Assessment of consumer exposure to boron in cleaning products: a case study of Canada.

Boron is an essential mineral for plants, and as such, is a normal dietary constituent for humans. Humans may be naturally exposed to boron through food and drinking water, or via anthropogenic sources such as consumer products. The World Health Organisation established an acceptable safe range of population mean intakes for boron of 1-13 mg/day. Most studies of dietary boron intake show a range of 1-2 mg/day. Consumer products have been estimated to contribute a geometric mean daily intake of 0.1 mg to total boron exposure; however, there are few published surveys of consumer exposure to boron from use of cleaning products. The Government of Canada published a draft screening assessment report of boric acid, its salts and precursors that included estimates of consumer exposure to boron found as ingredients in consumer products. The manufacturers of consumer cleaning products conducted a survey of boron content of current products and estimated exposure using the publicly available exposure tool ConsExpo Web. Dermal exposures to boron during cleaning product use were estimated to result in annual internal exposures ranging from ≪0.001 to 0.36 µg/kg bw/day based on dermal absorption of 0.5%. Using a conservative point of departure for hazard assessment (2,900 µg boron/kg bw/day), estimated margins of exposure for dermal exposures to boron from cleaning product use range from 8,056 to >1,000,000. This work demonstrates that exposure to boron from cleaning product use is very low and essentially insignificant when compared to other (e.g. dietary) sources of boron intake by Canadian consumers.

Equivalent titanium dioxide nanoparticle deposition by intratracheal instillation and whole body inhalation: the effect of dose rate on acute respiratory tract inflammation.

BACKGROUND: The increased production of nanomaterials has caused a corresponding increase in concern about human exposures in consumer and occupational settings. Studies in rodents have evaluated dose-response relationships following respiratory tract (RT) delivery of nanoparticles (NPs) in order to identify potential hazards. However, these studies often use bolus methods that deliver NPs at high dose rates that do not reflect real world exposures and do not measure the actual deposited dose of NPs. We hypothesize that the delivered dose rate is a key determinant of the inflammatory response in the RT when the deposited dose is constant. METHODS: F-344 rats were exposed to the same deposited doses of titanium dioxide (TiO2) NPs by single or repeated high dose rate intratracheal instillation or low dose rate whole body aerosol inhalation. Controls were exposed to saline or filtered air. Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) neutrophils, biochemical parameters and inflammatory mediator release were quantified 4, 8, and 24 hr and 7 days after exposure. RESULTS: Although the initial lung burdens of TiO2 were the same between the two methods, instillation resulted in greater short term retention than inhalation. There was a statistically significant increase in BALF neutrophils at 4, 8 and 24 hr after the single high dose TiO2 instillation compared to saline controls and to TiO2 inhalation, whereas TiO2 inhalation resulted in a modest, yet significant, increase in BALF neutrophils 24 hr after exposure. The acute inflammatory response following instillation was driven primarily by monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 and macrophage inflammatory protein-2, mainly within the lung. Increases in heme oxygenase-1 in the lung were also higher following instillation than inhalation. TiO2 inhalation resulted in few time dependent changes in the inflammatory mediator release. The single low dose and repeated exposure scenarios had similar BALF cellular and mediator response trends, although the responses for single exposures were more robust. CONCLUSIONS: High dose rate NP delivery elicits significantly greater inflammation compared to low dose rate delivery. Although high dose rate methods can be used for quantitative ranking of NP hazards, these data caution against their use for quantitative risk assessment.

Surface characterization of nanomaterials and nanoparticles: Important needs and challenging opportunities.

This review examines characterization challenges inherently associated with understanding nanomaterials and the roles surface and interface characterization methods can play in meeting some of the challenges. In parts of the research community, there is growing recognition that studies and published reports on the properties and behaviors of nanomaterials often have reported inadequate or incomplete characterization. As a consequence, the true value of the data in these reports is, at best, uncertain. With the increasing importance of nanomaterials in fundamental research and technological applications, it is desirable that researchers from the wide variety of disciplines involved recognize the nature of these often unexpected challenges associated with reproducible synthesis and characterization of nanomaterials, including the difficulties of maintaining desired materials properties during handling and processing due to their dynamic nature. It is equally valuable for researchers to understand how characterization approaches (surface and otherwise) can help to minimize synthesis surprises and to determine how (and how quickly) materials and properties change in different environments. Appropriate application of traditional surface sensitive analysis methods (including x-ray photoelectron and Auger electron spectroscopies, scanning probe microscopy, and secondary ion mass spectroscopy) can provide information that helps address several of the analysis needs. In many circumstances, extensions of traditional data analysis can provide considerably more information than normally obtained from the data collected. Less common or evolving methods with surface selectivity (e.g., some variations of nuclear magnetic resonance, sum frequency generation, and low and medium energy ion scattering) can provide information about surfaces or interfaces in working environments (operando or in situ) or information not provided by more traditional methods. Although these methods may require instrumentation or expertise not generally available, they can be particularly useful in addressing specific questions, and examples of their use in nanomaterial research are presented.