Modeling population exposures to silver nanoparticles present in consumer products

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Steven G. Royce (1) (2)
  Dwaipayan Mukherjee (1) (2) (3)
  Ting Cai (1) (2) (4)
  Shu S. Xu (1) (2)
  Jocelyn A. Alexander (1) (2)
  Zhongyuan Mi (1) (2)
  Leonardo Calderon (4)
  Gediminas Mainelis (1) (4)
  KiBum Lee (5)
  Paul J. Lioy (1) (2) (4)
  Teresa D. Tetley (6)
  Kian Fan Chung (6)
  Junfeng Zhang (7)
  Panos G. Georgopoulos (1) (2) (3) (4)
  
  1. Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute (EOHSI) ; Rutgers University ; Piscataway ; NJ ; USA
  2. Department of Environmental and Occupational Medicine ; Rutgers University-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School ; Piscataway ; NJ ; USA
  3. Department of Chemical & Biochemical Engineering ; Rutgers University ; Piscataway ; NJ ; USA
  4. Department of Environmental Sciences ; Rutgers University ; New Brunswick ; NJ ; USA
  5. Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology ; Rutgers University ; Piscataway ; NJ ; USA
  6. National Heart and Lung Institute ; Imperial College London ; London ; UK
  7. Nicholas School of the Environment and Duke Global Health Institute ; Duke University ; Durham ; NC ; USA
  
