The carcinogenic potential of nanomaterials, their release from products and options for regulating them

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2010.11.004Get rights and content

Abstract

A summary of a critical review by a working group of the German Federal Environment Agency and the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment on the carcinogenic potential of nanomaterials is presented. After a critical review of the available data, we conclude that the potential carcinogenic risk of nanomaterials can currently be assessed only on a case-by-case basis. There is certain evidence that different forms of CNTs (carbon nanotubes) and nanoscale TiO2 particles may induce tumours in sensitive animal models. It is assumed that the mode of action of the inhalation toxicity of asbestos-like fibres and of inhalable fractions of biopersistent fine dusts of low toxicity (nano-TiO2) is linked to chronic inflammatory processes. Existing epidemiological studies on carcinogenicity for these manufactured nanomaterials are not sufficiently conclusive.

Generally speaking, the database is not adequate for an assessment of the carcinogenic potential of nanomaterials. Whereas a number of studies provide evidence of a nano-specific potential to induce tumours, other studies did not. This is possibly due to insufficient characterisation of the test material, difference in the experimental design, the use of different animal models and species and/or differences in dosimetry (both with regard to the appropriate dose metric and the estimated effective dose quantities).

An assessment of the carcinogenic potential and its relevance for humans are currently fraught with uncertainty. Furthermore, the nano-specificity of the carcinogenic effects observed cannot be conclusively evaluated. Specific carcinogenic effects of nanomaterials may be both quantitative and qualitative. In quantitative terms, the carcinogenic effects of nanoparticles are thought to be simply more pronounced compared to the corresponding bulk material (due, for example, to the considerably larger surface area and higher number of particles relative to the mass concentration). On the other hand, certain nano-properties such as small size, shape and reactivity, retention time and distribution in the body after overcoming biological barriers, as well as subcellular and molecular interactions may play a role in determining the toxicity in qualitative terms, i.e. the carcinogenic potential of the nanomaterial and the non-nanoscale comparison substance may be fundamentally different.

All of these factors leave no doubt about the fact that there is a great need for research in this area and that new standardised test methods need to be developed or existing ones adapted at the very least to achieve valid answers regarding the carcinogenic potential of nanomaterials. Global production of nanomaterials is set to increase in the years to come, and new materials with new properties will be developed, so that greater human exposure to them must be anticipated.

No reliable conclusions can currently be drawn about exposure to nanoparticles and their release from products. Firstly, there are substantial deficits in information about the processing of nanomaterials in products and preparations. Secondly, there are only a small number of studies on nanoparticle release, and reliable techniques for measuring and monitoring nanomaterials in different environmental media are still being developed which is both complex and costly.

Despite the uncertainties, the findings to date on the carcinogenic potential of nanomaterials must be taken seriously, and precautionary measures to minimise exposure should go hand in hand with the development of a comprehensive and conclusive toxicological methodology and testing procedure for nanostructured materials that includes all possible exposure routes.

With regard to possible legal classification of nanomaterials and the transferability of classifications of their non-nanomaterial counterparts, we believe it is necessary to have separate procedures for nano and non-nano forms. Furthermore, criteria for evaluating nano-specific carcinogenic properties should be constantly updated and adapted to the state of knowledge. There is a need here for amendments to be made to EU legislation, as currently nanoforms do not represent a separate category of substance in their own right.

Section snippets

General considerations

Some scientists assume that, as a result of their specific properties, nanomaterials may be carcinogenic irrespective of their chemical composition (Roller, 2009). This hypothesis is based on mechanistic considerations and on a number of findings from animal experiments using high to very high doses. However, experimental evidence of the carcinogenicity of nanomaterials per se is currently inadequate, although there are clear indications that some nanomaterials have carcinogenic potential or

Q2. What is the current level of knowledge on the release from products of nanoparticles and their agglomerates? Apart from the workplace risk, are there other exposure scenarios for humans that must be regarded as particularly critical?

It is not yet possible to make any general statements on the release of nanoparticles from different products and their use. Initial studies on the release of nanoparticles from products are currently being conducted. For example, Vorbau et al. (2009) have investigated the emissions that occur when processing coatings containing nanomaterials.

