Nanomaterial inhalation exposure from nanotechnology-based cosmetic powders: a quantitative assessment
In this study we quantified exposures to airborne particles ranging from 14 nm to 20 μm due to the use of nanotechnology-based cosmetic powders. Three nanotechnology-based and three regular cosmetic powders were realistically applied to a mannequin’s face while measuring the concentration and size distribution of inhaled aerosol particles. Using these data we calculated that the highest inhaled particle mass was in the coarse aerosol fraction (2.5–10 μm), while particles <100 nm made minimal contribution to the inhaled particle mass. For all powders, 85–93 % of aerosol deposition occurred in the head airways, while <10 % deposited in the alveolar and <5 % in the tracheobronchial regions. Electron microscopy data suggest that nanomaterials were likely distributed as agglomerates across the entire investigated aerosol size range (14 nm–20 μm). Thus, investigation of nanoparticle health effects should consider not only the alveolar region, but also other respiratory system regions where substantial nanomaterial deposition during the actual nanotechnology-based product use would occur.
KeywordsNanoaerosol Consumer products Nanoparticles Personal exposure Safety of nanotechnology
This research was supported in part by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) sponsored University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) Center for Environmental Exposures and Disease (Grant # P30ES005022, joint grant between US Environmental Protection Agency and UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) (Grants # 83469302 and # NE/H012893), and the New Jersey Agriculture and Experiment Station (NJAES) at Rutgers University. The views expressed in this paper are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agencies.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
- Chuankrerkkul N, Sangsuk S (2008) Current status of nanotechnology consumer products and nano-safety issues. J Miner Met Mater Soc 18(1):75–79Google Scholar
- Fender JK (2008) The FDA and Nano: Big Problems with Tiny Technology. Chic Kent Law Rev 83:1063–1095Google Scholar
- Gleiche M, Hoffschulz H, Lenhert S (2006) Nanotechnology in consumer products. Düsseldorf, GermanyGoogle Scholar
- Hinds WC (1999) Aerosol technology: properties, behavior, and measurement of airborne particles, 2 illustrated edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- International Commission on Radiological Protection (1994) Human respiratory tract model for radiological protection. ICRP Publication 66. Ann ICRP 24(1–3)Google Scholar
- Lloyd’s (2007) Nanotechnology recent developments, risks and opportunities. Lloyd’s, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Oberdörster G, Maynard A, Donaldson K, Castranova V, Fitzpatrick J, Ausman K et al (2005a) Principles for characterizing the potential human health effects from exposure to nanomaterials: elements of a screening strategy. Part Fibre Toxicol 2(8):1–35Google Scholar
- Paull J, Lyons K (2008) Nanotechnology: the next challenge for organics. J Org Syst 3(1):3–22Google Scholar
- U.S.EPA (2011) Exposure factors handbook. EPA/600/R-090/052F. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (2011a) Nanotechnology Consumer Products Inventory. Available at. http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer/ Accessed 7, Jan 2011
- Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (2011b) The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. Available at. http://www.nanotechproject.org/ Accessed 26, May 2011