BackgroundWe analyze the scientific basis and methodology used by the German MAK Commission in their recommendations for exposure limits and carcinogen classification of “granular biopersistent particles without known specific toxicity” (GBS). These recommendations are under review at the European Union level. We examine the scientific assumptions in an attempt to reproduce the results. MAK’s human equivalent concentrations (HECs) are based on a particle mass and on a volumetric model in which results from rat inhalation studies are translated to derive occupational exposure limits (OELs) and a carcinogen classification.MethodsWe followed the methods as proposed by the MAK Commission and Pauluhn 2011. We also examined key assumptions in the metrics, such as surface area of the human lung, deposition fractions of inhaled dusts, human clearance rates; and risk of lung cancer among workers, presumed to have some potential for lung overload, the physiological condition in rats associated with an increase in lung cancer risk.ResultsThe MAK recommendations on exposure limits for GBS have numerous incorrect assumptions that adversely affect the final results. The procedures to derive the respirable occupational exposure limit (OEL) could not be reproduced, a finding raising considerable scientific uncertainty about the reliability of the recommendations. Moreover, the scientific basis of using the rat model is confounded by the fact that rats and humans show different cellular responses to inhaled particles as demonstrated by bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) studies in both species.ConclusionClassifying all GBS as carcinogenic to humans based on rat inhalation studies in which lung overload leads to chronic inflammation and cancer is inappropriate. Studies of workers, who have been exposed to relevant levels of dust, have not indicated an increase in lung cancer risk. Using the methods proposed by the MAK, we were unable to reproduce the OEL for GBS recommended by the Commission, but identified substantial errors in the models. Considerable shortcomings in the use of lung surface area, clearance rates, deposition fractions; as well as using the mass and volumetric metrics as opposed to the particle surface area metric limit the scientific reliability of the proposed GBS OEL and carcinogen classification.
Background: Graphene, a monolayer of carbon, is an engineered nanomaterial (ENM) with physical and chemical properties that may offer application advantages over other carbonaceous ENMs, such as carbon nanotubes (CNT). The goal of this study was to comparatively assess pulmonary and systemic toxicity of graphite nanoplates, a member of the graphene-based nanomaterial family, with respect to nanoplate size. Methods: Three sizes of graphite nanoplates [20 μm lateral (Gr20), 5 μm lateral (Gr5), and <2 μm lateral (Gr1)] ranging from 8-25 nm in thickness were characterized for difference in surface area, structure,, zeta potential, and agglomeration in dispersion medium, the vehicle for in vivo studies. Mice were exposed by pharyngeal aspiration to these 3 sizes of graphite nanoplates at doses of 4 or 40 μg/mouse, or to carbon black (CB) as a carbonaceous control material. At 4 h, 1 day, 7 days, 1 month, and 2 months post-exposure, bronchoalveolar lavage was performed to collect fluid and cells for analysis of lung injury and inflammation. Particle clearance, histopathology and gene expression in lung tissue were evaluated. In addition, protein levels and gene expression were measured in blood, heart, aorta and liver to assess systemic responses. Results: All Gr samples were found to be similarly composed of two graphite structures and agglomerated to varying degrees in DM in proportion to the lateral dimension. Surface area for Gr1 was approximately 7-fold greater than Gr5 and Gr20, but was less reactive reactive per m
Carbon black is produced industrially by the partial combustion or thermal decomposition of gaseous or liquid hydrocarbons under controlled conditions. It is considered a poorly soluble, low toxicity (PSLT) particle. Recently, results from a number of published studies have suggested that carbon black may be directly genotoxic, and that it may also cause reproductive toxicity. Here, we review the evidence from these studies to determine whether carbon black is likely to act as a primary genotoxicant or reproductive toxicant in humans. For the genotoxicity endpoint, the available evidence clearly shows that carbon black does not directly interact with DNA. However, the study results are consistent with the mechanism that, at high enough concentrations, carbon black causes inflammation and oxidative stress in the lung leading to mutations, which is a secondary genotoxic mechanism. For the reproductive toxicity endpoint for carbon black, to date, there are various lung instillation studies and one short-term inhalation study that evaluated a selected number of reproduction endpoints (e.g. gestational and litter parameters) as well as other general endpoints (e.g. gene expression, neurofunction, DNA damage); usually at one time point or using a single dose. It is possible that some of the adverse effects observed in these studies may be the result of non-specific inflammatory effects caused by high exposure doses. An oral gavage study reported no adverse reproductive or developmental effects at the highest dose tested. The overall weight of evidence indicates that carbon black should not be considered a direct genotoxicant or reproductive toxicant.
Carbon black is an industrially produced particulate form of nearly pure elemental carbon. The basic building blocks of carbon black are (1) primary particles, minute pieces of matter with defined physical boundaries; (2) aggregates, collections of strongly bound or fused particles; and (3) agglomerates, collections of weakly bound aggregates. Industrial carbon black is produced within a closed reactor where the primary particles form aggregates, which become the indivisible entities of carbon black. These aggregates then form agglomerates, which are the typical form of carbon black in commerce. Carbon black is often used in in vitro and in vivo particle toxicology investigations as a reference nanoparticle. The toxicology studies often report the sizes of the primary particles but rarely the sizes of the aggregates or agglomerates. It appears in many cases that there is a limited understanding of the fact that carbon black typically does not exist as primary particles but instead exists as aggregates and agglomerates. Moreover, many toxicology studies manipulate carbon black particles in order to disperse them so that the form of carbon black used in these toxicology studies may be substantially different from the form that may be encountered in the workplace environment. Since the main exposure route for carbon black is inhalation, the question arose as to whether inhaled carbon black may deagglomerate or disaggregate to either smaller aggregates or primary particles when in contact with lung fluids. This question relates to the concern that there may be additional hazards of smaller particles, such as their ability to translocate to tissues and organs beyond the lung and the ability to pass through the blood-brain barrier. The purpose of this assessment is to review the existing literature for evidence as to whether carbon black deagglomerates or disaggregates into smaller aggregates or primary particles when in contact with lung fluid. On the basis of a review of the physical characteristics of commercial carbon black and various toxicology studies, it appears that commercially produced carbon black in contact with lung fluid is unlikely to deagglomerate or disaggregate into smaller aggregates or primary particles.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.