NOAEL based on subchronic inhalation exposurein rats, but there was some indication that lungclearance overloading may have already begun(i.e., retention half-time about two-fold higherthan normal, although imprecision in the low dosemeasurement was noted) [Pauluhn 2010a, b]. Acomparison of the BMD <strong>and</strong> the NOAEL estimatesshows that these estimates are statistically consistent(Section A.6.2). Thus, there is uncertainty as<strong>to</strong> whether chronic exposure at 0.1 mg/m3 mightresult in adverse lung effects that were not observedduring subchronic exposure. It is also uncertainwhether these subchronic effects (withoutadditional exposure) would resolve with longerpost-exposure duration (beyond the 26-weekpost-exposure period in the Pauluhn [2010a]study). Yet, workers may be exposed <strong>to</strong> CNT dailyfor many years, e.g., up <strong>to</strong> a working lifetime. TheNIOSH REL is intended <strong>to</strong> reduce the risk of lungdisease from exposures <strong>to</strong> CNT <strong>and</strong> CNF up <strong>to</strong> a45-year working lifetime.A.4.5 Animal Dose-responseData QualityIn the absence of epidemiological data for CNT, thetwo subchronic inhalation studies of two types ofMWCNT, in addition <strong>to</strong> the short-term studies ofSWCNT <strong>and</strong> MWCNT, provide the best availabledose-response data <strong>to</strong> develop initial estimates ofthe risk of early-stage adverse lung responses associatedwith exposure <strong>to</strong> CNT. The availabilityof animal dose-response data for different typesof CNT—<strong>and</strong> the consistent low mass concentrationBMC(L) estimates—suggests these risk estimatesare relatively robust across a range of CNTtypes, including SWCNT or MWCNT, either purifiedor unpurified (containing different types <strong>and</strong>amounts of metal), dispersed or agglomerated. Althougha formal comparison of the potency of thedifferent CNT is not feasible because of differencesin study design, these studies consistently showthat relatively low-mass doses of CNT are associatedwith early-stage adverse lung effects in rats <strong>and</strong>mice. Consequently, the human-equivalent benchmarkdose <strong>and</strong> working lifetime exposure estimatesderived from these studies are also relatively low ona mass basis. The excess risk estimates of early-stageadverse lung responses <strong>to</strong> CNT generally indicate> 10% excess risk (lower 95% confidence limit estimates)at the upper LOQ (7 µg/m3) of the measurementmethod (NIOSH Method 5040) regardless ofthe CNT type or purification (Tables A–3 throughA–5). Lower risks are estimated at the optimal LOQ(1 µg/m3), depending on lung dose assumptions(Tables A–7 through A–8).A more in-depth analysis of specific areas of uncertaintyin this CNT risk assessment is provided inSection A.6. This includes quantitative evaluationof the methods <strong>and</strong> assumptions used in the CNTrisk assessment for the derivation of a REL.A.5 ConclusionsRisk estimates were developed using benchmark dosemethods applied <strong>to</strong> rodent dose-response data of adverselung effects following subchronic or short-termexposure <strong>to</strong> various types of SWCNT <strong>and</strong> MWCNT.In the absence of validated lung dosimetry models forCNT, lung doses were estimated assuming either depositedor retained lung dose in animals <strong>and</strong> humans.These findings suggest that workers are at risk of developingadverse lung effects, including pulmonaryinflammation <strong>and</strong> fibrosis, if exposed <strong>to</strong> CNT overa working lifetime. Based on the two rat subchronicinhalation studies for two types of MWCNT (withdifferent metal content), working lifetime exposuresof 0.2–2 µg/m3 (8-hr TWA; 95% LCL estimates) areestimated <strong>to</strong> be associated with a 10% excess risk ofearly-stage lung effects (minimal severity grade 1)(Table A–5). For a severity level of slight/mild (grade2), the 45-year working lifetime excess risk estimatesare approximately 0.7–19 µg/m 3 (8-hr TWA; 95%LCL estimates) (Table A–6).These working liftetime 8-hr TWA concentrationsare below the estimated upper LOQ (7 µg/m3) ofNIOSH Method 5040 for measuring the respirablemass concentration of CNT in air as an 8-hr TWA.Similar risk estimates relative <strong>to</strong> the LOQ were alsoderived for SWCNT <strong>and</strong> MWCNT from the shorttermstudies, regardless of whether the CNT were124 NIOSH CIB 65 • <strong>Carbon</strong> <strong>Nanotubes</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Nanofibers</strong>
