CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Proposal for a tiered dietary bioaccumulation testing strategy for engineered nanomaterials using fish

Handy, Richard D., Ahtiainen, Jukka, Navas, José María, Goss, Greg, Bleeker, Eric A. J., von der Kammer, Frank·2018·Environmental Science: Nano
DOI 10.1039/c7en01139c
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The scientific community has invested effort into standardising methodologies for the regulatory ecotoxicity testing of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs), but the practical requirements for bioaccumulation testing of ENMs have been given less attention.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1039/c7en01139c

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 A tiered approach to the dietary bioaccumulation testing strategy. The first tier uses dissolution in water or in lipids as an environmental chemistry trigger(s) for concern, but where these triggers do not work for a particular ENM, then an alternative settling rate test is proposed or similar measures that quantifies removal from the water column. This tier uses a weight of evidence from these tests plus existing data sets from the literature. A positive result of the trigger test and/or evidence of concern from literature will move investigations to the next tier. In tier 2 new data generation occurs using in silico models and supported by evidence from soils, microbial or invertebrate tests that might suggest a bioaccumulation potential. A likely risk from this tier will move work to tier 3 where in chemico studies are done to determine the bioaccessible fractions of ENMs in the gut lumen environment of fish. If the digestibility assay is positive, then gut sacs can be used to confirm accumulation by the gut mucosa of fish tissue. Only if both these tests are positive would the work proceed to the final in vivo test (tier 4). The latter test is essentially the OECD TG 305 dietary bioaccumulation method, with some additional caveats and guidance for ENMs.
Fig. 1 A tiered approach to the dietary bioaccumulation testing strategy. The first tier uses dissolution in water or in lipids as an environmental chemistry trigger(s) for concern, but where these triggers do not work for a particular ENM, then an alternative settling rate test is proposed or similar measures that quantifies removal from the water column. This tier uses a weight of evidence from these tests plus existing data sets from the literature. A positive result of the trigger test and/or evidence of concern from literature will move investigations to the next tier. In tier 2 new data generation occurs using in silico models and supported by evidence from soils, microbial or invertebrate tests that might suggest a bioaccumulation potential. A likely risk from this tier will move work to tier 3 where in chemico studies are done to determine the bioaccessible fractions of ENMs in the gut lumen environment of fish. If the digestibility assay is positive, then gut sacs can be used to confirm accumulation by the gut mucosa of fish tissue. Only if both these tests are positive would the work proceed to the final in vivo test (tier 4). The latter test is essentially the OECD TG 305 dietary bioaccumulation method, with some additional caveats and guidance for ENMs.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Fig. 2 Chemistry triggers for an ENM of concern in tier 1 of the testing strategy, using Degussa P25 titanium dioxide nanoparticles (open circles) compared to a TiO2 bulk material of similar composition with a primary particle diameter of 147 nm (closed circle) and unexposed controls (triangles). (A) Particle settling from a 1 mg L -1 exposure measured by the decrease in total Ti concentration in the water column over time in a 20 L fish tank containing aerated Plymouth freshwater (Handy and Ramsden, unpublished observations). (B) Particle settling in unstirred Krebs physiological saline from initial 10 mg L -1 stock dispersions of each TiO2 material (Handy and Butcher unpublished observations). Note in panel A and B that the bulk material settles faster than the equivalent ENM in both freshwater and saline. (C) Dissolution curves for TiO2 materials measured by dialysis in a fish gut saline. The cumulative appearance of total Ti metal through the dialysis tubing into the external medium is shown with curves fitted to a rectangular hyperbola. The dialysis bag contained a total of 800 μ g of Ti metal, thus only 5% or less of the materials dissolved. The unexposed saline was at or below the detection limit. Redrawn from Al-Jubory and Handy. 11 All values are means ± S.E. of triplicate measurements. Note, the error bars are often too small to visualise.
