Potential Occupational Risks Associated with Pulmonary Toxicity of Carbon Nanotubes

¹Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, West Virginia University, Morgantown, USA

²Mary Babb Randolph Cancer Center, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA

*Corresponding Author:

Yon Rojanasakul
Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences
West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA
Tel: (304)293-1476
Fax: (304)293-2576
E-mail: yrojan@hsc.wvu.edu

Received date: May 12, 2014; Accepted date: June 06, 2014; Published date: June 13, 2014

Citation: Manke A, pong SL, Rojanasaku Y (2014) Potential Occupational Risks Associated with Pulmonary Toxicity of Carbon Nanotubes. Occup Med Health Aff 2:165. doi:10.4172/2329-6879.1000165

Copyright: © 2014 Rojanasakul Y, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Visit for more related articles at Occupational Medicine & Health Affairs

Abstract

Given their remarkable properties, carbon nanotubes (CNTs) have made their way through various industrial and medicinal applications and the overall production of CNTs is expected to grow rapidly in the next few years, thus requiring an additional recruitment of workers. However, their unique applications and desirable properties are fraught with concerns regarding occupational exposure. The concern about worker exposure to CNTs arises from the results of recent animal studies. Short-term and sub-chronic exposure studies in rodents have shown consistent adverse health effects such as pulmonary inflammation, granulomas, fibrosis, genotoxicity and mesothelioma after inhalation or instillation of several types of CNTs. Furthermore, physicochemical properties of CNTs such as dispersion, functionalization and particle size can significantly affect their pulmonary toxicity. Risk estimates from animal studies necessitate implementation of protective measures to limit worker exposure to CNTs. Information on workplace exposure is very limited, however, studies have reported that CNTs can be aerosolized and attain respirable airborne levels during synthesis and processing activities in the workplace. Quantitative risk assessments from sub-chronic animal studies recommend the health-based need to reduce exposures below the recommended exposure limit of 1 μg/m3. Practice of prevention measures including the use of engineering controls, personal protective equipment, health surveillance program, safe handling and use, as well as worker training can significantly minimize worker exposure and improve worker health and safety.

Keywords

Carbon nanotube; Pulmonary toxicity; Worker exposure; Fibrosis; Occupational hazard

Introduction

Since their discovery, carbon nanotubes (CNTs) have been considered as ideal candidate for applications in industries such as electronics, energy, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, agriculture and medical diagnostics due to their unique physicochemical properties including high tensile strength and conductivity [1-3]. The CNT industry has been projected to grow tremendously over the next decade with global capacity in 2013 estimated at 2,000 tons/year for multi-walled CNT and 6 tons/year for single-walled CNT [4,5]. The National Science Foundation projects that by 2020, the CNT industry will employ approximately 6 million workers, 2 million of whom are expected to be in the United States [6]. Currently, a large number of occupational personnel are known to be involved in the handling of CNTs at 61 companies in the U.S. with a projected annual growth of about 22% [7,8]. The growing production and use of CNTs will result in a dramatic increase in occupational and public exposure to engineered nanomaterials. Since workers are the most likely individuals to be exposed to CNTs given their involvement in handling and producing nanomaterials, occupational safety and health is of utmost importance while dealing with these materials with new risks and uncertainties. Understanding, predicting, and managing the potential health risks associated with CNT exposure in the workplaces where they are being fabricated and incorporated into products is one of the key steps towards human exposure risk assessment [9,10].

As per British Standards Institute Report (2007), CNTs are high aspect ratio nanomaterial’s (HARNs) having at least one of their dimensions, i.e. the diameter less than 100 nm whereas their length may be in the micrometer range. They are classified into two main types known as single-walled CNT (SWCNT) and multi-walled CNT (MWCNT) [11]. A growing body of literature indicates potential health hazard to workers from CNT exposure. Owing to their bio persistence, surface reactivity and asbestos-like properties, CNTs are believed to induce biologically harmful effects via their ability to translocate within the alveolar regions and the deeper pleura of the lung [12,13]. Inhalation being the major route of exposure for CNTs, accumulating evidence indicates the pulmonary pathologic responses such as inflammation, oxidative stress, granulomas, genotoxicity, pleural and interstitial fibrosis following CNT exposure [14-16]. Data from existing animal studies as well as reported workplace airborne CNT levels strongly suggest the need to minimize worker exposure and protect worker health [17]. Additional research is required to determine how airborne CNTs in the workplace may compare in size and structure to the aerosolized CNTs generated in the animal and in-vitro studies [9]. In this article, we will describe and summarize the adverse respiratory health effects documented in animal models following CNT exposure, pathological effects of CNTs influenced by their physicochemical properties and discuss the potential sources for workplace CNT exposure and the recommended limits for CNT exposure followed by strategies for accurate measurement and control of CNT exposure. For our article, we utilized the technique of narrative review to identify and condense the literature in the area of pulmonary toxicity of carbon nanotubes. We identified various research studies, previously conducted synthesized documents using electronic databases such as PubMed, Ebscohost, Web of Science and Medline. After pooling the studies in a databank, authors identified relevant studies by carefully screening the abstracts. Based on all the relevant studies, we formulated important themes that provide comprehensive knowledge about the area of pulmonary toxicity of CNTs. The information from each article was then carefully condensed within these themes.

