Ecotoxicology

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 438–447 | Cite as

Categorization framework to aid exposure assessment of nanomaterials in consumer products

  • Steffen Foss Hansen
  • Evan S. Michelson
  • Anja Kamper
  • Pernille Borling
  • Frank Stuer-Lauridsen
  • Anders Baun
Article

Abstract

Exposure assessment is crucial for risk assessment for nanomaterials. We propose a framework to aid exposure assessment in consumer products. We determined the location of the nanomaterials and the chemical identify of the 580 products listed in the inventory maintained by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, of which 37% used nanoparticles suspended in liquids, whereas <1% contained “free airborne nanoparticles”. C60 is currently only used as suspended nanoparticles in liquids and nanosilver is used more as surface bound nanoparticles than as particles suspended in liquids. Based on the location of the nanostructure we were able to further group the products into categories of: (1) expected, (2) possible, and (3) no expected exposure. Most products fall into the category of expected exposure, but we were not able to complete a quantitative exposure assessment mainly due to the lack of information on the concentration of the nanomaterial in the products—a problem that regulators and industry will have to address if we are to have realistic exposure assessment in the future. To illustrate the workability of our procedure, we applied it to four product scenarios using the best estimates available and/or worst-case assumptions. Using the best estimates available and/or worst-case assumptions we estimated the consumer exposure to be 26, 15, and 44 μg kg−1 bw year−1 for a facial lotion, a fluid product, and a spray product containing nanoparticles, respectively. The application of sun lotion containing 2% nanoparticles result in an exposure of 56.7 mg kg−1 bw d−1 for a 2-year-old child, if the amounts applied correspond to the European Commission recommendations on use of sunscreen.

Keywords

Nanomaterials Categorization Exposure assessment Consumer products 

Notes

Acknowledgement

We thank Torben Dolin for technical assistance with the graphic design.

References

  1. European Commission JRC (2003) Technical guidance document in support of commission directive 93/67/EEC on risk assessment for new notified substances and commission regulation (EC) 1488/94 on risk assessment for existing substances. European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  2. European Commission (2006) Commission Recommendation of 22 September 2006 on the efficacy of sunscreen products and the claims made relating thereto (notified under document number C(2006) 4089) (Text with EEA relevance), 2006/647/EC. Official Journal of the European Union L 265/39Google Scholar
  3. Hansen SF, Larsen BH, Olsen SI, Baun A (2007) Categorization framework to aid hazard identification of nanomaterials. Nanotox 1:243–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Lentner C (1981) Geigy scientific tables: - 1: units of measurement, body fluids, composition of the body, nutrition, 8 edn. CIBA-GEIGY, BasleGoogle Scholar
  5. Maynard A (2006) Nanotechnology: a research strategy for addressing risk. PEN 3. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. National Materials Advisory Board (2006) A matter of size triennial review of the national nanotechnology initiative. national materials advisory board, national research council of the national academies. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. Oberdörster G, Maynard A, Donaldson K, Castranova V, Fitzpatrick J, Ausman K, Carter J, Karn B, Kreyling W, Lai D, Olin S, Monteiro-Riviere N, Warheit D, Yang H (2005) Principles for characterizing the potential human health effects from exposure to nanomaterials: elements of a screening strategy. Part Fibre Toxicol 2:8, available on line at: http://www.particleandfibretoxicology.com/content/pdf/1743-8977-2-8.pdf CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. SCENIHR (2006) Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR modified Opinion (after public consultation) on The appropriateness of existing methodologies to assess the potential risks associated with engineered and adventitious products of nanotechnologies. 002/05. European Commission Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-GeneralGoogle Scholar
  9. SCENIHR (2007) The appropriateness of the risk assessment methodology in accordance with the Technical Guidance Documents for new and existing substances for assessing the risks of nanomaterials. Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly-Identified Health Risks. European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  10. Scientific Committee on Consumer Products (2007) Opinion on the Safety of Nanomaterials in Cosmetic Products Adopted by the SCCP after the public consultation on the 14th plenary of 18 December 2007 SCCP/1147/07. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  11. Taylor MR (2006) Regulating the products of nanotechnology: does FDA have the tools it needs? Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson International Center of Scholars, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. The Danish Working Environment Service (1983) Basisbog i arbejdsmiljø. Del II. Risikofaktorer i arbejdsmiljøet, 2 edn. Arbejdsmiljøinstituttet, Copenhagen, (In Danish)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steffen Foss Hansen
    • 1
  • Evan S. Michelson
    • 2
  • Anja Kamper
    • 3
  • Pernille Borling
    • 3
  • Frank Stuer-Lauridsen
    • 3
  • Anders Baun
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Engineering, NanoDTU Environment & HealthTechnical University of DenmarkKgs LyngbyDenmark
  2. 2.Project on Emerging NanotechnologiesWoodrow Wilson International Center for ScholarsWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.DHISlagelseDenmark

Personalised recommendations