• 关键词：Manufactured nanoparticles ; Engineered nanomaterials ; Silver nanoparticles ; Consumer products ; Life cycle analysis ; Life stage analysis ; PRoTEGE
• 刊名：Journal of Nanoparticle Research
• 出版年：2014
• 出版时间：November 2014
• 年：2014
• 卷：16
• 期：11
• 全文大小：3,494 KB
• 参考文献：1. ARA (2014) Multiple-path particle dosimetry model (MPPD v 2.11). A model for human and rat airway particle dosimetry. Applied research associates. http://www.ara.com/products/mppd.htm. Accessed April 21 2014
  2. Aschberger, K, Micheletti, C, Sokull-Kl眉ttgen, B, Christensen, FM (2011) Analysis of currently available data for characterising the risk of engineered nanomaterials to the environment and human health鈥攍essons learned from four case studies. Environ Int 37: pp. 1143-1156 CrossRef
  3. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014) Data from 2006 and 2007 consumer expenditure surveys (CEX), accessed using Esri business analyst. http://stats.bls.gov/cex/. Accessed July 1 2014 聽
  4. CBECS (2003) 2003 CBECS survey data. Table B15. Employment size category, number of buildings for non-mall buildings, 2003. US energy information administration. http://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2003/pdf/b15.pdf. Accessed April 21 2014
  5. Chen, BT (2010) Nanoparticles-containing spray can aerosol: characterization, exposure assessment, and generator design. Inhal Toxicol 22: pp. 1072-1082 CrossRef
  6. Delmaar, JE, Bremmer, HJ (2009) The ConsExpo spray model: modelling and experimental validation of the inhalation exposure of consumers to aerosols from spray cans and trigger sprays National Institute for Public Health and the Environment. RIVM, Bilthoven
  7. Delmaar, JE, Park, MVDZ, Engelen, JGM (2005) ConsExpo 4.0 consumer exposure and uptake models program manual. RIVM, Bilthoven
  8. Esri (2014) ESRI Business Analyst Desktop. http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/extensions/businessanalyst. Accessed March 28 2014
  9. Gangwal, S, Brown, J, Wang, A, Houck, K, Dix, D, Kavlock, R, Cohen Hubal, E (2011) Informing selection of nanomaterial concentrations for ToxCast in vitro testing based on occupational exposure potential. Environ Health Perspect.
  10. Georgopoulos, P (2008) A multiscale approach for assessing the interactions of environmental and biological systems in a holistic health risk assessment framework. Water Air Soil Pollut 8: pp. 3-21 CrossRef
  11. Georgopoulos, PG, Lioy, PJ (2006) From theoretical aspects of human exposure and dose assessment to computational model implementation: the MOdeling ENvironment for TOtal Risk studies (MENTOR). J Toxicol Environ Health 9: pp. 457-483 CrossRef
  12. Georgopoulos, PG (2005) A source-to-dose assessment of population exposures to fine PM and ozone in Philadelphia, PA, during a summer 1999 episode. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 15: pp. 439-457 CrossRef
  13. Georgopoulos, PG, Wang, S-W, Yang, Y-C, Xue, J, Zartarian, VG, McCurdy, T, Ozkaynak, H (2008) Biologically based modeling of multimedia, multipathway, multiroute population exposures to arsenic. J Eposure Sci Environ Epidemiol 18: pp. 462-476 CrossRef
  14. Georgopoulos, PG, Sasso, AF, Isukapalli, SS, Lioy, PJ, Vallero, DA, Okino, M, Reiter, L (2009) Reconstructing population exposures to environmental chemicals from biomarkers: challenges and opportunities. J Eposure Sci Environ Epidemiol 19: pp. 149-171 CrossRef
  15. Georgopoulos, PG, Brinkerhoff, CJ, Isukapalli, S, Dellarco, M, Landrigan, PJ, Lioy, PJ (2014) A tiered framework for risk-relevant characterization and ranking of chemical exposures: applications to the National Children鈥檚 Study (NCS). Risk Anal.
  16. Goldsmith, MR (2014) Development of a consumer product ingredient database for chemical exposure screening and prioritization. Food Chem Toxicol 65: pp. 269-279 CrossRef
  17. Gottschalk, F, Sonderer, T, Scholz, RW, Nowack, B (2009) Modeled environmental concentrations of engineered nanomaterials (TiO2, ZnO, Ag, CNT, Fullerenes) for different regions. Environ Sci Technol 43: pp. 9216-9222 CrossRef
  18. Gottschalk, F, Scholz, RW, Nowack, B (2010) Probabilistic material flow modeling for assessing the environmental exposure to compounds: methodology and an application to engineered nano-TiO2 particles. Environ Model Softw 25: pp. 320-332 CrossRef
  19. Hansen, SF, Jensen, KA, Baun, A (2013) NanoRiskCat: a conceptual tool for categorization and communication of exposure potentials and hazards of nanomaterials in consumer products. J Nanopart Res 16: pp. 1-25
  20. Hendren, CO, Mesnard, X, Droge, J, Wiesner, MR (2011) Estimating production data for five engineered nanomaterials as a basis for exposure assessment. Environ Sci Technol 45: pp. 2562-2569 CrossRef
  21. Hischier, R, Walser, T (2012) Life cycle assessment of engineered nanomaterials: state of the art and strategies to overcome existing gaps. Sci Total Environ 425: pp. 271-282 CrossRef
  22. ISO (2006a) Environmental Management鈥擫ife Cycle Assessment鈥擯rinciples and Framework. International Standardisation Organisation (ISO), Geneva
  23. ISO (2006b) Environmental Management鈥擫ife Cycle Assessment鈥擱equirements and Guidelines. International Standardization Organisation (ISO), Geneva
  24. Keil, CB, Simmons, CE, Anthony, TR (2009) Mathematical models for estimating occupational exposure to chemicals. American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), Fairfax
  25. Money, C, Schnoeder, F, Noij, D, Chang, H-Y, Urbanus, J (2014) ECETOC TRA version 3: capturing and consolidating the experiences of REACH. Environ Sci 16: pp. 970-977
  26. Mueller, NC, Nowack, B (2008) Exposure modeling of engineered nanoparticles in the environment. Environ Sci Technol 42: pp. 4447-4453 CrossRef
  27. Mukherjee, D, Botelho, D, Gow, AJ, Zhang, J, Georgopoulos, PG (2013) Computational multiscale toxicodynamic modeling of silver and carbon nanoparticle effects on mouse lung function. PLoS One 8: pp. e80917 CrossRef
  28. Nazarenko, Y, Han, TW, Lioy, PJ, Mainelis, G (2011) Potential for exposure to engineered nanoparticles from nanotechnology-based consumer spray products. J Eposure Sci Environ Epidemiol 21: pp. 515-528 CrossRef
  29. Nazaroff, WW (2008) Inhalation intake fraction of pollutants from episodic indoor emissions. Build Environ 43: pp. 269-277 CrossRef
  30. NNI (2011) Environmental, health, and safety research strategy environmental, health, and safety research strategy. National Nanotechnology Initiative, Washington DC. http://www.nano.gov/node/681
  31. Oberdorster, G (2010) Safety assessment for nanotechnology and nanomedicine: concepts of nanotoxicology. J Intern Med 267: pp. 89-105 CrossRef
  32. Panneerselvam, S, Choi, S (2014) Nanoinformatics: emerging databases and available tools. Int J Mol Sci 15: pp. 7158-7182 CrossRef
  33. PEN (2014) The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. http://www.nanotechproject.org/. Accessed May 23 2014
  34. Piccinno, F, Gottschalk, F, Seeger, S, Nowack, B (2012) Industrial production quantities and uses of ten engineered nanomaterials in Europe and the world. J Nanopart Res 14: pp. 1-11
  35. Pronk, MEJ (2009) Nanomaterials under REACH: nanosilver as a case study. RIVM, Bilthoven
  36. Quadros, ME, Pierson, R, Tulve, NS, Willis, R, Rogers, K, Thomas, TA, Marr, LC (2013) Release of silver from nanotechnology-based consumer products for children. Environ Sci Technol 47: pp. 8894-8901
  37. Reed RB, Faust JJ, Yang Y, Doudrick K, Capco DG, Hristovski K, Westerhoff P (2014) Characterization of nanomaterials in metal colloid-containing dietary supplement drinks and assessment of their potential interactions after ingestion. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 2:1616鈥?624. doi:10.1021/sc500108m
  38. RIVM (2014) National Institute for Public Health and the Environment. http://www.rivm.nl/English. Accessed July 10 2014
  39. Roberts, JR (2013) Pulmonary and cardiovascular responses of rats to inhalation of silver nanoparticles. J Toxicol Environ Health A 76: pp. 651-668 CrossRef
  40. Schafer, B (2013) State of the art in human risk assessment of silver compounds in consumer products: a conference report on silver and nanosilver held at the BfR in 2012. Arch Toxicol 87: pp. 2249-2262 CrossRef
  41. Sparks LE (2001) Indoor air quality modeling. In: Spengler JD, Samet JM, McCarthy JF (eds) Indoor Air Quality Handbook. McGraw-Hill, New York
  42. Stallings C, Tippett JA, Glen G, Smith L (2002) CHAD user鈥檚 guide: extracting human activity information from CHAD on the PC. Prepared for USEPA National Exposure Research Laboratory by ManTech Environmental Technologies, Research Triangle Park, NC
  43. Stark, WJ (2011) Nanoparticles in biological systems. Angew Chem Int Ed 50: pp. 1242-1258 CrossRef
  44. Sung, JH (2008) Lung function changes in Sprague-Dawley rats after prolonged inhalation exposure to silver nanoparticles. Inhal Toxicol 20: pp. 567-574 CrossRef
  45. Thomas, T, Bahadori, T, Savage, N, Thomas, K (2009) Moving toward exposure and risk evaluation of nanomaterials: challenges and future directions. Wiley Interdisc Rev 1: pp. 426-433
  46. USCB (2012) United States Census 2010. http://www.census.gov/. Accessed March 28 2014
  47. USEPA (2007) Nanotechnology White Paper. USEPA, Office of the Science Advisor, Washington D.C.
  Exposure factors handbook. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
  48. USEPA (2012) Nanomaterial case study: nanoscale silver in disinfectant spray (Roport number EPA/600/R-10/081F). US Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington
  49. Yang, Y, Westerhoff, P (2014) Presence in, and release of, nanomaterials from consumer products. Adv Exp Med Biol 811: pp. 1-17 CrossRef
  