Evidence for adverse pulmonary outcomes following CNT exposure

Currently, there are no published reports of the adverse health effects in workers handling CNTs. However, given the likelihood of developing robust pulmonary responses after inhalation of particles and fibers, it is rational to assume that at an equivalent lung burden to CNTs, workers may also be susceptible to developing these adverse lung effects. Nevertheless, mounting evidence from animal studies raises serious health concerns for occupational hazards associated with CNT exposure. Due to the lack of safety guidelines and suitable biomarkers for CNT workplace exposure, occupational risk estimates are extrapolated from existing rodent models [9,14].

Pulmonary toxicity of CNTs in vivo

Fibrosis

Over the past few years, there has been a considerable growth in the literature base documenting dose and time-dependent biological effects of SWCNT and MWCNT exposure. Some early reports provided evidence for intrinsic toxicity of CNTs and potential exposure to respirable CNT particulate matters in workers [11,12]. Pharyngeal aspiration of SWCNT in mice at the dose of 10-40 μg/mouse induced acute inflammation, early onset of granulomas, alveolar wall thickening, and progressive fibrosis [11]. Subsequent studies determined the influence of the route of administration and dispersion status on the end toxic response. For instance, a short-term SWCNT inhalation exposure was more effective than pharyngeal aspiration in causing lung toxicity in mice as evidenced by a 4-fold greater inflammation and fibrosis than aspiration of the same mass lung burden owing to aerosolized particle size during inhalation [15,16]. Poorly dispersed SWCNT in suspension was found to be restricted to the proximal alveolar regions resulting in granulomatous lesions, whereas well-dispersed SWCNT deposited deeper into the interstitial and pleural areas of the lung causing parenchymal granulomas and interstitial fibrosis [18,19]. Likewise, the biopersistence of MWCNT has been illustrated by a number of in vivo studies suggesting similar spectrum of dose- and time-dependent pulmonary fibrogenic responses [13,20,21]. Contrary to SWCNT, MWCNT was shown to induce a significant increase in fibrosis after pulmonary aspiration compared to inhalation [22]. Acute pulmonary exposure to inhaled MWCNT induced inflammation, fibrosis, and rare pleural penetration indicating that MWCNT can reach the pleura after inhalation [23]. A recent long-term inhalation study demonstrated that MWCNT induced a fibrotic response that persisted up to 336 days post-exposure and exhibited particle size-dependent retention in the lungs [24]. Furthermore, inhaled MWCNT were found to translocate to the parietal pleura, the respiratory musculature, liver, kidney, heart and brain where they accumulate with time following exposure [25].

Despite similar qualitative fibrogenic responses, both MWCNT and SWCNT differ significantly in how they are distributed within the lungs. SWCNT is more likely to interact with the lung owing to its greater fiber count per mass than MWCNT [22]. Moreover, MWCNT is known to be recognized and phagocytosed by alveolar macrophages [20,26], whereas SWCNT evades macrophages which facilitates its entry into the alveolar interstitium [22]. However, both forms of CNT induce damaging lung responses in vivo at doses physiologically relevant to potential worker exposures. Pulmonary exposure to CNTs has illustrated systemic responses such as increased inflammatory mediators in the blood, diminished ability of coronary arterioles to respond to dilators, oxidative stress in aortic tissue and increased plaque formation in an atherosclerotic mouse model [27-29]. Additional research is needed to understand the mechanisms underlying these pulmonary and systemic responses to CNTs.

Besides the fibrogenic damage, long-term CNT exposure has been shown to promote malignant transformation and induction of tumorigenesis, initiation of lung adenocarcinoma and tumor like morphology in vivo at doses which approximate potential human occupational exposures [30,31].

Pulmonary function

CNTs can significantly hamper pulmonary function as demonstrated by an increase in expiratory time [15], reduced bacterial clearance activity [16], and decreased lung compliance [32]. Both SWCNT and MWCNT exacerbate ovalbumin-induced allergic airway inflammation in vivo [33-35]. Collectively, these studies imply that individuals with pre-existing respiratory conditions such as allergic asthma and bronchitis are more likely to be susceptible to CNT exposure [36].

Pleural disease

The structural similarity between asbestos and CNTs has raised a concern about the potential damaging effect of CNTs on pleural mesothelium. Studies have demonstrated CNTs to reach the pleural space [26], migrate from subpleural to intrapleural tissue [37], induce mesothelial cell proliferation and mesothelioma formation [38,39], and cause inflammation and pleural fibrosis [22]. MWCNT injected into the peritoneal cavity of mice or rats generated fiber length-dependent inflammation/genetic damage and mesothelioma [40]. These findings are important in understanding whether CNTs have the potential to cause asbestos-like pleural lesions and whether workers are at risk of developing mesothelioma after chronic CNT exposure.

