Ecotoxicology

, 17:421

Ecotoxicity test methods and environmental hazard assessment for engineered nanoparticles

  • Mark Crane
  • Richard D. Handy
  • John Garrod
  • Richard Owen
Article

Abstract

This paper considers whether current standard ecotoxicity methods are fit for purpose for assessing the hazards of engineered nanoparticles. We conclude that the types of test species and biological endpoints used within standard environmental hazard assessment frameworks are generally appropriate. However, there are areas of considerable uncertainty associated with characterisation of nanoparticle exposure in test systems that apply to all ecotoxicity testing guidelines, except those in which dosing of nanoparticles is oral. These include the way in which the substance is dosed into, and maintained within, the test medium; measurement and characterisation of nanoparticles in the test system; better understanding and reporting of abiotic factors that influence behaviour of nanoparticles in the test medium; and agreement on how dosimetric data should be reported.

Keywords

Nanoparticle Ecotoxicity Environmental hazard assessment REACH 

References

  1. Aitken RJ, Tran CL, Donaldson K, Stone V, Cumpson P, Johnstone J, Chaudhry Q, Cash S (2007) Reference materials for engineered nanoparticle toxicology and metrology. Draft Report May 2007 for UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural AffairsGoogle Scholar
  2. Asuri P, Karajanagi SS, Sellitto E (2006) Water-soluble carbon nanotubes-enzyme conjugates as functional biocatalytic formulations. Biotech Bioeng 95:804–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barlow PG, Donaldson K, MacCallum J, Clouter A, Stone V (2005) Serum exposed to nanoparticle carbon black displays increased potential to induce macrophage migration. Toxicol Lett 155:397–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. BAuA (German Federal Institute for Occupational Health and Safety) (2007) Nanotechnology: health and environmental risks of nanoparticles—research strategy. http://www.baua.de/nn_47716/sid_B0AA05CB8FF8141A55EAC94DDDFCC809/nsc_true/de/Themen-von-A-Z/Gefahrstoffe/Nanotechnologie/pdf/draft-research-strategy.pdf
  5. BCC report. Nanotechnology: a realistic market assessment (2006) Report highlights. http://www.bccresearch.com/nan/. Accessed 31 Jan 2007
  6. Bergeron S, Archambault E (2005) Canadian stewardship practices for environmental nanotechnology. Environment Canada, Science-Metrix Nanotechnology Stewardship. http://science-metrix.com/eng/projects_2005_Nanotechnology_Environment.htm
  7. Blanchard J, Grosell M (2006) Copper toxicity across salinities from freshwater to seawater in the euryhaline fish Fundulus heteroclitus: Is copper an ionoregulatory toxicant in high salinities? Aquat Toxicol 80:131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boxall ABA, Chaudhry Q, Sinclair C, Jones A, Aitken R, Jefferson B, Watts C (2007) Current and Future Predicted Environmental Exposure to Engineered Nanoparticles. Report to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Central Science Laboratory, York, UKGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen KA, Elimelech M (2007) Influence of humic acid on the aggregation kinetics of fullerenes (C60) nanoparticles in monovalent and divalent electrolyte solutions. J Colloid Interface Sci 309:126–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Colvin VL (2003) The potential environmental impact of engineered nanoparticles. Nat Biotechnol 21:1166–1170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crane M, Watts CW, Boucard T (2006) Chronic aquatic environmental risks from exposure to human pharmaceuticals. Sci Total Environ 367:23–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dreher KL (2004) Health and environmental impact of nanotechnology. Toxicol Sci 77:3–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. EC (2003) Technical Guidance Document in support of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on Risk Assessment for new notified substances, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 on Risk Assessment for existing substances and Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market. European Chemicals Bureau, European Commission, Ispra, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  14. EC (2007a) RIP 3.3.2 EWG08 Aquatic (Pelagic) Toxicity. Revised draft 26 October 2006Google Scholar
  15. EC (2007b) RIP 3.3.2 EWG ToR Appendix 2. Draft EWG11 Terrestrial_version3.doc. Created 19 February 2007Google Scholar
  16. EMEA (2006) Guideline on the environmental risk assessment of medicinal products for human use. European Medicines Evaluation Agency, London, UK. http://www.emea.eu.int/pdfs/human/swp/444700en.pdf
