4.6 Article

Bridging the gap between exposure assessment and inhalation toxicology: Some insights from the carbon nanotube experience

Journal

JOURNAL OF AEROSOL SCIENCE
Volume 99, Issue -, Pages 157-162

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2016.03.005

Keywords

Exposure assessment; Inhalation; Carbon nanotube; Toxicology; Nanomaterial; Epidemiology

Funding

  1. Nanotechnology Research Center of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The early incorporation of exposure assessment can be invaluable to help design, prioritize, and interpret toxicological studies or outcomes. The sum total of the exposure assessment findings combined with preliminary toxicology results allows for exposure informed toxicological study design and the findings can then be integrated, together with available epidemiologic data, to provide health effect relevance. With regard to engineered nanomaterial inhalation toxicology in particular, a single type of material (e.g. carbon nanotube, graphene) can have a vast array of physicochemical characteristics resulting in the potential for varying toxicities. To compound the matter, the methodologies necessary to establish a material adequate for in vivo exposure testing raises questions on the applicability of the outcomes. From insights gained from evaluating carbon nanotubes, we recommend the following integrated approach involving exposure informed hazard assessment and hazard-informed exposure assessment especially for materials as diverse as engineered nanomaterials: 1) market-informed identification of potential hazards and potentially exposed populations, 2) initial toxicity screening to drive prioritized assessments of exposure, 3) development of exposure assessment-informed chronic and sub-chronic in vivo studies, and 4) conduct of exposure- and hazard-informed epidemiological studies. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available