Pulmonary toxicity in vitro

Oxidative stress

Numerous studies have indicated CNT-induced ROS generation in multiple cell lines [20,41-43] and activation of ROS-associated intracellular signaling pathways including mitogen activated protein kinase (MAPK), Akt, activator protein-1 (AP-1), and nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells (NF-κB) in mesothelial cells in a dose-dependent manner [44]. These findings indicate that CNT-induced oxidative stress may serve as an important intermediate endpoint for assessment of CNT-induced pulmonary toxicity.

Epithelial barrier permeability

Since epithelial cells are the first line of defense against inhaled foreign particles, disturbance in respiratory barrier function is critical to CNT-induced toxicity. Studies have shown the translocation of engineered nanoparticles across the alveolar epithelial monolayers in-vitro which corresponded to the delivery of particles in suspension to cells, thereby highlighting the need for accurate dosimetry when investigating biological interactions with CNTs [45]. CNTs have been shown to alter the paracellular permeability of airway epithelial cells and inhibit mucociliary clearance mechanisms by interfering with the formation of tight junctions [46-48]. Such alteration would likely impair the protective barrier function of lung epithelium.

Genotoxicity

Since CNTs have been shown to possess asbestos-like pathogenicity, it is necessary to characterize their genotoxic potential. Both MWCNT and SWCNT have been shown to exert genotoxic effects in a number of in vitro settings as evidenced by DNA strand breakage, DNA base oxidation, chromosomal aberrations and gene mutations [49-55]. Intrinsic ROS production, CNT-induced inflammation and oxidative stress are some of the proposed mechanisms for CNT-driven genotoxicity [2,56,57]. More recent studies have revealed the potential toxicity associated with chronic exposure of CNTs which results in a malignant and neoplastic phenotype and tumorigenesis as well a novel feature of stem-like induction in human lung cells [58,59]

Physicochemical characteristics of CNTs

The physical-chemical characteristics of CNTs such as size, chemical composition and surface charge can often be modified to accommodate their intended commercial use and to improve their biocompatibility, thereby conferring them new functions which cannot otherwise be acquired by pristine CNTs [2,3,9]. However, these changes often translate into altered biological reactivity of CNTs, which is poorly understood at present [2,56]. Additional information is required to characterize the relationship between physicochemical properties of CNTs and their bioactivity in order to predict occupational health hazard and safer design of CNTs. The influence of physicochemical parameters of CNTs on their biological activities is further described in details in Tables 1-3.

Table 1: Effect of surface functionalization on CNT-induced pulmonary toxicity in vitro and in vivo

Table 2: Effect of size and surface area on CNT-induced lung toxicity in vitro and in vivo

Table 3a: Effect of presence of metal impurities on CNT-induced pulmonary toxicity in vitro and in vivo

Table 3b: Effect of dispersion status on CNT-induced lung toxicity in vitro and in vivo

Workplace exposure to CNTs

Human exposure to manufactured nanomaterials is most likely to be observed in workers than the general population [60]. CNT exposure may occur at a multitude of stages such as laboratory research, nanomaterial synthesis, downstream use and disposal/recycle of CNTs [61]. The duration of exposure to airborne CNT particles and the release, dispersion and transformation of CNTs dictate the occupational risk [62]. However, the extent to which workers are exposed remains to be fully characterized since information on workplace exposure is limited. The initial report on laboratory and field measurements of CNT exposure demonstrated significant aerosolization of CNTs. Particle measurements during the study indicated CNT mass concentrations in the 0.7 to 53 μg/m³ range, in the form of agglomerates with sizes typically larger than 1 μm. Additionally, these agglomerates were retained in the workspace atmosphere for a long period of time given their low bulk density, and the majority of these particles were respirable [61,63]. Subsequent studies demonstrated CNT aerosolization resulting in appreciable airborne CNT levels as high as 430 μg/m³ during weighing, transfer, cutting and sonication in a laboratory setting [64-67]. These findings demand implementation of robust measures to protect workers health and need for in-house controls to curtail worker exposure. Employing airborne particle concentrations as a surrogate marker for measuring the potential release of CNTs (e.g. local exhaust ventilation, wet cutting of composites, fume hood/enclosures) effectively reduced the worker exposure demonstrating that conventional industrial measures can effectively lessen airborne levels [65,66,68]. Since CNTs often occur as micrometer-sized aggregates, newer studies have employed a specific marker for CNT exposure, i.e. NMAM 5040, which measures the specific mass of elemental carbon and provides a more refined mass [69]. In order to identify and measure occupational hazards associated with CNT exposure, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has proposed a recommended exposure limit (REL) of 1 μg/m³ for CNT exposure based on quantitative risk assessment and estimates from sub-chronic and short-term animal studies with dose-response data of early stage fibrotic and inflammatory lung responses to CNT exposure [9]. The NIOSH report recommends that workers may have >10% higher risk of developing early-stage pulmonary fibrosis if exposed to the REL over working lifetime of about 45 years. This respirable mass-based REL is a workplace barometer to identify job tasks with potential exposures to CNTs and guarantee that appropriate measures are taken to limit worker exposure [9,70]. Thus efforts should be made to reduce airborne concentrations of CNTs as low as possible below the REL.