• 刊物类别：Chemistry and Materials Science
• 刊物主题：Chemistry
  Nanotechnology
  Inorganic Chemistry
  Characterization and Evaluation Materials
  Physical Chemistry
  Applied Optics, Optoelectronics and Optical Devices
  
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1572-896X

文摘

Exposures of the general population to manufactured nanoparticles (MNPs) are expected to keep rising due to increasing use of MNPs in common consumer products (PEN 2014). The present study focuses on characterizing ambient and indoor population exposures to silver MNPs (nAg). For situations where detailed, case-specific exposure-related data are not available, as in the present study, a novel tiered modeling system, Prioritization/Ranking of Toxic Exposures with GIS (geographic information system) Extension (PRoTEGE), has been developed: it employs a product life cycle analysis (LCA) approach coupled with basic human life stage analysis (LSA) to characterize potential exposures to chemicals of current and emerging concern. The PRoTEGE system has been implemented for ambient and indoor environments, utilizing available MNP production, usage, and properties databases, along with laboratory measurements of potential personal exposures from consumer spray products containing nAg. Modeling of environmental and microenvironmental levels of MNPs employs probabilistic material flow analysis combined with product LCA to account for releases during manufacturing, transport, usage, disposal, etc. Human exposure and dose characterization further employ screening microenvironmental modeling and intake fraction methods combined with LSA for potentially exposed populations, to assess differences associated with gender, age, and demographics. Population distributions of intakes, estimated using the PRoTEGE framework, are consistent with published individual-based intake estimates, demonstrating that PRoTEGE is capable of capturing realistic exposure scenarios for the US population. Distributions of intakes are also used to calculate biologically relevant population distributions of uptakes and target tissue doses through human airway dosimetry modeling that takes into account product MNP size distributions and age-relevant physiological parameters.