Currently, very little information on the release of nanoparticles is available. The next key steps involve developing the appropriate metrology for

Q3. Can existing classifications of non-nanoscale materials (e.g. the IARC 2B classification for titanium dioxide) be transferred to nanomaterials? Must additional criteria be considered or existing criteria be modified? What criteria are essential to appropriately classify nanomaterials?

Principally, the existing criteria for classifying a substance as carcinogenic according to the CLP Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 have to be applied. Since, in terms of chemical legislation, nanoforms have to date not been defined as a separate category of substance but fall under the regulations for the fine particles of the substance in question, any classification of a substance as carcinogenic in Annex VI to the CLP Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 would also apply to the nanoform. Here the

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Wolfgang Kreyling, Thomas Kuhlbusch, Carsten Kneuer and Bernd Schäfer for valuable comments and critical review of the manuscript.

References (55)

  • C. Pelucchi et al.

    Occupational silica exposure and lung cancer risk: a review of epidemiological studies

    Ann. Oncol.

    (2006)
  • K.M. Reiser et al.

    Silicosis and fibrogenesis: fact and artifact

    Toxicology

    (1979)
  • P.G.J. Reuzel et al.

    Subchronic inhalation toxicity of amorphous silicas and quartz dust in rats

    Food Chem. Toxicol.

    (1991)
  • M. Vorbau et al.

    Method for the characterization of the abrasion induced nanoparticle release into air from surface coatings

    J. Aero Sci.

    (2009)
  • D.B. Warheit et al.

    Pulmonary toxicity study in rats with three forms of ultrafine-TiO2 particles: differential responses related to surface properties

    Toxicology

    (2007)
  • R.A. Baan

    Carcinogenic hazards from inhaled carbon black, titanium dioxide, and talc not containing asbestos or asbestiform fibers: recent evaluations by an IARC Monographs Working Group

    Inhal. Toxicol.

    (2007)
  • R.B. Baggs et al.

    Regression of pulmonary lesions produced by inhaled titanium dioxide in rats

    Vet. Pathol.

    (1997)
  • E. Bermudez et al.

    Long-term pulmonary responses of three laboratory rodent species to subchronic inhalation of pigmentary titanium dioxide particles

    Toxicol. Sci.

    (2002)
  • E. Bermudez et al.

    Pulmonary responses of mice, rats, and hamsters to subchronic inhalation of ultrafine titanium dioxide particles

    Toxicol. Sci.

    (2004)
  • P. Boffetta et al.

    Exposure to titanium dioxide and risk of lung cancer in a population-based study from Montreal

    Scand J. Work Environ. Health

    (2001)
  • P. Boffetta et al.

    Mortality among workers employed in the titanium dioxide production industry in Europe

    Cancer Causes Control

    (2004)
  • P.J.A. Borm et al.

    Inhaled particles and lung cancer. Part B: Paradigms and risk assessment

    Int. J. Cancer

    (2004)
  • P.J.A. Borm et al.

    Chronic inflammation and tumour formation in rats after intratracheal instillation of high doses of coal dusts, titanium dioxides, and quartz

    Inhal Toxicol.

    (2000)
  • D.H. Bowden et al.

    The role of cell injury and the continuing inflammatory response in the generation of silicotic pulmonary fibrosis

    J. Pathol.

    (1984)
  • J.L. Chen et al.

    Epidemiologic study of workers exposed to titanium dioxide

    J. Occup. Med.

    (1988)
  • K.E. Driscoll et al.

    Antioxidant defense mechanisms and the toxicity of fibrous and nonfibrous particles

    Inhal. toxicol.

    (2002)
  • J. Ferin et al.

    Pulmonary retention of ultrafine and fine particles in rats

    Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol.

    (1992)
  • Cited by (98)

    • Environmental Systems Science: Theory and Practical Applications

      2021, Environmental Systems Science: Theory and Practical Applications
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    These authors contributed equally to this work.

    View full text