Given the uncertainties regarding risk assessment of occupational exposures to CNT, many studies have recommended using occupational exposure limits (OELs) which are defined using benchmark particles which in turn are evaluated using standard criteria [9,71,72]. The very initial studies reported a benchmark OEL of 0.01 fiber/cm³ for CNT based on an existing OEL for asbestos [72-74]. Currently, the suggested OELs for CNT range from 1–50 μg/m³ as indicated by subsequent studies [75-77]. Another risk-based approach suggested comparing the potency and mode of action to benchmark materials for CNT exposure assessment [72,78].

Given the current workplace CNT concentrations, available animal data indicate that over a working lifetime, workers may be vulnerable to CNT-prone adverse pulmonary effects. Due to the limited information about human exposure and risks, it is recommended that prevention strategies and control measures to minimize exposures be adopted [9]. A general occupational medical surveillance program is recommended for workers and worksites. Workers should be trained to anticipate, identify, and track potentially hazardous nanomaterials in the workplace [10]. For safe handling and application, periodic evaluation of the potential health risks associated with CNT exposure is essential. Appropriate use of engineering controls such as use of fume hoods and exhaust ventilation and personal protective equipment (e.g. respirators) should be mandated for worker safety [9,17,61].

Precise analytic measurement methods are required to provide workplace exposure data and establish exposure standards [79]. Such exposure data would guide long-term inhalation studies to determine the time course and dose response for possible development of fibrosis, cancer and mesothelioma. Identifying key biomarkers, mechanistic endpoints would be useful in worker exposure surveillance [61]. More animal studies are required to understand the influence of physicochemical properties on the bioactivity of CNTs for safer design and use of CNT technology.

Concluding remarks

This review article addresses the impending issue of adverse health impacts on workers with higher likelihood of being exposed to potential hazards of nanotechnology. The fibrogenic and genotoxic effects of CNTs raise important health concerns for workers and consumers. There is significant correlation between the pulmonary responses in vivo and in vitro and the human health risks associated with CNT exposure. Understanding the effect of CNT characteristics on their biological reactivity will contribute towards safer industrial and consumer applications of the nanomaterial. Additional information regarding the mechanisms and diagnostic markers relevant to CNT-induced responses would facilitate risk assessment and predictive toxicity testing. The key is to prevent and minimize inadvertent exposure today via the use of appropriate controls at workplaces, safety equipments and worker training.

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the National Institutes of Health grant R01-HL076340, R01-ES022968, and by the National Science Foundation grant EPS-1003907.

Declaration of Interest

The authors report no declarations of interest.