  17. Environmental Defense–DuPont Nano Partnership (2007) Nano Risk Framework. Draft 26 February 2007. http://nanoriskframework.com/page.cfm?tagID=1081
  18. Federici G, Shaw BJ, Handy RD (2007) Toxicity of titanium dioxide nanoparticles to rainbow trout, (Oncorhynchus mykiss): gill injury, oxidative stress, and other physiological effects. Aquat Toxicol 84:415–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fortner JL, Lyon D, Sayer CM, Boyd A, Frehner JG, Hotze EM, Alemann LB, Hughes J (2005) C60 in water: nanocrystal formation and microbial response. Environ Sci Technol 39:4307–4316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Freitas RA (2005) What is nanomedicine? Nanomedicine 1:2–9Google Scholar
  21. Galloway TS, Handy RD (2003) Immunotoxicity of organophosphorus pesticides. Ecotoxicology 12:345–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ham HT, Choi YS, Chung IJ (2005) An explanation of dispersion states of single-walled carbon nanotubes in solvents and aqueous surfactant solutions using solubility parameters. J Colloid Interface Sci 286:216–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Handy RD, Shaw BJ (2007a) Toxic effects of nanoparticles and nanomaterials: implications for public health, risk assessment and the public perception of nanotechnology. Health Risk Soc 9:125–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Handy RD, Shaw BJ (2007b) Ecotoxicity of nanomaterials to fish: Challenges for ecotoxicity testing. Integr Environ Assess Manag 3:458–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Handy RD, Van Der Kammer F, Lead JR, Hassellöv M, Owen R, Crane M (2008) The ecotoxicity and chemistry of manufactured nanoparticles. Ecotoxicology 17:287–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Herbert DW, Alabaster JS, Dart MC, Lloyd D (1961) The effect of china-clay wastes on trout streams. Int J Air Water Pollut 5:56–74Google Scholar
  27. HMG (2005) Her Majesty’s Government response to the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering Report: nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties, February 2005. http://www.dti.gov.uk/science/science-tech-and-dti/page27229.html
  28. Hyung H, Fortner JD, Hughes JB, Kim J-H (2007) Natural organic matter stabilizes carbon nanotubes in the aqueous phase. Environm Sci Technol 41:179–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnson DW, Haley MV, Hart GS, Muse WT, Landis WG (1986) Acute toxicity of brass particles to Daphnia magna. J Applied Toxicol 6:225–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Karajanagi SS, Yang HC, Asuri P (2006) Protein-assisted solubilisation of single-walled carbon nanotubes. Langmuir 22:1392–1395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kashiwada S (2006) Distribution of nanoparticles in the see-through medaka (Oryzias latipes). Environ Health Perspect 114:1697–1702Google Scholar
  32. Lead JR, Wilkinson KJ (2006) Aquatic colloids and nanoparticles: current knowledge and future trends. Environ Chem 3:159–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lin Y, Allard LF, Sun YP (2004) Protein-affinity of single-walled carbon nanotubes in water. J Phys Chem B 108:3760–3764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lovern SB, Klaper RD (2006) Daphnia magna mortality when exposed to titanium nanoparticles and fullerene (C60) nanoparticles. Environ Toxicol Chem 25:1132–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Masciangioli T, Zhang W-X (2003) Environmental technologies at the nanoscale. Environ Sci Technol 37:102–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Monteiro-Riviere NA, Nemanich RJ, Inman AO, Wang YYY, Riviere JE (2005) Multi-walled carbon nanotube interactions with human epidermal keratinocytes. Toxicol Lett 155:377–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moore MN (2006) Do nanoparticles present ecotoxicological risks for the health of the aquatic environment? Environ Int 32:967–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Newman MC (2001) Population ecotoxicology. Wiley, Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
  39. NRCG (2005) Characterising the potential risks posed by engineered nanopartiles. A first UK Government research report. Defra, London, UK. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/nanotech/research/index.htm
  40. NRCG (2006) Characterising the potential risks posed by engineered nanopartiles. UK Government research—a progress report. Defra, London, UK. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/nanotech/research/index.htm
  41. Oberdörster E (2004) Manufactured nanomaterials (Fullerenes, C60) induce oxidative stress in the brain of juvenile Largemouth Bass. Environ Health Perspect 112:1058–1062Google Scholar