purified or unpurified (with different types <strong>and</strong>amounts of metals), i.e., 0.08–12 µg/m3 (Tables A–3<strong>and</strong> A–4). Lower risks are estimated at the lowerLOQ of 1 µg/m3, which are approximately 0.5% <strong>to</strong>16% based on the rat subchronic dose-responsedata for the slight/mild lung effects <strong>and</strong> differentlung dose estimation (95% UCL estimates) (TableA–8). Higher risks are estimated for the more sensitiveendpoint of minimal grade 1 lung effects(Table A–7). Additional analyses <strong>and</strong> risk estimatesbased on other methods <strong>and</strong> assumptions are providedin Section A.6.A.6 Sensitivity AnalysesSpecific areas of uncertainty in this CNT risk assessmentare evaluated in this section, including: (1) therat lung dose estimation; (2) the critical effect levelselection in animals <strong>and</strong> relevance <strong>to</strong> humans; <strong>and</strong>(3) alternative assumptions used in the OEL estimationmethods. Sensitivity analyses in these areaswere performed <strong>to</strong> qualitatively <strong>and</strong> quantitativelyevaluate the influence of the different options <strong>and</strong>assumptions on the draft REL [NIOSH 2010].A.6.1 Lung Dose EstimationKey fac<strong>to</strong>rs that influence the estimates of CNTlung burden in rats <strong>and</strong> humans include: (a) thelung geometry <strong>and</strong> airway dimensions; (b) lung <strong>and</strong>breathing parameters (including, functional residualcapacity, <strong>to</strong>tal lung capacity, breathing frequency,<strong>and</strong> tidal volumes; (c) lung retention kinetics; <strong>and</strong>(d) interspecies dose normalization. The depositionfraction is based on the airborne particle size (<strong>and</strong><strong>to</strong> some extent shape for nonspherical particles), onthe breathing pattern (nasal, oral, or combination)<strong>and</strong> minute ventilation, <strong>and</strong> on the lung airway geometry.The ventilation rate depends on the species<strong>and</strong> on the activity level. Reference values are availablefor the average ventilation rates in rats <strong>and</strong> humans[EPA 1988, 1994; ICRP 1994]. The airborneparticle size data (as reported in the animal studies)(Table A–2) were used <strong>to</strong> estimate the depositedlung dose of CNT in rats <strong>and</strong> humans, using sphericalparticle based models. The long-term clearancekinetics have been well studied <strong>and</strong> validated forinhaled poorly soluble spherical particles in rats[Anjilvel <strong>and</strong> Asgharian 1995; Asgharian et al. 2001,2003] <strong>and</strong> in humans [ICRP 1994; Kuempel et al.2001a, b; Gregorat<strong>to</strong> 2010, 2011], but models specificallyfor CNT are not yet available.This section examines some of the key parametervalues used in the lung dose estimation, <strong>and</strong>also characterizes the quantitative influence ofalternative models <strong>and</strong> assumptions. Two studieswere available <strong>to</strong> evaluate the lung dose estimatesin rats. Pauluhn [2010a] <strong>and</strong> Ellinger-Ziegelbauer <strong>and</strong> Pauluhn [2009] provided cobalttracer-based measurements of the CNT lungburden based on cobalt-tracer measurements.These data were used <strong>to</strong> compare MPPD modelbasedestimates. Because of prediction equationchanges in the MPPD model from version 2.0 <strong>to</strong>2.1, which affect the model-predicted rat alveolardeposition fraction predictions (discussedfurther in Section A.2.2), the cobalt tracer-basedestimates are compared <strong>to</strong> each model version(Section A.6.1.2). The influence of assumeddensity on the CNT lung deposition fraction isquantified in addition <strong>to</strong> the evaluation of theMPPD model version 2.0 vs. 2.1 predictions(Section A.6.1.1). The derivation of allometricbased(body weight scaled) lung ventilation rateestimates is also discussed (Section A.6.1.3).A.6.1.1 Lung Dosimetry ModelbasedDeposition Fraction<strong>and</strong> Dose EstimatesThe fraction of inhaled CNT that is deposited inthe respira<strong>to</strong>ry tract is predicted from the aerosolcharacteristics. The deposition mechanisms includeimpaction, sedimentation, interception, <strong>and</strong> diffusion.The aerodynamic diameter, by definition,represents the gravitational settling (sedimentation)behavior of particles [Hinds 1999]. The definitionof aerodynamic diameter st<strong>and</strong>ardizes the shape(<strong>to</strong> spherical) <strong>and</strong> density (<strong>to</strong> that of water, 1 g/ml).The aerodynamic diameter of a particle, regardlessof its shape <strong>and</strong> density, is the diameter of a spherewith the same gravitational settling velocity as theNIOSH CIB 65 • <strong>Carbon</strong> <strong>Nanotubes</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Nanofibers</strong>125
- Page 1 and 2:
CURRENT INTELLIGENCE BULLETIN 65Occ
- Page 3 and 4:
Current Intelligence Bulletin 65Occ
- Page 5 and 6:
ForewordThe Occupational Safety and
- Page 7 and 8:
Executive SummaryOverviewCarbon nan
- Page 9 and 10:
2009; Pauluhn 2010a; Porter et al.
- Page 11 and 12:
neurogenic sig nals from sensory ir
- Page 13 and 14:
possible. Until the results from an
- Page 15 and 16:
••Follow exposure and hazard as
- Page 17 and 18:
Periodic Evaluations••Evaluatio
- Page 19 and 20:
ContentsForeword ..................