References

1. Iijima S (1991) Helical microtubules of graphitic carbon. Nature 354: 56-58
2. Oberdörster G (2010) Safety assessment for nanotechnology and nanomedicine: concepts of nanotoxicology. J Intern Med 267: 89-105.
3. Lam CW, James JT, McCluskey R, Arepalli S, Hunter RL (2006) A review of carbon. nanotube toxicity and assessment of potential occupational and environmental health risks. Crit Rev Toxicol 36: 189-217.
4. Lux Research [2007] The nanotech report (5th edn.). New York: Lux Research.
5. Nanotech [2013] Nanotubes hanging in there. Nanotech Magazine. Edition 13, pp. 4–5.
6. Patel V (2011) Global carbon nanotubes market outlook: industry beckons. Nanotech Insights 2:31–5.
7. Schubauer-Berigan MK, Dahm MM, Yencken MS (2011) Engineered carbonaceous nanomaterials manufacturers in the United States: workforce size, characteristics, and feasibility of epidemiologic studies. J Occup Environ Med 53: S62-67.
8. Schubauer-Berigan MK, Dahm MM, Deddens JA, Birch ME, Evans DE et al.(2013) Industrywide exposure assessment and cross-sectional epidemiologic studies of workers at facilities manufacturing, distributing, or using carbon nanotubes or carbon nanofibers in the United States. In Protocol. Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
9. NIOSH(2010) Current Intelligence Bulletin: Occupational Exposure to Carbon Nanotubes.
10. Schulte PA, Geraci CL, Murashov V, Kuempel ED, Zumwalde RD, et al. (2014) Occupational safety and health criteria for responsible development of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 16: 2153.
11. Sinha N, Yeow JT (2005) Carbon nanotubes for biomedical applications. IEEE Trans Nanobioscience 4: 180-195.
12. Lam CW, James JT, McCluskey R, Hunter RL (2004) Pulmonary toxicity of single-wall carbon nanotubes in mice 7 and 90 days after intratracheal instillation. ToxicolSci 77: 126-134.
13. Porter DW, Hubbs AF, Mercer RR, Wu N, Wolfarth MG, et al. (2010) Mouse pulmonary dose- and time course-responses induced by exposure to multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Toxicology 269: 136-147.
14. Stella GM (2011) Carbon nanotubes and pleural damage: perspectives of nanosafety in the light of asbestos experience. Biointerphases 6: P1-17.
15. Shvedova AA, Kisin ER, Mercer R, Murray AR, Johnson VJ, et al. (2005) Unusual inflammatory and fibrogenic pulmonary responses to single-walled carbon nanotubes in mice. Am J Physiol Lung Cell MolPhysiol 289: L698-708.
16. Shvedova AA, Kisin E, Murray AR, Johnson VJ, Gorelik O, et al. (2008) Inhalation vs. aspiration of single-walled carbon nanotubes in C57BL/6 mice: inflammation, fibrosis, oxidative stress, and mutagenesis. Am J Physiol Lung Cell MolPhysiol 295: L552-565.
17. Stebounova LV, Morgan H, Grassian VH, Brenner S (2012) Health and safety implications of occupational exposure to engineered nanomaterials. Wiley Interdiscip Rev NanomedNanobiotechnol 3:310-321.
18. Mercer RR, Scabilloni J, Wang L, Kisin E, Murray AR, et al. (2008) Alteration of deposition pattern and pulmonary response as a result of improved dispersion of aspirated single-walled carbon nanotubes in a mouse model. Am J Physiol Lung Cell MolPhysiol 294: L87-97.
19. Murray AR, Kisin ER, Tkach AV, Yanamala N, Mercer R, et al. (2012) Factoring-in agglomeration of carbon nanotubes and nanofibers for better prediction of their toxicity versus asbestos. Part Fibre Toxicol 9: 10.
20. Mitchell LA, Gao J, Wal RV, Gigliotti A, Burchiel SW, et al. (2007) Pulmonary and systemic immune response to inhaled multiwalled carbon nanotubes. ToxicolSci 100: 203-214.
21. Muller J, Huaux F, Moreau N, Misson P, Heilier JF, et al. (2005) Respiratory toxicity of multi-wall carbon nanotubes. ToxicolApplPharmacol 207: 221-231.
22. Mercer RR, Hubbs AF, Scabilloni JF, Wang L, Battelli LA, et al. (2011) Pulmonary fibrotic response to aspiration of multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Particle Fibre Toxicol 8:21.
23. Porter DW, Hubbs AF, Chen BT, McKinney W, Mercer RR, et al. (2013) Acute pulmonary dose-responses to inhaled multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Nanotoxicology 7: 1179-1194.
24. Mercer RR, Scabilloni JF, Hubbs AF, Battelli LA, McKinney W, et al. (2013) Distribution and fibrotic response following inhalation exposure to multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Part Fibre Toxicol 10: 33.
25. Mercer RR, Scabilloni JF, Hubbs AF, Wang L, Battelli LA, et al. (2013) Extrapulmonary transport of MWCNT following inhalation exposure. Part Fibre Toxicol 10: 38.
26. Ryman-Rasmussen JP, Cesta MF, Brody AR, Shipley-Phillips JK, Everitt JI, et al. (2009) Inhaled carbon nanotubes reach the subpleural tissue in mice. Nat Nanotechnol 4: 747-751.
