25 May 2011
ECHA (2008) Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment. Part d: exposure scenario building (Version 1.1). European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). Helsinki, Finland
Fransman W, Cherrie J, van Tongeren M, Schneider T, Tischer M, Schinkel J, Marquart H, Warren N, Kromhout H, Tielemans E (2009) Development of a mechanistic model for the advanced reach tool (art). TNO Quality of Life, Zeist, The Netherlands
Geranio L, Heuberger M, Nowack B (2009) The behavior of silver nanotextiles during washing. Environ Sci Technol 43:8113–8118
Gottschalk F, Nowack B (2011) The release of engineered nanomaterials to the environment. J Environ Monit 13:1145–1155
Gottschalk F, Sonderer T, Scholz RW, Nowack B (2009) Modeled environmental concentrations of engineered nanomaterials (TiO2, ZnO, Ag, CNT, fullerenes) for different regions. Environ Sci Technol 43:9216–9222
Gottschalk F, Sonderer T, Scholz RW, Nowack B (2010) Possibilities and limitations of modeling environmental exposure to engineered nanomaterials by probabilistic material flow analysis. Environ Toxicol Chem 29:1036–1048
ICON (2008) Towards predicting nano-biointeractions: an international assessment of nanotechnology environment, health and safety research needs. International Council on Nanotechnology; Rice University, Houston, TX
Kaegi R, Ulrich A, Sinnet B, Vonbank R, Wichser A, Zuleeg S, Simmler H, Brunner S, Vonmont H, Burkhardt M, Boller M (2008) Synthetic TiO2 nanoparticle emission from exterior facades into the aquatic environment. Environ Pollut 156:233–239
Köhler A, Som C, Helland A, Gottschalk F (2008) Studying the potential release of carbon nanotubes throughout the application life cycle. J Cleaner Prod 16:927–937
Koponen IK, Jensen KA, Schneider T (2011) Comparison of dust released from sanding conventional and nanoparticle-doped wall and wood coatings. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 21:408–415
Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Monica JCJ, Hansen SF, Davis TA (2009) Nano risk governance: current developments and future perspectives. Nanotechnol Law Bus 202:203–220
Marquart H, Heussen H, Le Feber M, Noy D, Tielemans E, Schinkel J, West J, Van Der Schaaf D (2008) ‘Stoffenmanager’, a web-based control banding tool using an exposure process model. Ann Occup Hyg 52:429–441
Maynard AD, Warheit DB, Philbert MA (2011) The new toxicology of sophisticated materials: nanotoxicology and beyond. Toxicol Sci 120(Suppl 1):S109–S129
Methner MM, Birch ME, Evans DE, Ku BK, Crouch K, Hoover MD (2007) Identification and characterization of potential sources of worker exposure to carbon nanofibers during polymer composite laboratory operations. J Occup Environ Hyg 4:D125–D130
Methner M, Hodson L, Geraci C (2010) Nanoparticle emission assessment technique (neat) for the identification and measurement of potential inhalation exposure to engineered nanomaterials–part a. J Occup Environ Hyg 7:127–132
Nieuwenhuijsen M (ed) (2003) Exposure assessment in occupational and environmental epidemiology. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Nyland JF, Silbergeld EK (2009) A nanobiological approach to nanotoxicology. Hum Exp Toxicol 28:393–400
Oberdorster G, Oberdorster E, Oberdorster J (2005) Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environ Health Perspect 113:823–839
Royal Society (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. Science Policy Section, The Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, London
Savolainen K, Alenius H, Norppa H, Pylkkanen L, Tuomi T, Kasper G (2010) Risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials and nanotechnologies–a review. Toxicology 269:92–104
Schneider T, Brouwer DH, Koponen IK, Jensen KA, Fransman W, Van Duuren-Stuurman B, Van Tongeren M, Tielemans E (2011) Conceptual model for assessment of inhalation exposure to manufactured nanoparticles. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 21:450–463
Seipenbusch M, Binder A, Kasper G (2008) Temporal evolution of nanoparticle aerosols in workplace exposure. Ann Occ Hyg 52:707–716
Szymczak W, Menzel N, Keck L (2007) Emissions of ultrafine copper particles by universal motrols controlled by phase angle modulation. J Aerosol Sci 38:520–531
US EPA (2009) Integrated science assessment for particulate matter. National Center for Environmental Assessment—RTP Division; Office of Research and Development; United States Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC: EPA/600/R-608/139F
van Hemmen JJ, Auffarth J, Evans PG, Rajan-Sithamparanadarajah B, Marquart H, Oppl R (2003) Riskofderm: risk assessment of occupational dermal exposure to chemicals. An introduction to a series of papers on the development of a toolkit. Ann Occup Hyg 47:595–598
van Tongeren M (2011) Project final report: development of exposure scenarios for nanomaterials (NANEX). FP7 project number 247794. www.nanex-project.eu. Accessed 7 Sep 2011
van Veen M (1995) Consexpo a program to estimate consumer product exposure and uptake. RIVM. Bilthoven, the Netherlands
von der Kammer F, Legros S, Larsen E, Loescher K, Hofmann T (2011) Separation and characterization of nanoparticles in complex food and environmental samples by field-flow fractionation. Trends Anal Chem 30:425–436
Zartarian V, Bahadori T, McKone T (2005) Adoption of an official ISEA glossary. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 15:1–5
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the European Commission’s 7th Framework Programme Coordination and Support Action “NANEX—Development of Exposure Scenarios for Manufactured Nanomaterials” (Grant NMP-CSA-247794). We thank the Dr. Steffi Friedrichs, the Nanotechnology Industries Association (NIA), and its members for their generous cooperation and assistance with the case studies.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Special Issue Editors: Candace S.-J. Tsai, Michael J. Ellenbecker
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Nanotechnology, Occupational and Environmental Health
The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors Frans M. Christensen and Christian Micheletti and not necessarily those of the European Commission.
Kaspar Schmid is currently affiliated with the Swiss Secretariat for Economic Affairs.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Clark, K., van Tongeren, M., Christensen, F.M. et al. Limitations and information needs for engineered nanomaterial-specific exposure estimation and scenarios: recommendations for improved reporting practices. J Nanopart Res 14, 970 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-012-0970-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-012-0970-x