- Page 21 and 22:
A.3.2 Comparison of Short-term and
- Page 23 and 24:
ESPFeFMPSFPSSgGMGSDHCLHECHEPAhrISOI
- Page 25 and 26:
AcknowledgementsThis Current Intell
- Page 27 and 28:
1 IntroductionMany nanomaterial-bas
- Page 29:
2 Potential for ExposureThe novel a
- Page 32 and 33:
CNMs, with MWCNT agglomerates obser
- Page 34 and 35:
composite materials with local exha
- Page 36 and 37:
information on air contaminants. Sa
- Page 39 and 40:
3 Evidence for Potential Adverse He
- Page 41 and 42:
decreasing agglomerate size increas
- Page 43 and 44:
examined up to 60 days post-exposur
- Page 45 and 46:
3.3 SWCNT and MWCNTIntraperitoneal
- Page 47 and 48:
The same potency sequence was obser
- Page 49 and 50:
Table 3-3. Findings from published
- Page 51 and 52:
Table 3-5. Findings from published
- Page 53 and 54:
Table 3-6. Findings from published
- Page 55 and 56:
Table 3-7 (Continued). Findings fro
- Page 57:
Table 3-8. Findings from published
- Page 60 and 61:
length, respectively) [Muller et al
- Page 63 and 64:
5 CNT Risk Assessment and Recommend
- Page 65 and 66:
A-6). Risk estimates derived from o
- Page 67 and 68:
Table 5-4. Factors, assumptions, an
- Page 69 and 70:
and analytical methods. NIOSH is re
- Page 71 and 72:
Table 5-5. Recommended occupational
- Page 73 and 74:
deficits in animals or clinically s
- Page 75:
(3) Rat lung dose estimationIn the
- Page 78 and 79:
tasks where worker exposures exceed
- Page 80 and 81:
As part of the evaluation of worker
- Page 82 and 83:
Table 6-1. EC LODs and LOQs for 25-
- Page 84 and 85:
6.2 Engineering ControlsOne of the
- Page 86 and 87:
Table 6-6 (Continued). Examples of
- Page 88 and 89:
Table 6-7 (Continued). Engineering
- Page 90 and 91:
exposure estimates for SWCNT on ind
- Page 92 and 93:
Table 6-8. Respiratory protection f
- Page 94 and 95:
••Workers in areas or in jobs w
- Page 97 and 98:
7 Research NeedsAdditional data and
- Page 99 and 100: ReferencesACGIH [1984]. Particle si
- Page 101 and 102: Bolton RE, Vincent HJ, Jones AD, Ad
- Page 103 and 104: eport issued on July 22, 2011. NEDO
- Page 105 and 106: Kobayashi N, Naya M, Mizuno K, Yama
- Page 107 and 108: Methner M, Hodson L, Geraci C [2010
- Page 109 and 110: Human Services, Centers for Disease
- Page 111 and 112: Piegorsch WW, Bailer AF [2005]. Qua
- Page 113 and 114: AD, Baron PA [2003]. Exposure to ca
- Page 115: Varga C, Szendi K [2010]. Carbon na
- Page 119 and 120: ContentsA.1 Introduction ..........
- Page 121 and 122: A.1 IntroductionThe increasing prod
- Page 123 and 124: provide an informal check on the es
- Page 125 and 126: these same dose groups; this effect
- Page 127 and 128: Table A-1. Rodent study information
- Page 129 and 130: the deposited (no clearance) and th
- Page 131 and 132: The other BMDS models failed to con
- Page 133 and 134: Figure A-2. Benchmark dose model (m
- Page 135 and 136: Figure A-3 (continued). Benchmark d
- Page 137 and 138: Table A-3. Benchmark dose estimates
- Page 139 and 140: Table A-5. Benchmark dose estimates
- Page 141 and 142: histopathology grade 2 or higher lu
- Page 143 and 144: Table A-8. Working lifetime percent
- Page 145 and 146: developing early-stage adverse lung
- Page 147 and 148: Figure A-4. Dose-response relations
- Page 149: cell surface area). However, the wo
- Page 153 and 154: Table A-9. Comparison of rat or hum
- Page 155 and 156: A.6.1.3 Pulmonary Ventilation RateT
- Page 157 and 158: used as the effect levels in evalua
- Page 159 and 160: the DF estimate, although a larger
- Page 161 and 162: or overloading, of particle clearan
- Page 163 and 164: Table A-13. Human-equivalent retain
- Page 165 and 166: A.7.1 Particle CharacteristicsBoth
- Page 167 and 168: and density. The following MMAD and
- Page 169: Table A-15. CNT lung dose normalize
- Page 172 and 173: B.1 Key Terms Related toMedical Sur
- Page 175 and 176: APPENDIX CNIOSH Method 5040
- Page 177 and 178: filter. In the method evaluation, d
- Page 179 and 180: Most of the studies on sampling art
- Page 181 and 182: e analyzed to determine the onset o
- Page 184: Delivering on the Nation’s promis