27. Li Z1, Hulderman T, Salmen R, Chapman R, Leonard SS, et al. (2007) Cardiovascular effects of pulmonary exposure to single-wall carbon nanotubes. Environ Health Perspect 115: 377-382.
28. Erdely A, Hulderman T, Salmen R, Liston A, Zeidler-Erdely PC, et al. (2009) Cross-talk between lung and systemic circulation during carbon nanotube respiratory exposure. Potential biomarkers. Nano Lett 9: 36-43.
29. Stapleton PA, Minarchick VC, Cumpston AM, McKinney W, Chen BT, et al. (2012) Impairment of coronary arteriolar endothelium-dependent dilation after multi-walled carbon nanotube inhalation: a time-course study. Int J MolSci 13: 13781-13803.
30. Wang L, Luanpitpong S, Castranova V, Tse W, Lu Y, et al. (2011) Carbon nanotubes induce malignant transformation and tumorigenesis of human lung epithelial cells. Nano Lett 11: 2796-2803.
31. Sargent LM, Porter DW, Staska LM, Hubbs AF, Lowry DT, et al. (2014) Promotion of lung adenocarcinoma following inhalation exposure to multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Part Fibre Toxicol 11: 3.
32. Wang X, Katwa P, Podila R, Chen P, Ke PC, et al. (2011) Multi-walled carbon nanotube instillation impairs pulmonary function in C57BL/6 mice. Part Fibre Toxicol 8: 24.
33. Ryman-Rasmussen JP, Tewksbury EW, Moss OR, Cesta MF, Wong BA, et al. (2009) Inhaled multiwalled carbon nanotubes potentiate airway fibrosis in murine allergic asthma. Am J Respir Cell MolBiol 40: 349-358.
34. Inoue K, Koike E, Yanagisawa R, Hirano S, Nishikawa M, et al. (2009) Effects of multi-walled carbon nanotubes on a murine allergic airway inflammation model. ToxicolApplPharmacol 237: 306-316.
35. Li J, Li L, Chen H, Chang Q, Liu X, et al. (2014) Application of vitamin E to antagonize SWCNTs-induced exacerbation of allergic asthma. Sci Rep 4: 4275.
36. Bonner JC (2007) Lung fibrotic responses to particle exposure. ToxicolPathol 35: 148-153.
37. Poland CA, Duffin R, Kinloch I, Maynard A, Wallace WA, et al. (2008) Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study. Nat Nanotechnol 3: 423-428.
38. Takagi A, Hirose A, Nishimura T, Fukumori N, Ogata A, et al. (2008) Induction of mesothelioma in p53+/- mouse by intraperitoneal application of multi-wall carbon nanotube. J ToxicolSci 33: 105-116.
39. Xu J, Futakuchi M, Shimizu H, Alexander DB, Yanagihara K, et al. (2012) Multi-walled carbon nanotubes translocate into the pleural cavity and induce visceral mesothelial proliferation in rats. Cancer Sci 103: 2045-2050.
40. Nagai H, Okazaki Y, Chew SH, Misawa N, Yamashita Y, et al. (2011) Diameter and rigidity of multiwalled carbon nanotubes are critical factors in mesothelial injury and carcinogenesis. ProcNatlAcadSci U S A 108: E1330-1338.
41. Azad N, Iyer AK, Wang L, Liu Y, Lu Y, et al. (2013) Reactive oxygen species-mediated p38 MAPK regulates carbon nanotube-induced fibrogenic and angiogenic responses. Nanotoxicology 7: 157-168.
42. He X, Young S, Schwegler-Berry D, et al. (2011) Multiwalled carbon nanotubes induce a fibrogenic response by stimulating reactive oxygen species production, activating NF-B signaling, and promoting fibroblast-to-myofibroblast transformation. Chemical Res Toxicol 24:2237–2248.
43. Shvedova AA, Pietroiusti A, Fadeel B, Kagan VE (2012) Mechanisms of carbon nanotube-induced toxicity: focus on oxidative stress. ToxicolApplPharmacol 261: 121-133.
44. Pacurari M, Qian Y, Fu W (2012) Cell permeability, migration, and reactive oxygen species induced by multiwalled carbon nanotubes in human microvascular endothelial cells. J Toxicol Environ Health Part A 75:129–47.
45. Cohen J, Derk R, Wang L, Godleski J, Kobzik L, et al. (2014) Tracking translocation of industrially relevant engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) across alveolar epithelial monolayers in-vitro. Nanotoxicology In Press (online published) PMID: 24479615.
46. Banga A, Witzmann FA, Petrache HI, Blazer-Yost BL (2012) Functional effects of nanoparticle exposure on Calu-3 airway epithelial cells. Cell PhysiolBiochem 29: 197-212.
47. Rotoli BM, Bussolati O, Barilli A, Zanello PP, Bianchi MG, et al. (2009) Airway barrier dysfunction induced by exposure to carbon nanotubes in-vitro: which role for fiber length? Hum ExpToxicol 28: 361-368.
48. Rotoli BM, Bussolati O, Bianchi MG, Barilli A, Balasubramanian C, et al. (2008) Non-functionalized multi-walled carbon nanotubes alter the paracellular permeability of human airway epithelial cells. ToxicolLett 178: 95-102.
49. Kisin ER, Murray AR, Keane MJ, Shi XC, Schwegler-Berry D, et al. (2007) Single-walled carbon nanotubes: geno- and cytotoxic effects in lung fibroblast V79 cells. J Toxicol Environ Health A 70: 2071-2079.
