Selecting appropriate ways of bringing engineered nanoparticles (ENP) into aqueous dispersion is a main obstacle for testing, and thus for understanding and evaluating, their potential adverse effects to the environment and human health. Using different methods to prepare (stock) dispersions of the same ENP may be a source of variation in the toxicity measured. Harmonization and standardization of dispersion methods applied in mammalian and ecotoxicity testing are needed to ensure a comparable data quality and to minimize test artifacts produced by modifications of ENP during the dispersion preparation process. Such harmonization and standardization will also enhance comparability among tests, labs, and studies on different types of ENP. The scope of this review was to critically discuss the essential parameters in dispersion protocols for ENP. The parameters are identified from individual scientific studies and from consensus reached in larger scale research projects and international organizations. A step-wise approach is proposed to develop tailored dispersion protocols for ecotoxicological and mammalian toxicological testing of ENP. The recommendations of this analysis may serve as a guide to researchers, companies, and regulators when selecting, developing, and evaluating the appropriateness of dispersion methods applied in mammalian and ecotoxicity testing. However, additional experimentation is needed to further document the protocol parameters and investigate to what extent different stock dispersion methods affect ecotoxicological and mammalian toxicological responses of ENP.

No abstract

The European Commission has established a Nanomaterials Repository that hosts industrially manufactured nanomaterials that are distributed world-wide for safety testing of nanomaterials. In a first instance these materials were tested in the OECD Testing Programme. They have then also been tested in several EU funded research projects. The JRC Repository of Nanomaterials has thus developed into serving the global scientific community active in the nanoEHS (regulatory) research. The unique Repository facility is a state-of-the-art installation that allows customised sub-sampling under the safest possible conditions, with traceable final sample vials distributed world-wide for research purposes. This paper describes the design of the Repository to perform a semi-automated subsampling procedure, offering high degree of flexibility and precision in the preparation of NM vials for customers, while guaranteeing the safety of the operators, and environmental protection. The JRC nanomaterials are representative for part of the world NMs market. Their wide use world-wide facilitates the generation of comparable and reliable experimental results and datasets in (regulatory) research by the scientific community, ultimately supporting the further development of the OECD regulatory test guidelines.

This 3-mo inhalation study investigated the biological effects of a special-purpose glass microfiber (E-glass microfiber), the stone wool fiber MMVF21, and a new high-temperature application fiber (calcium-magnesium-silicate fiber, CMS) in Wistar rats. Rats were exposed 6 h/day, 5 days/wk for 3 mo to fiber aerosol concentrations of approximately 15, 50, and 150 fibers/ml (fiber length >20 microm) for E-glass microfiber and MMVF21. For the CMS fiber only the highest exposure concentration was used. During a 3-mo postexposure period, recovery effects were studied. In the highest exposure concentration groups, gravimetric concentrations were 17.2 mg/m3 for E-glass microfiber, 37 mg/m3 for MMVF21, and 49.5 mg/m3 for the CMS fiber. After 3 mo of exposure, lung retention of fibers longer than 20 micro m per lung was 17 x 10(6) for E-glass microfiber, 5.7 x 10(6) for MMVF21, and 0.88 x 10(6) for CMS. After 3 mo of recovery the concentration of the long fiber fraction was decreased to 38.4%, 63.9%, and 3.0% compared to original lung burden for the E-glass microfiber, MMVF21, and CMS, respectively. Biological effects measured included inflammatory and proliferative potential, histopathology lesions, and the persistence of these effects over a recovery period of 3 mo. Generally, observed effects were higher for E-glass microfiber when compared to MMVF21. The following clear dose-dependent effects on E-glass microfiber and MMVF21 exposure were observed as main findings of the study: increase in lung weight, in measured biochemical parameters and polymorphonuclear leukocytes (PMN) in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF), in cell proliferation (BrdU-response) of terminal bronchiolar epithelium, and in interstitial fibrosis. The values observed in the proliferation assay on the carcinogenic E-glass microfiber indicate that this assay has an important predictive value with regards to potential carcinogenicity. Surprisingly, for the biosoluble CMS fiber, fibrogenic potential was detected in this study. The results of the CMS exposure group indicate that effects may be dominated by the presence of nonfibrous particles and that fibrosis may not be a predictor of carcinogenic activity of fiber samples, if the fiber preparation contains a significant fraction of nonfibrous particles. In summary, this study demonstrates the importance of fiber dust contamination by granular components. For future subchronic studies a longer posttreatment observation period would be advisable.

No abstract