Evaluating the evidence on genotoxicity and reproductive toxicity of carbon black: a critical review

Carbon black is produced industrially by the partial combustion or thermal decomposition of gaseous or liquid hydrocarbons under controlled conditions. It is considered a poorly soluble, low toxicity (PSLT) particle. Recently, results from a number of published studies have suggested that carbon black may be directly genotoxic, and that it may also cause reproductive toxicity. Here, we review the evidence from these studies to determine whether carbon black is likely to act as a primary genotoxicant or reproductive toxicant in humans. For the genotoxicity endpoint, the available evidence clearly shows that carbon black does not directly interact with DNA. However, the study results are consistent with the mechanism that, at high enough concentrations, carbon black causes inflammation and oxidative stress in the lung leading to mutations, which is a secondary genotoxic mechanism. For the reproductive toxicity endpoint for carbon black, to date, there are various lung instillation studies and one short-term inhalation study that evaluated a selected number of reproduction endpoints (e.g. gestational and litter parameters) as well as other general endpoints (e.g. gene expression, neurofunction, DNA damage); usually at one time point or using a single dose. It is possible that some of the adverse effects observed in these studies may be the result of non-specific inflammatory effects caused by high exposure doses. An oral gavage study reported no adverse reproductive or developmental effects at the highest dose tested. The overall weight of evidence indicates that carbon black should not be considered a direct genotoxicant or reproductive toxicant

Response to the Reply on behalf of the ‘Permanent Senate Commission for the Investigation of Health Hazards of Chemical Compounds in the Work Area’ (MAK Commission) by Andrea Hartwig Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)

Prof. Hartwig commented [1] as chair of the MAK Commission on Morfeld et al. 2015 [2]. We would like to thank the Commission for commenting on our review. However, the MAK Commission did not address a number of important issues raised in our paper

Evaluation of pulmonary and systemic toxicity following lung exposure to graphite nanoplates: a member of the graphene-based nanomaterial family

Background: Graphene, a monolayer of carbon, is an engineered nanomaterial (ENM) with physical and chemical properties that may offer application advantages over other carbonaceous ENMs, such as carbon nanotubes (CNT). The goal of this study was to comparatively assess pulmonary and systemic toxicity of graphite nanoplates, a member of the graphene-based nanomaterial family, with respect to nanoplate size. Methods: Three sizes of graphite nanoplates [20 μm lateral (Gr20), 5 μm lateral (Gr5), and \u3c2 \u3eμm lateral (Gr1)] ranging from 8–25 nm in thickness were characterized for difference in surface area, structure,, zeta potential, and agglomeration in dispersion medium, the vehicle for in vivo studies. Mice were exposed by pharyngeal aspiration to these 3 sizes of graphite nanoplates at doses of 4 or 40 μg/mouse, or to carbon black (CB) as a carbonaceous control material. At 4 h, 1 day, 7 days, 1 month, and 2 months post-exposure, bronchoalveolar lavage was performed to collect fluid and cells for analysis of lung injury and inflammation. Particle clearance, histopathology and gene expression in lung tissue were evaluated. In addition, protein levels and gene expression were measured in blood, heart, aorta and liver to assess systemic responses. Results: All Gr samples were found to be similarly composed of two graphite structures and agglomerated to varying degrees in DM in proportion to the lateral dimension. Surface area for Gr1 was approximately 7-fold greater than Gr5 and Gr20, but was less reactive reactive per m2 . At the low dose, none of the Gr materials induced toxicity. At the high dose, Gr20 and Gr5 exposure increased indices of lung inflammation and injury in lavage fluid and tissue gene expression to a greater degree and duration than Gr1 and CB. Gr5 and Gr20 showed no or minimal lung epithelial hypertrophy and hyperplasia, and no development of fibrosis by 2 months post-exposure. In addition, the aorta and liver inflammatory and acute phase genes were transiently elevated in Gr5 and Gr20, relative to Gr1. Conclusions: Pulmonary and systemic toxicity of graphite nanoplates may be dependent on lateral size and/or surface reactivity, with the graphite nanoplates \u3e 5 μm laterally inducing greater toxicity which peaked at the early time points post-exposure relative to the 1–2 μm graphite nanoplate

Translational toxicology in setting occupational exposure limits for dusts and hazard classification – a critical evaluation of a recent approach to translate dust overload findings from rats to humans

Background We analyze the scientific basis and methodology used by the German MAK Commission in their recommendations for exposure limits and carcinogen classification of “granular biopersistent particles without known specific toxicity” (GBS). These recommendations are under review at the European Union level. We examine the scientific assumptions in an attempt to reproduce the results. MAK’s human equivalent concentrations (HECs) are based on a particle mass and on a volumetric model in which results from rat inhalation studies are translated to derive occupational exposure limits (OELs) and a carcinogen classification. Methods We followed the methods as proposed by the MAK Commission and Pauluhn 2011. We also examined key assumptions in the metrics, such as surface area of the human lung, deposition fractions of inhaled dusts, human clearance rates; and risk of lung cancer among workers, presumed to have some potential for lung overload, the physiological condition in rats associated with an increase in lung cancer risk. Results The MAK recommendations on exposure limits for GBS have numerous incorrect assumptions that adversely affect the final results. The procedures to derive the respirable occupational exposure limit (OEL) could not be reproduced, a finding raising considerable scientific uncertainty about the reliability of the recommendations. Moreover, the scientific basis of using the rat model is confounded by the fact that rats and humans show different cellular responses to inhaled particles as demonstrated by bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) studies in both species. Conclusion Classifying all GBS as carcinogenic to humans based on rat inhalation studies in which lung overload leads to chronic inflammation and cancer is inappropriate. Studies of workers, who have been exposed to relevant levels of dust, have not indicated an increase in lung cancer risk. Using the methods proposed by the MAK, we were unable to reproduce the OEL for GBS recommended by the Commission, but identified substantial errors in the models. Considerable shortcomings in the use of lung surface area, clearance rates, deposition fractions; as well as using the mass and volumetric metrics as opposed to the particle surface area metric limit the scientific reliability of the proposed GBS OEL and carcinogen classification.International Carbon Black Associatio

Additional file 1: Figure S1. of Evaluation of pulmonary and systemic toxicity following lung exposure to graphite nanoplates: a member of the graphene-based nanomaterial family

Images of cells recovered by BAL from animals exposed to DM or 40 μg of Gr20, Gr5, Gr1, or CB, at 4 h, 7 days, and 2 months post-exposure illustrating particle burden in macrophages from the alveolar region. (PDF 1663 kb