50. Muller J, Decordier I, Hoet PH, Lombaert N, Thomassen L, et al. (2008) Clastogenic and aneugenic effects of multi-wall carbon nanotubes in epithelial cells. Carcinogenesis 29: 427-433.
51. Sargent LM, Shvedova AA, Hubbs AF, Salisbury JL, Benkovic SA, et al. (2009) Induction of aneuploidy by single-walled carbon nanotubes. Environ Mol Mutagen 50: 708-717.
52. Sargent LM, Hubbs AF, Young SH, Kashon ML, Dinu CZ, et al. (2012) Single-walled carbon nanotube-induced mitotic disruption. Mutat Res 745: 28-37.
53. Pacurari M, Yin XJ, Zhao J, Ding M, Leonard SS, et al. (2008) Raw single-wall carbon nanotubes induce oxidative stress and activate MAPKs, AP-1, NF-kappaB, and Akt in normal and malignant human mesothelial cells. Environ Health Perspect 116: 1211-1217.
54. Jaurand MC, Renier A, Daubriac J (2009) Mesothelioma: Do asbestos and carbon nanotubes pose the same health risk? Part Fibre Toxicol 6: 16.
55. Siegrist KJ, Reynolds SH, Kashon ML, Lowry DT, Dong C, et al. (2014) Genotoxicity of multi-walled carbon nanotubes at occupationally relevant doses. Part Fibre Toxicol 11: 6.
56. Manke A, Wang L, Rojanasakul Y (2013) Pulmonary toxicity and fibrogenic response of carbon nanotubes. ToxicolMech Methods 23: 196-206.
57. Donaldson K, Poland CA (2012) Inhaled nanoparticles and lung cancer - what we can learn from conventional particle toxicology. Swiss Med Wkly 142: w13547.
58. Luanpitpong S, Wang L, Castranova V, Rojanasakul Y1 (2014) Induction of stem-like cells with malignant properties by chronic exposure of human lung epithelial cells to single-walled carbon nanotubes. Part Fibre Toxicol 11: 22.
59. Wang L, Stueckle TA, Mishra A, Derk R, Meighan T, et al. (2014) Neoplastic-like transformation effect of single-walled and multi-walled carbon nanotubes compared to asbestos on human lung small airway epithelial cells. Nanotoxicology 8: 485-507.
60. Bergamaschi E (2009) Occupational exposure to nanomaterials: present knowledge and future development. Nanotoxicology 3:194–201.
61. Castranova V, Schulte PA, Zumwalde RD (2013) Occupational nanosafety considerations for carbon nanotubes and carbon nanofibers. AccChem Res 46: 642-649.
62. Maynard AD, Kuempel E (2005) Airborne nanostructured particles and occupational health. J Nanopart Res 7:587–614.
63. Maynard AD, Baron PA, Foley M, Shvedova AA, Kisin ER, et al. (2004) Exposure to carbon nanotube material: aerosol release during the handling of unrefined single-walled carbon nanotube material. J Toxicol Environ Health A 67: 87-107.
64. Johnson DR1, Methner MM, Kennedy AJ, Steevens JA (2010) Potential for occupational exposure to engineered carbon-based nanomaterials in environmental laboratory studies. Environ Health Perspect 118: 49-54.
65. Bello D, Wardle BL, Yamamoto N (2009). Exposure to nanoscale particles and fibers during machining of hybrid advanced composites containing carbon nanotubes. J Nanopart Res 11:231–249.
66. Han JH, Lee EJ, Lee JH, So KP, Lee YH, et al. (2008) Monitoring multiwalled carbon nanotube exposure in carbon nanotube research facility. InhalToxicol 20: 741-749.
67. Dahm MM, Evans DE, Schubauer-Berigan MK [2011] Occupational exposure assessment in carbon nanotube and nanofiber primary and secondary manufactures.
68. Methner M, Hodson L, Geraci C (2010) Nanoparticle emission assessment technique (NEAT) for the identification and measurement of potential inhalation exposure to engineered nanomaterials--part A. J Occup Environ Hyg 7:127–132.
69. Erdely A, Dahm M, Chen BT, Zeidler-Erdely PC, Fernback JE, et al. (2013) Carbon nanotube dosimetry: from workplace exposure assessment to inhalation toxicology. Part Fibre Toxicol 10: 53.
70. NIOSH (2010) NIOSH current intelligence bulletin: occupational exposure to carbon nano-tubes and nanofibers (public review draft). Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH).
71. Schulte PA, Kuempel ED, Zumwalde RD, Geraci CL, Schubauer-Berigan MK, et al. (2012) Focused actions to protect carbon nanotube workers. Am J Ind Med 55: 395-411.
72. Gordon SC, Butala JH, Carter JM, Elder A, Gordon T, et al. (2014) Workshop report: strategies for setting occupational exposure limits for engineered nanomaterials. RegulToxicolPharmacol 68: 305-311.
73. BSI, (2007) Guide to safe handling and disposal of manufactured nanomaterials. British Standards Institute, PD6699-2.
74. IFA, (2009) Criteria for assessment of the effectiveness of protective measures. Institut fur Arbeitsschutz der DeutschenGesetzlichenUnfallversicherung.
75. Aschberger K, Johnston HJ, Stone V, Aitken RJ, Hankin SM, et al. (2010) Review of carbon nanotubes toxicity and exposure--appraisal of human health risk assessment based on open literature. Crit Rev Toxicol 40: 759-790.
