betraying paracelsus, ignoring newton: a flaw in the nanotoxicology paradigm justin teeguarden, phd,...
TRANSCRIPT
Betraying Paracelsus, Ignoring Newton: A Flaw in the Nanotoxicology Paradigm
Justin Teeguarden, PHD, DABT
[Paul Hinderliter, Joel Pounds, Brian Thrall,, Galya Orr, Katrina Waters, Tom Weber, Barbara Tarasevich, Bobbie-Jo Webb Robertson]
Funded by the Environmental Biomarkers Initiative, DOE
Nano, Nanomaterial, Nanotechnology
Nano is 10-9. Nanotechnology is the understanding and control of matter at dimensions of roughly 1 to 100 nanometers, where unique phenomena enable novel applications.
Nanomaterials are 1-100 nm in at least one dimension
National Nanotechnology Initiative, 2002
SARS Virus Avain Flu Virus 100 nmSayes, Tox Sci 2006
TiO2 Agglomerates
Nanotoxicology is in its Infancy
Do the unique material properties of nanomaterials equate to unique biological properties as well?
Which of these properties are responsible for the biological effects?
Are the effects limited by the traditional defintion of nanomaterial (1-100 nm)?
Who should be studying the biocompatibility or toxicity of these new materials?
What studies should be done?
Where do we obtain high quality materials for testing?
Nanotoxicology is in its Infancy
236 January ‘08
What We Know
Nanomaterial Human Health Risks and Risk Assessment
Unknown
Insufficient Data
In Vitro Dosimetry
The State of The Science (Ignorance?)
Res
pons
e
?
Major Challenges for Dose-Response Assessment
What is dose?Size, shape, particle number, agglomeration state, surface chemistry, reactivity, surface area? Dose rate is also important.Do researches have all the tools necessary to measure these characteristics?
What is dose for in vitro studies?67% of published NM toxicity studies use in vitro systems.Mass concentrations are typically reported.Cannot be compared to doses for in vivo studies.How do you measure NM characteristics in liquid systems?
How do you extrapolate animal study doses to human dosesThis extrapolation is required for all risk assessments based on animal studies
Cell Culture is a Standard Tool for Mechanistic Work and Hazard
ScreeningThe paradigm for chemicals is being used without consideration of the unique kinetic differences between chemicals and particles in solution:
Response is considered a function of the nominal media mass or surface area concentration (cm2/ml, µg/ml)
Expose cells to selected concentrations of suspended
particles
Report dose-response on a nominal media
concentration basis
Dosimetry for Particles is Important!
Response is proportional to concentration at the target site!
So What’s the Problem?
In solution, particles settle and diffuse at rates which depend on:
SizeDensityShapeAgglomeration state
Surface area changes with sizeNumber concentrations change with sizeWhile nominal media concentrations stay the same across density and size, DELIVERY RATES DO NOT!
Nominal Media Concentration is A Poor Metric of Dose
1 nm Particle Size 1000 nm
Mas
s C
on
cen
trat
ion
(u
g/m
l)
SA
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
cm2 /
ml)
Decreases as the square of the radius
1 nm Particle Size 1000 nmM
ass
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
ug
/ml)
# co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
#/m
l)
Decreases as the cube of the radius
Nominal Media Concentration is A Poor Metric of Dose
1 Particle Size 1000(nm)
Dif
fusi
vity
(C
m2 /
s)
Set
tlin
g R
ate
(cm
/s)
1 Density 20(g/cm3)
# co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
#/m
l)
SA
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
cm2 /
ml)
Mass Concentration is Constant
Nominal Media Concentration is A Poor Metric of Dose
1 Density 20(g/cm3)
Set
tlin
g R
ate
(cm
/s)
Dif
fusi
vity
(C
m2/
s)
Mass Concentration is Constant
Dose-Related Parameters are Not Constant Across Particle Types
How Misleading can Nominal Media Concentrations Be?
