Meeting Report: Hazard Assessment for Nanoparticles—Report from an Interdisciplinary Workshop

Abstract

In this report we present the findings from a nanotoxicology workshop held 6–7 April 2006 at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC. Over 2 days, 26 scientists from government, academia, industry, and nonprofit organizations addressed two specific questions: what information is needed to understand the human health impact of engineered nanoparticles and how is this information best obtained? To assess hazards of nanoparticles in the near-term, most participants noted the need to use existing in vivo toxicologic tests because of their greater familiarity and interpretability. For all types of toxicology tests, the best measures of nanoparticle dose need to be determined. Most participants agreed that a standard set of nanoparticles should be validated by laboratories worldwide and made available for benchmarking tests of other newly created nanoparticles. The group concluded that a battery of tests should be developed to uncover particularly hazardous properties. Given the large number of diverse materials, most participants favored a tiered approach. Over the long term, research aimed at developing a mechanistic understanding of the numerous characteristics that influence nanoparticle toxicity was deemed essential. Predicting the potential toxicity of emerging nanoparticles will require hypothesis-driven research that elucidates how physicochemical parameters influence toxic effects on biological systems. Research needs should be determined in the context of the current availability of testing methods for nanoscale particles. Finally, the group identified general policy and strategic opportunities to accelerate the development and implementation of testing protocols and ensure that the information generated is translated effectively for all stakeholders.

The Impact of Nanoparticle Protein Corona on Cytotoxicity, Immunotoxicity and Target Drug Delivery

“…Moreover, even in the case of NPs with the same chemical and physical properties, it is difficult to compare the toxicological profile of the PC formed in different experimental conditions, because the relative quantities of the adsorbed proteins can change remarkably. Lastly, the use of very different toxicity tests has jeopardized attempts to extrapolate general rules to define the biological impact of the PC on human cells, and it is still a significant obstacle to determine NPs toxicology [108][109][110]. In this scenario, there is a race to develop quantitative models to predict the biological identity that occurs after PC formation and eventually their cytotoxic properties.…”

A Handheld Electrostatic Precipitator for Sampling Airborne Particles and Nanoparticles

“…Much of that work is focused on measuring the number, size, and available surface area of aerosols in the workplace (in addition to their mass concentration, which is more commonly measured). There is also a demonstrated need for more detailed morphology characterization of airborne particles (Oberdoerster et al 2005;Balbus et al 2007) and our work therefore includes developing methods for detailed particle characterization by electron microscopy (EM).…”

A pilot study towards ranking occupational health risk factors emanating from engineered nanoparticles: review of a decade of literature

“…The uncertainty surrounding nanomaterials is due also to a lack of standardisation of characterisation procedures and toxicological testing methods [17][18][19][20][21]. Some research groups [22], the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and other standards organisations [23][24][25][26] are developing procedures and other guidelines for the use and the characterisation of nanomaterials in order to help fi ll this void.…”