76. Nanocyl (2009) Responsible care and nanomaterials case study Nanocyl. Presentation at European Responsible Care Conference, Prague. Brussels, Belgium: The European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC).
77. Pauluhn J (2010) Multi-walled carbon nanotubes (Baytubes): approach for derivation of occupational exposure limit. RegulToxicolPharmacol 57: 78-89.
78. Kuempel ED, Castranova V, Geraci CL, Schulte PA (2012) Development of riskbased nanomaterial groups for occupational exposure control. J Nanopart. Res. 14, 1029.
79. Schulte P, Geraci C, Zumwalde R, Hoover M, Kuempel E (2008) Occupational risk management of engineered nanoparticles. J Occup Environ Hyg 5: 239-249.
80. Saxena R, Williams W, McGee J (2007) Enhanced in-vitro and in-vivotoxicity of polydispersed acid-functionalized single-wall carbon nanotubes. Nanotoxicology 1:291–300.
81. Patlolla AK, Hussain SM, Schlager JJ, Patlolla S, Tchounwou PB (2010) Comparative study of the clastogenicity of functionalized and nonfunctionalizedmultiwalled carbon nanotubes in bone marrow cells of Swiss-Webster mice. Environ Toxicol 25: 608-621.
82. Sayes CM, Liang F, Hudson JL, Mendez J, Guo W, et al. (2006) Functionalization density dependence of single-walled carbon nanotubes cytotoxicity in-vitro. ToxicolLett 161: 135-142.
83. Jain S, Thakare VS, Das M, Godugu C, Jain AK, et al. (2011) Toxicity of multiwalled carbon nanotubes with end defects critically depends on their functionalization density. Chem Res Toxicol 24: 2028-2039.
84. Coccini T, Manzo L, Roda E (2013) Safety evaluation of engineered nanomaterials for health risk assessment: an experimental tiered testing approach using pristine and functionalized carbon nanotubes. ISRN Toxicol 2013: 825427.
85. Li R, Wang X, Ji Z, Sun B, Zhang H, et al. (2013) Surface charge and cellular processing of covalently functionalized multiwall carbon nanotubes determine pulmonary toxicity. ACS Nano 7: 2352-2368.
86. Magrez A, Kasas S, Salicio V, Pasquier N, Seo JW, et al. (2006) Cellular toxicity of carbon-based nanomaterials. Nano Lett 6: 1121-1125.
87. Zhang LW, Zeng L, Barron AR, Monteiro-Riviere NA (2007) Biological interactions of functionalized single-wall carbon nanotubes in human epidermal keratinocytes. Int J Toxicol 26: 103-113.
88. Sato Y, Yokoyama A, Shibata K, Akimoto Y, Ogino S, et al. (2005) Influence of length on cytotoxicity of multi-walled carbon nanotubes against human acute monocyticleukemia cell line THP-1 in-vitro and subcutaneous tissue of rats in-vivo. MolBiosyst 1: 176-182.
89. Palomäki J, Välimäki E, Sund J, Vippola M, Clausen PA, et al. (2011) Long, needle-like carbon nanotubes and asbestos activate the NLRP3 inflammasome through a similar mechanism. ACS Nano 5: 6861-6870.
90. Murphy FA, Poland CA, Duffin R, Al-Jamal KT, Ali-Boucetta H, et al. (2011) Length-dependent retention of carbon nanotubes in the pleural space of mice initiates sustained inflammation and progressive fibrosis on the parietal pleura. Am J Pathol 178: 2587-2600.
91. Fenoglio I, Aldieri E, Gazzano E, Cesano F, Colonna M, et al. (2012) Thickness of multiwalled carbon nanotubes affects their lung toxicity. Chem Res Toxicol 25: 74-82.
92. Tian F, Cui D, Schwarz H, Estrada GG, Kobayashi H (2006) Cytotoxicity of single-wall carbon nanotubes on human fibroblasts. ToxicolIn-vitro 20: 1202-1212.
93. Bussy C, Pinault M, Cambedouzou J, Landry MJ, Jegou P, et al. (2012) Critical role of surface chemical modifications induced by length shortening on multi-walled carbon nanotubes-induced toxicity. Part Fibre Toxicol 9: 46.
94. Vietti G, Ibouraadaten S, Palmai-Pallag M, Yakoub Y, Bailly C, et al. (2013) Towards predicting the lung fibrogenic activity of nanomaterials: experimental validation of an in-vitro fibroblast proliferation assay. Part Fibre Toxicol 10: 52.
95. Manke A, Luanpitpong S, Dong C, Wang L, He X, et al. (2014) Effect of fiber length on carbon nanotube-induced fibrogenesis. Int J MolSci 15: 7444-7461.
96. Shvedova AA, Castranova V, Kisin ER, et al. (2003) Exposure to carbon nanotube material: assessment of nanotube cytotoxicity using human keratinocyte cells. J Toxicol Environ Health Part A 66:1909–1926.
97. Vittorio O, Raffa V, Cuschieri A (2009) Influence of purity and surface oxidation on cytotoxicity of multiwalled carbon nanotubes with human neuroblastoma cells. Nanomedicine 5: 424-431.
98. Kagan VE, Tyurina YY, Tyurin VA, Konduru NV, Potapovich AI, et al. (2006) Direct and indirect effects of single walled carbon nanotubes on RAW 264.7 macrophages: role of iron. ToxicolLett 165: 88-100.
99. Wang L, Castranova V, Mishra A, Chen B, Mercer RR, et al. (2010) Dispersion of single-walled carbon nanotubes by a natural lung surfactant for pulmonary in-vitro and in-vivotoxicity studies. Part Fibre Toxicol 7: 31.