  42. Oberdörster G, Ferin J, Gelein R, Soderholm SC, Finkelstein J (1992) Role of the alveolar macrophage in lung injury—studies with ultrafine particles. Environ Health Perspect 97:193–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Oberdörster E, Zhu S, Blickley TM, McClellan-Green P, Haasch ML (2006) Ecotoxicology of carbon-based engineered nanoparticles: effects of fullerene (C60) on aquatic organisms. Carbon 44:1112–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. OECD (2007) Guidance on grouping of chemicals. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Series on Testing and Assessment Number 80, ENV/JM/MONO(2007)28, 26th September 2007, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  45. Owen R, Depledge M (2005) Nanotechnology and the environment: risks and rewards. Mar Pollut Bull 50:609–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pantarotto D, Partidos CD, Graff R (2003) Synthesis, structural characterisation, and immunological properties of carbon nanotubes functionalised with peptides. J Am Chem Soc 125:6160–6164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Prevodnik A, Gardeström J, Lilja K, Elfwing T, McDonagh B, Petrovíc N, Tedengren M, Sheehan D, Bollner T (2007) Oxidative stress in response to xenobiotics in the blue mussel Mytilus edulis L: evidence for variation along a natural salinity gradient of the Baltic Sea. Aquat Toxicol 82:63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rickerby DG, Morrison M (2007) Nanotechnology and the environment: a European perspective. Sci Technol Adv Mater 8:19–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roco MC (2003) Nanotechnology: convergence with modern biology and medicine. Curr Opin Biotechnol 14:337–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Royal Society (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. Report by The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, London. http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm
  51. SCENIHR (2005) Opinion on the appropriateness of existing methodologies to assess the potential risks associated with engineered and adventitious products of nanotechnologies. Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, European Commission SCENIHR/002/05Google Scholar
  52. SCENIHR (2007) Opinion on 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 Commission, 29th March 2007Google Scholar
  53. Smith CJ, Shaw BJ, Handy RD (2007) Toxicity of single walled carbon nanotubes on rainbow trout, (Oncorhynchus mykiss): respiratory toxicity, organ pathologies, and other physiological effects. Aquat Toxicol 82:94–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stolpe B, Hassellöv M (2007) Changes in size distribution of fresh water nanoscale colloidal matter and associated elements on mixing with seawater. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 71:3292–3301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tran CL, Donaldson K, Stone V, Fernandes TF, Ford A, Christofi N, Ayres JG, Steiner M, Hurley JF, Aitken RJ, Seaton A (2005) A scoping study to identify hazard data needs for addressing the risks presented by nanoparticles and nanotubes. IOM Research Report, Defra, UKGoogle Scholar
  56. USEPA (2007) Nanotechnology White Paper. Science Policy Council, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, EPA 100/B-07/001. http://www.epa.gov/OSA/nanotech.htm. Accessed Feb 2007
  57. Warheit DB (2008) How meaningful are the results of nanotoxicity studies in the absence of adequate material characterization? Toxicol Sci 101:183–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Weltens R, Goossens R, Van Puymbroeck S (2000) Ecotoxicity of contaminated suspended solids for filter feeders (Daphnia magna). Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 39:315–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Yu J, Grossior N, Koning CE, Loos J (2007) Controlling the dispersion of multi-wall carbon nanotubes in aqueous surfactant solution. Carbon 45:618–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhu S, Oberdörster E, Haasch ML (2006) Toxicity of an engineered nanoparticle (fullerene, C60) in two aquatic species, Daphnia and fathead minnow. Mar Environ Res 62:S5–S9CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Crane
    • 1
  • Richard D. Handy
    • 2
  • John Garrod
    • 3
  • Richard Owen
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.WCA Environment LimitedFaringdonUK
  2. 2.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of PlymouthPlymouthUK
  3. 3.UK Department for the Environment, Food and Rural AffairsLondonUK
  4. 4.Environment Agency of England and WalesLondonUK

Personalised recommendations