Centre for Inflammation Research
ELEGIELEGI
Comment from on presentation
by A. Lecloux, Nanocyl
Ken DonaldsonProfessor of Respiratory Medicine
The Queens Medical Research Institute The University of Edinburgh
&Honorary Principal Scientist
Institute of Occupational MedicineEdinburgh
Excerpts from the Lecloux presentation in Blue Arial
KD comments in Black Tekton
Centre for Inflammation Research
ELEGIELEGI
Particle and short fibre effects
alveolar inflammation, fibrosis, cancer, exacerbations airways disease, deaths hospitalisations for cardiovascular disease?
Particle type effects
Particle and short fibre effects
alveolar inflammation, fibrosis, cancer, exacerbations airways disease, deaths hospitalisations for cardiovascular disease?
Particle type effects
Aimed at showing ability to cause inflammation, lung cancer, scarring, cardiovascular endpoints
Carbon nanotubes could cause a particle and/or a fibre hazard
Nanotubes in particle form
Toxicology tests
Long fibre effects
alveolar inflammation, interstitial fibrosis, cancer
pleural effusion, pleural fibrosis, mesothelioma
Long fibre type effects in the lungs
Long fibre type effects in the pleura
Long fibre effects
alveolar inflammation, interstitial fibrosis, cancer
pleural effusion, pleural fibrosis, mesothelioma
Long fibre type effects in the lungs
Long fibre type effects in the pleura
All those caused by particles plus effects on the pleura and the mesothelium, which are SPECIFIC for long fibres
Nanotubes in long fibre form
Centre for Inflammation Research
ELEGIELEGINegative carcinogenic test in rats during 2 years (published)
• This test was carried out in the rat peritoneal cavity to determine whether CNT would cause mesothelioma
• This is a test for long fibres and only long fibres cause mesothelioma
• The average length of the Nanotubes was about a micron – this is very short
• So it is no surprise that there was ‘absence of a carcinogenic response’after short fibres
• For short fibres and other particles the lung is the target not the body cavity lining and lung cancer is the hazard not mesothelioma
• The obvious place to look for carcinogenic effects of short nanotubes is the lungs, not the peritoneal cavity
• Muller et al was not a well-designed carcinogenicity test for short CNT; it tells us nothing about the potential carcinogenicity of short CNT like the Nanocyl CNT
(Muller, J., Delos, M., Panin, N., Rabolli, V., Huaux, F., and Lison, D. (2009). Absence of carcinogenic response to multi-wall carbon nanotubes in a 2-year bioassay in the peritoneal cavity of the rat. Toxicological Sciences kfp100.)
SLIDE 14
Centre for Inflammation Research
ELEGIELEGIOnly a small fraction of CNTs
is inhalable
But difficulties in measuring particle size distribution in the nano range
So why make the statement ‘Only a small fraction of CNT is inhalable’? –potentially misleadingTo solve this problem the Naneum company (UK) developed portable sampling devices covering particle sizes from 3 nm up to 30 microns
So what did this instrument show for the particle number throughout the size ranges?
SLIDE 15
By common consent likely the most important metric is not volume (mass) but number or surface area
Num
ber
Surf
aace
area
Mas
s
Centre for Inflammation Research
ELEGIELEGI
The CNT concentrations measured in air are 1.45 µg CNT/m³ at the packaging1 µg CNT/m³ in extruder room 0.25µg CNT/m³ in R&D offices
Is the problem of measuring CNT in air now solved?
Exposure is a dynamic and changing entity dependent on behaviour and conditions in the workspace and a single measurements is not sufficient
If more than one was done then an indication of the average, the standard deviation and range need to be show; peaks could be important
Slide 16 is all about how difficult it is to measure CNT in air- the impression given is that methodology is still in development (see bullet point 5) yet we next find a single measurement of CNT in air for 3 sites
SLIDE 16
Centre for Inflammation Research
ELEGIELEGI
Han JH, Lee EJ, Lee JH, So KP, Lee YH, Bae GN, Lee SB, Ji JH, Cho MH, Yu IJ.Monitoring multiwalled carbon nanotube exposure in carbon nanotube research facility. Inhal Toxicol. 2008 Jun;20(8):741-9.
• Study monitored the possible exposure to MWCNT release in a carbonnanotube research laboratory.
• The gravimetric concentrations of total dust before any control measuresranged from 0.21 to 0.43 mg/m(3),
• The number of MWCNTs in the samples obtained from the MWCNT blending laboratory ranged from 172.9 to 193.6 MWCNTs/cc before thecontrol measures,
• Decreased to 0.018-0.05 MWCNTs/cc after the protective improvements.
Centre for Inflammation Research
ELEGIELEGISLIDE 19
•So the impression is given that a no effect concentration of 2.5µg/m3 obtains
•And that the measured concentration was 1.5µg/m3 (a single measurement!)
•We know that the levels of particles in air is changing constantly and no single figure is useable
•We need to know the variability around 1.5 µg/m3
• If it’s a mean then there must have been measurements above it and if its not a mean what is it?
•In any case, there are always peaks and
• Measured level of 1.5 and a NOEL of 2.5 are too close for my comfort
Centre for Inflammation Research
ELEGIELEGICarbon nanotubes could be a particle and/or a fibre hazard; if nanotubes are long and straight then we need to address the
long fibre (asbestos-type) hazard
Nanocyl nanotubes may be short/tangled but for other production plants there needs to be some screening to determine whether the CNT in the air are long and straight so the right hazard can be assessed
Centre for Inflammation Research
ELEGIELEGI
Summary
Mixed messages-Avowed ‘willingness to be transparent’ as to risks yet:-
• Focus on volume (mass) as exposure metric when number and SA are considered to be most important
•Acknowledge its difficult to measure CNT in air but a single figure is given for exposure when exposure is a notoriously variable entity
•A ‘risk assessment’ is made and compared to a single measure of exposure which turns out to be less than twice the estimated NOAEL (see above)
•The composition is important by Nanocyl’s own studies so how generic is this for other short nanotube formulations
•A carcinogenicity study based on long fibre hazard is cited that is irrelevant to Nanocyl tubes which are short/tangled and so are a particle-type hazard
•Therefore there is no validated study on the carcinogenicity of the nanocylnanotubes in the relevant target organ - the lungs
This paper was produced for a meeting organized by Health & Consumers DG and represents the views of its author on thesubject. These views have not been adopted or in any way approved by the Commission and should not be relied upon as a statement of the Commission's or Health & Consumers DG's views. The European Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the dataincluded in this paper, nor does it accept responsibility for any use made thereof.