Different Particles = Different Delivery Rates to Cells
Slo
wer
F
ast
er
T = 23 Hours Post Mixing
From First Principles: TiO2 and Gold Nanoparticle Dosimetry
Particle Diameter (nanometers)
1 10 100 1000
Su
rfac
e A
rea
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
cm2 /m
l)
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
TiO2AuTiO2AuTiO2Au
] NMC
] Gravitational Settling Adjusted NMC
] Gravitational and Diffusional Transport Adjusted NMC
Particle Diameter (nm)
1 10 100 1000M
ass
Co
nc
entr
atio
n ( g
/ml)
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
October 3, 2007 California EPA
Nominal Media Concentration Obscures Underlying Dose-Response Behavior
Delivery Adjusted Surface Area Concentration (cm2/ml)
0.1 1 10 100
"Res
po
ns
e"
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
1 nm 10 nm 100 nm 1000 nm
Nominal Surface Area Concentration (cm2/ml)
0.1 1 10 100 1000
"Re
sp
on
se
"
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
1 nm 10 nm 100 nm 1000 nm
Material Particle Diameter (nm) EC50’s
Nominal Media Mass Concentration (μg/ml)
Surface Area Concentration
(cm2/ml)
1Delivery Adjusted Surface Area Concentration
(cm2/ml)
Gravity Diffusion & Gravity
CdO 1000 0.75 0.005 0.005 0.005
Ag 100 24 1.37 0.017 0.020
Ag 15 50 19.0 0.005 0.272
MoO3 150 250 21.3 0.232 0.262
MoO3 30 210 89.4 0.039 0.663
Material
Particle Size(nm)
Compartative Potency is affected by the Choice of Dose Metric
October 3, 2007 California EPA
Delivered Dose Reveals Surface Area Relationship
Is Any of this Real, or is it Just a Theory?
Ceria Oxide Nano Particles 25-300 nm
Cellular Uptake is Diffusion Driven for Small Nanoparticles and Gravity Driven for Larger particles
Which Particle is Most Toxic?
Settling Impacts CNT Toxicity?
Supernatant Pellet
Rapid Settling
Slow Settling
Material Property
Size (nm) Affect on Nanoparticle Transport1
<1000 >1000 Diffusion Gravitational Settling
Size -/+ + ↓ with ↑ Diameter ↑ with Square of Diameter
Shape -/+ + Uncertain Spheres most efficient
Density -/+ + - ↑ with Density
Surface Chemistry + + Agglomeration1 Agglomeration
Zeta Potential2 + + Agglomeration Agglomeration
Concentration + + Agglomeration Agglomeration
Media Property
Density -/+ + - ↓ with ↑ Media Density
Viscosity -/+ + ↓ with ↑ Viscosity ↓ with ↑ Media Viscosity
26
Add LD50 Table
27
The Evidence this is Nonsense
28
Delivery of These Particles is Driven by Diffusion
Three Cell Types, Three Laboratories, Several Endpoints
One Particle Size Dose Not Test The Hypothesis that Size and Density Affect Delivery
29
Response is proportional to Concentration!
Wait, no its proportional to mass!
Lison et al. 2008
Changing mass &concentration
Changing mass
Changing concentration
30Lison et al. 2008
Response is proportional to Concentration!
Wait, no its proportional to mass!
Changing mass &concentration
Changing mass Changing concentration
31
Cellular Dose is Related to Mass and Concentration
Lison et al. 2008
32
Response Could be Related to Mass and Concentration if Agglomerates are Settling Out
But we really need to know better what is going on in these systems!
Conclusions
In vitro, untested assumptions and a flawed paradigm are the norm Biologically and kinetically relevant measures of dose are not being used, imperiling interpretation of many studies..
What should the future be?Research to improve our understanding of kinetics and dosimetry in vitro is essential, but not often appreciatedDirect measures of particle behavior in solutionDirect measures of cellular particle doseComputational models of delivery
These studies will support interpretation as well as extrapolation (NRC Vision for Toxicology)
What is the Future of Nanomaterial Dosimetry at PNNL?
Establish a Paradigm for Rapid Development of Biokinetic Models From In Vitro Kinetics and Cellular Uptake Data
Complete development of predictive models of in vitro kinetics and cellular uptake (Macrophages, and other elements of the RES system)
Correlate material properties and serum protein binding to rates of uptake in tissues of the RES system
Scale models of cellular uptake to full tissues/in vivo and integrate within our PBPK models
Test and revise predictive models of in vivo dosimetry
This is best accomplished as one element of an integrated program in nanomaterial biocompatibility.
PBPK Model Development and In Vivo Rodent Kinetics Completes our Dosimetry Program
18 nm gold +, - and PEG28 day blood, tissue kinetics in rats
36
Particle Settling Rate Equation:
Where
x
nB
x
nA
t
n
2
2
aN
RTA
6
9
2 2agB
Partial differential equations representing Navier-Stokes settling and Fickian diffusion are combined to form a single partial differential equation describing macroscopic particle transport. The solution to this equation is the basis for the computational model of nanoparticle solution dynamics and dosimetry in vitro (NanoDose). The model is written in MatLab. Parameters: n, number-density of particles at place x and time t; t, time; x, vertical distance from bottom of well; R, gas constant; T, temperature; N, Avogadro’s number; m, viscosity of liquid, a particle radius; g, gravitational acceleration; d, effective particle density (density of particle – liquid density). From Mason and Weaver (1924).
Computational In Vitro Dosimetry
Galya’s CellularUptake Data