Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Zeitschriftenartikel (4) (entfernen)
Sprache
- Englisch (4)
Referierte Publikation
- ja (4)
Schlagworte
- Exposure (4) (entfernen)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
The possible impact of ultrafine particles from laser printers on human health is controversially discussed although there are persons reporting substantial symptoms in relation to these emissions. A randomized, single-blinded, cross-over experimental design with two exposure conditions (high-level and low-level exposure) was conducted with 23 healthy subjects, 14 subjects with mild asthma, and 15 persons reporting symptoms associated with laser printer emissions. To separate physiological and psychological effects, a secondary physiologically based categorization of susceptibility to particle effects was used. In line with results from physiological and biochemical assessments, we found no coherent, differential, or clinically relevant effects of different exposure conditions on subjective complaints and cognitive performance in terms of attention, short-term memory, and psychomotor performance. However, results regarding the psychological characteristics of participants and their situational perception confirm differences between the participants groups: Subjects reporting symptoms associated with laser printer emissions showed a higher psychological susceptibility for adverse reactions in line with previous results on persons with multiple chemical sensitivity or idiopathic environmental intolerance. In conclusion, acute psychological and cognitive effects of laser printer emissions were small and could be attributed only to different participant groups but not to differences in exposure conditions in terms of particle number concentrations.
Ultrafine particles emitted from laser printers are suspected to elicit adverse health effects. We performed 75-minute exposures to emissions of laser printing devices (LPDs) in a standardized, randomized, cross- over manner in 23 healthy subjects, 14 mild, stable asthmatics, and 15 persons reporting symptoms associated with LPD emissions. Low-level exposures (LLE) ranged at the particle background (3000 cm−3) and High-level exposures (HLE) at 100 000 cm−3. Examinations before and after exp sures included spirometry, body plethysmography, transfer factors for CO and NO (TLCO, TLNO), bronchial and alveolar NO, cytokines in serum and nasal secretions (IL-1β, IL-5, IL-6, IL-8, GM-CSF, IFNγ, TNFα), serum ECP, and IgE. Across all participants, no statistically significant changes occurred for lung mechanics and NO. There was a decrease in volume-related TLNO that was more pronounced in HLE, but the difference to LLE was not significant. ECP and IgE increased in the same way after exposures. Nasal IL-6 showed a higher increase after LLE. There was no coherent pattern regarding the responses in the participant subgroups or single sets of variables. In conclusion, the experimental acute responses to short but very high-level LPD exposures were small and did not indicate clinically relevant effects compared to low particle number concentrations.
Development and market introduction of new nanomaterials trigger the need for an adequate risk assessment of such products alongside suitable risk communication measures. Current application of classical and new nanomaterials is analyzed in context of regulatory requirements and standardization for chemicals, food and consumer products. The challenges of nanomaterial characterization as the main bottleneck of risk assessment and regulation are presented. In some areas, e.g., quantification of nanomaterials within complex matrices, the establishment and adaptation of analytical techniques such as laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry and others are potentially suited to meet the requirements. As an example, we here provide an approach for the reliable characterization of human exposure to nanomaterials resulting from food packaging. Furthermore, results of nanomaterial toxicity and ecotoxicity testing are discussed, with concluding key criteria such as solubility and fiber rigidity as important parameters to be considered in material development and regulation. Although an analysis of the public opinion has revealed a distinguished rating depending on the particular field of application, a rather positive perception of nanotechnology could be ascertained for the German public in general. An improvement of material characterization in both toxicological testing as well as end-product control was concluded as being the main obstacle to ensure not only safe use of materials, but also wide acceptance of this and any novel technology in the general public.
The authors critically reviewed published lists of nano-objects and their physico-chemical properties deemed important for risk assessment and discussed metrological challenges associated with the development of nanoscale reference materials (RMs). Five lists were identified that contained 25 (classes of) nano-objects; only four (gold, silicon dioxide, silver, titanium dioxide) appeared on all lists. Twenty-three properties were identified for characterisation; only (specific) surface area appeared on all lists. The key themes that emerged from this review were: 1) various groups have prioritised nano-objects for development as 'candidate RMs' with limited consensus; 2) a lack of harmonised terminology hinders accurate description of many nano-object properties; 3) many properties identified for characterisation are ill-defined or qualitative and hence are not metrologically traceable; 4) standardised protocols are critically needed for characterisation of nano-objects as delivered in relevant media and as administered to toxicological models; 5) the measurement processes being used to characterise a nano-object must be understood because instruments may measure a given sample in a different way; 6) appropriate RMs should be used for both accurate instrument calibration and for more general testing purposes (e.g., protocol validation); 7) there is a need to clarify that where RMs are not available, if '(representative) test materials' that lack reference or certified values may be useful for toxicology testing and 8) there is a need for consensus building within the nanotechnology and environmental, health and safety communities to prioritise RM needs and better define the required properties and (physical or chemical) forms of the candidate materials.