Journal of Nanoparticle Research

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 91–99 | Cite as

Occupational and consumer risk estimates for nanoparticles emitted by laser printers

  • Otto Hänninen
  • Irene Brüske-Hohlfeld
  • Miranda Loh
  • Tobias Stoeger
  • Wolfgang Kreyling
  • Otmar Schmid
  • Annette Peters
Special focus: Safety of Nanoparticles

Abstract

Several studies have reported laser printers as significant sources of nanosized particles (<0.1 μm). Laser printers are used occupationally in office environments and by consumers in their homes. The current work combines existing epidemiological and toxicological evidence on particle-related health effects, measuring doses as mass, particle number and surface area, to estimate and compare the potential risks in occupational and consumer exposure scenarios related to the use of laser printers. The daily uptake of laser printer particles was estimated based on measured particle size distributions and lung deposition modelling. The obtained daily uptakes (particle mass 0.15–0.44 μg d−1; particle number 1.1–3.1 × 109 d−1) were estimated to correspond to 4–13 (mass) or 12–34 (number) deaths per million persons exposed on the basis of epidemiological risk estimates for ambient particles. These risks are higher than the generally used definition of acceptable risk of 1 × 10−6, but substantially lower than the estimated risks due to ambient particles. Toxicological studies on ambient particles revealed consistent values for lowest observed effect levels (LOELs) which were converted into equivalent daily uptakes using allometric scaling. These LOEL uptakes were by a factor of about 330–1,000 (mass) and 1,000–2,500 (particle surface area) higher than estimated uptakes from printers. This toxicological assessment would indicate no significant health risks due to printer particles. Finally, our study suggests that particle number (not mass) and mass (not surface area) are the most conservative risk metrics for the epidemiological and toxicological risks presented here, respectively.

Keywords

Health effects Risk assessment Toxicology Epidemiology Baseline toxicity High toxicity Occupational safety 

Abbreviations

AMD

Area mean diameter; particle surface area weighted particle diameter

CMD

Count median diameter; median particle diameter of an particle number distribution

GSD

Geometric standard deviation

LOEL

Lowest observed effect level

LTLS

Low toxicity low solubility particles

MMD

Mass mean diameter; particle mass weighted particle diameter

NC

Particle number concentration (particles per cm³)

PM (PM2.5, PM10)

Particulate matter (particle size below 2.5 or 10 μm)

RR

Relative risk (of exposed group in comparison to non-exposed in an epidemiological study)

