BackgroundCerium oxide (CeO2) nanoparticles used as a diesel fuel additive can be emitted into the ambient air leading to human inhalation. Although biological studies have shown CeO2 nanoparticles can cause adverse health effects, the extent of the biodistribution of CeO2 nanoparticles through inhalation has not been well characterized. Furthermore, freshly emitted CeO2 nanoparticles can undergo an aging process by interaction with other ambient airborne pollutants that may influence the biodistribution after inhalation. Therefore, understanding the pharmacokinetic of newly-generated and atmospherically-aged CeO2 nanoparticles is needed to assess the risks to human health.MethodsA novel experimental system was designed to integrate the generation, aging, and inhalation exposure of Sprague Dawley rats to combustion-generated CeO2 nanoparticles (25 and 90 nm bimodal distribution). Aging was done in a chamber representing typical ambient urban air conditions with UV lights. Following a single 4-hour nose-only exposure to freshly emitted or aged CeO2 for 15 min, 24 h, and 7 days, ICP-MS detection of Ce in the blood, lungs, gastrointestinal tract, liver, spleen, kidneys, heart, brain, olfactory bulb, urine, and feces were analyzed with a mass balance approach to gain an overarching understanding of the distribution. A physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model that includes mucociliary clearance, phagocytosis, and entry into the systemic circulation by alveolar wall penetration was developed to predict the biodistribution kinetic of the inhaled CeO2 nanoparticles.ResultsCerium was predominantly recovered in the lungs and feces, with extrapulmonary organs contributing less than 4 % to the recovery rate at 24 h post exposure. No significant differences in biodistribution patterns were found between fresh and aged CeO2 nanoparticles. The PBPK model predicted the biodistribution well and identified phagocytizing cells in the pulmonary region accountable for most of the nanoparticles not eliminated by feces.ConclusionsThe biodistribution of fresh and aged CeO2 nanoparticles followed the same patterns, with the highest amounts recovered in the feces and lungs. The slow decrease of nanoparticle concentrations in the lungs can be explained by clearance to the gastrointestinal tract and then to the feces. The PBPK model successfully predicted the kinetic of CeO2 nanoparticles in various organs measured in this study and suggested most of the nanoparticles were captured by phagocytizing cells.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12989-016-0156-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The interaction between two separated flow regions was studied for the fundamental problem of a shock wave-boundary layer interaction (SBLI) within a rectangular inlet. One motivation is that the inlet of an engine on a supersonic aircraft may contain separation zones on the sidewalls and the bottom wall; if one region separates first it can alter the flow on the other wall and lead to engine unstart. In our work an oblique shock wave was generated by a wedge suspended from the upper wall of a Mach 2.75 wind tunnel. Stereo particle image velocimetry (PIV) measurements were recorded in 25 planes that include all three possible orthogonal orientations. The lateral velocity and vorticity measurements help to explain the underlying flow structure and these quantities were not measured previously for this problem. It is concluded that the sidewall and bottom wall separation zones interact due to an underlying flow structure that is similar to the two types of 3-D separation patterns previously described by Tobak & Peake (Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., vol. 14, 1982, pp. 61-85). Separation first occurs at an upstream location where the shock interacts with the sidewall. Lateral velocities direct flow toward the centreline to cause separation on the bottom wall. This causes significant curvature of the shock wave, so that even the region near the tunnel centreline cannot be explained by conventional 2-D concepts. A number of critical points (saddle points, nodes, focus points) were identified. Results are consistent with the general ideas of Burton & Babinsky (J. Fluid Mech., vol. 707, 2012, pp. 287-306) and help to provide details of how the sidewalls redistribute the adverse pressure gradient in space.

In this paper, we reflect on current notions of engineering practice by examining some of the motives for engineered solutions to the problem of climate change. We draw on fields such as science and technology studies, the philosophy of technology, and environmental ethics to highlight how dominant notions of apoliticism and ahistoricity are ingrained in contemporary engineering practice. We argue that a solely technological response to climate change does not question the social, political, and cultural tenet of infinite material growth, one of the root causes of climate change. In response to the contemporary engineering practice, we define an activist engineer as someone who not only can provide specific engineered solutions, but who also steps back from their work and tackles the question, What is the real problem and does this problem "require" an engineering intervention? Solving complex problems like climate change requires radical cultural change, and a significant obstacle is educating engineers about how to conceive of and create "authentic alternatives," that is, solutions that differ from the paradigm of "technologically improving" our way out of problems. As a means to realize radically new solutions, we investigate how engineers might (re)deploy the concept of praxis, which raises awareness in engineers of the inherent politics of technological design. Praxis empowers engineers with a more comprehensive understanding of problems, and thus transforms technologies, when appropriate, into more socially just and ecologically sensitive interventions. Most importantly, praxis also raises a radical alternative rarely considered-not "engineering a solution." Activist engineering offers a contrasting method to contemporary engineering practice and leads toward social justice and ecological protection through problem solving by asking not, How will we technologize our way out of the problems we face? but instead, What really needs to be done?

No abstract

No abstract