References

  1. Brown DM, Donaldson K, Borm PJ, Schins RP, Dehnhardt M, Gilmour P, Jimenez LA, Stone V (2004) Calcium and ROS-mediated activation of transcription factors and TNF-alpha cytokine gene expression in macrophages exposed to ultrafine particles. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 286:L344–L353CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Brunauer S, Emmett PH, Teller E (1938) Absorption of gases in multimolecular layers. J Am Chem Soc 60:309–319CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  3. Duffin R, Tran L, Brown D, Stone V, Donaldson K (2007) Proinflammogenic effects of low-toxicity and metal nanoparticles. In vivo and in vitro: highlighting the role of particle surface area and surface reactivity. Inhalation Toxicol 19(10):849–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. EC (2005) Proposal for a directive of the European parliament and of the council on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe. Brussels, 21.9.2005, COM(2005) 447 final, 2005/0183 (COD). http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/cafe/pdf/com_2005_447_en.pdf
  5. Hänninen OO, Lebret E, Ilacqua V, Katsouyanni K, Künzli N, Srám RJ, Jantunen MJ (2004) Infiltration of ambient PM2.5 and levels of indoor generated non-ETS PM2.5 in residences of four European cities. Atmos Environ 38(37):6411–6423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hänninen OO, Palonen J, Tuomisto J, Yli-Tuomi T, Seppänen O, Jantunen MJ (2005) Reduction potential of urban PM2.5 mortality risk using modern ventilation systems in buildings. Indoor Air 15(4):246–256CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. He C, Morawska L, Taplin L (2007) Particle emission characteristics of office printers. Environ Sci Technol 41:6039–6045CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Hinds WC (1999) Aerosol technology. Wiley, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  9. Hoet PHM, Brüske-Hohlfeld I, Salata OV (2004) Nanoparticles—known and unknown health risks. J Nanobiotechnol 2:12. doi:10.1186/1477-3155-2-12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hussein T, Gltsos T, Ondracek J, Dohanyosova P, Zdimal V, Hämeri K, Lazaridis M, Smolik J, Kulmala M (2006) Particle size characterization and emission rates during indoor activities in a house. Atmos Environ 40:4285–4307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ICRP (1994) International Commission on Radiological Protection: Human Respiratory Tract Model. Annals of ICRP 24:1–482. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01466453. Accessed 26 August 2008
  12. Ilacqua V, Hanninen O, Kuenzli N, Jantunen M (2007) Intake fraction distributions for indoor VOC sources in five European cities. Indoor Air 17(5):372–383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Jalava P, Salonen RO, Hälinen A, Penttinen P, Pennanen A, Sillanpää M, Sandell E, Hillamo R, Hirvonen M-R (2006) In vitro inflammatory and cytotoxic effects of size-segregated particulate samples collected during long-range transport of wildfire smoke to Helsinki. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 215:341–353CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kreyling W, Möller W, Semmler-Behnke M, Oberdörster G (2007) Particle dosimetry: deposition and clearance from the respiratory tract and translocation towards extra-pulmonary sites. In: Donaldson K, Borm P (eds) Particle toxicology, chap 3. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  15. Morawska L, He C, Johnson G, Jayaratne R, Salthammer T, Wang H, Uhde E, Bostrom T, Modini R, Ayoko G, McGarry P, Wensing P (2009) An investigation into the characteristics and formation mechanisms of particles originating from the operation of laser printers. Environ Sci Technol 43(4):1015–1022CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Pandis SN, Baltensperger U, Wolfenbarger JK, Seinfeld JH (1991) Inversion of aerosol data from the epiphaniometer. J Aerosol Sci 22(4):417–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pope CA, Dockery D (2006) Health effects of fine particulate air pollution: lines that connect. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 56:709–742PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Schneider K, Oltmanns J, Hassauer M (2004) Allometric principles for interspecies extrapolation in toxicological risk assessment—empirical investigations. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 39:334–347CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Shi JP, Harrison RM, Evans D (2001) Comparison of ambient particle surface area measurement by epiphaniometer andSMPS/APS. Atmos Environ 35:6193–6200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stoeger T, Reinhard C, Takenaka S, Schroeppel A, Karg E, Ritter B, Heyder J, Schulz H (2006) Instillation of six different ultrafine carbon particles indicates a surface area threshold dose for acute lung inflammation in mice. Environ Health Perspect 114(3):328–333PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Stoeger T, Takenaka S, Frankenberger B, Ritter B, Karg E, Maier K, Schulz H, Schmid O (2009) Deducing in vivo toxicity of combustion-derived nanoparticles from a cell-free oxidative potency assay and metabolic activation of organic compounds. Environ Health Perspect 117(1):54–60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Stölzel M, Breitner S, Cyrys J, Pitz M, Wölke G, Kreyling W, Heinrich J, Wichmann HE, Peters A (2007) Daily mortality and particulate matter in different size classes in Erfurt, Germany. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 17:458–467CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. WHO (2006) World Health Organisation Air Quality Guidelines, Global Update 2005. Copenhagen. pp 484. http://www.euro.who.int/Document/E90038.pdf. Accessed 14 June 2007
  24. Wilson WE, Brauer M (2006) Estimation of ambient and non-ambient components of particulate mater exposure from a personal monitoring panel study. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 16:264–274CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Wilson W, Mage DT, Grant LD (2000) Estimating separately personal exposure to ambient and nonambient particulate matter for epidemiology and risk assessment: why and how. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 50:1167–1183PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Otto Hänninen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Irene Brüske-Hohlfeld
    • 1
  • Miranda Loh
    • 2
  • Tobias Stoeger
    • 3
  • Wolfgang Kreyling
    • 3
  • Otmar Schmid
    • 3
  • Annette Peters
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of EpidemiologyHelmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health (HMGU)NeuherbergGermany
  2. 2.National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL)KuopioFinland
  3. 3.Institute of Lung Biology and DiseaseHelmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health (HMGU)NeuherbergGermany

Personalised recommendations