Fig. 2 Chemistry triggers for an ENM of concern in tier 1 of the testing strategy, using Degussa P25 titanium dioxide nanoparticles (open circles) compared to a TiO2 bulk material of similar composition with a primary particle diameter of 147 nm (closed circle) and unexposed controls (triangles). (A) Particle settling from a 1 mg L -1 exposure measured by the decrease in total Ti concentration in the water column over time in a 20 L fish tank containing aerated Plymouth freshwater (Handy and Ramsden, unpublished observations). (B) Particle settling in unstirred Krebs physiological saline from initial 10 mg L -1 stock dispersions of each TiO2 material (Handy and Butcher unpublished observations). Note in panel A and B that the bulk material settles faster than the equivalent ENM in both freshwater and saline. (C) Dissolution curves for TiO2 materials measured by dialysis in a fish gut saline. The cumulative appearance of total Ti metal through the dialysis tubing into the external medium is shown with curves fitted to a rectangular hyperbola. The dialysis bag contained a total of 800 μ g of Ti metal, thus only 5% or less of the materials dissolved. The unexposed saline was at or below the detection limit. Redrawn from Al-Jubory and Handy. 11 All values are means ± S.E. of triplicate measurements. Note, the error bars are often too small to visualise.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Image 3
CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Fig. 3 (A) Summary of the step-wise in chemico digestibility assay simulating digestion in fish gut. The first three steps can be done with simple shaking at room temperature for 1 hour, followed by 12 h ( e.g. , overnight) for the enzymatic digestion and a final strong acid digestion of the remainder. * The enzyme mix is simplified from Carter et al. 71 as trypsin 0.8 mg mL -1 , chymotrypsin 1.6 mg mL -1 , protease 0.7 mg mL -1 at pH 8 in 0.9% NaCl. (B) Example in chemico digestibility data for 1 g samples of fish pellets loaded with Ag or Ag2S ENMs (Handy and Teape, unpublished observations from the EU Nanofase project materials). Only a few percent of the total silver are extracted by NaCl, EDTA or HCl extractions respectively, suggesting low oral bioavailability of these materials from fish food. Values are means ± S.E., n = 6 digestions each. Different letters indicate a significant difference between substances with extraction method (Kruskal Wallis or ANOVA, P < 0.05, note the controls had < 0.1% extractable silver).
Fig. 3 (A) Summary of the step-wise in chemico digestibility assay simulating digestion in fish gut. The first three steps can be done with simple shaking at room temperature for 1 hour, followed by 12 h ( e.g. , overnight) for the enzymatic digestion and a final strong acid digestion of the remainder. * The enzyme mix is simplified from Carter et al. 71 as trypsin 0.8 mg mL -1 , chymotrypsin 1.6 mg mL -1 , protease 0.7 mg mL -1 at pH 8 in 0.9% NaCl. (B) Example in chemico digestibility data for 1 g samples of fish pellets loaded with Ag or Ag2S ENMs (Handy and Teape, unpublished observations from the EU Nanofase project materials). Only a few percent of the total silver are extracted by NaCl, EDTA or HCl extractions respectively, suggesting low oral bioavailability of these materials from fish food. Values are means ± S.E., n = 6 digestions each. Different letters indicate a significant difference between substances with extraction method (Kruskal Wallis or ANOVA, P < 0.05, note the controls had < 0.1% extractable silver).CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Fig. 4 Example data on TiO2 for tier 3 (panel A) and tier 4 (panel B) of the testing strategy. (A) Total Ti metal concentrations in the mucosa of whole gut sacs from rainbow trout exposed to 1 mg L -1 TiO2 in the gut lumen for 4 h (data from Al-Jubory and Handy 11 ). Control (grey bars), bulk TiO2 (black bars), P25 TiO2 ENMs (white bars). The mucosa accumulates Ti indicating some potential for bioaccumulation. (B) In vivo results from trout fed diets containing no added TiO2 (control, grey bars), or 10 (stippled bars), or 100 mg P25 TiO2 ENMs kg -1 food (white bars) for six weeks. Data redrawn from Ramsden et al. 34 Note, like the gut sac studies, the intestine in vivo shows Ti accumulation, but not the liver. In both panels, data are means ± S.E., n = 6. * Significantly different from the control (ANOVA or Kruskal Wallis, P < 0.05). The in vivo studies were performed at Plymouth University with ethical approval from the local ethics committee and authorisation by a project license (under the UK Home Office Scientific Procedures Act) held by R. D. Handy.
Fig. 4 Example data on TiO2 for tier 3 (panel A) and tier 4 (panel B) of the testing strategy. (A) Total Ti metal concentrations in the mucosa of whole gut sacs from rainbow trout exposed to 1 mg L -1 TiO2 in the gut lumen for 4 h (data from Al-Jubory and Handy 11 ). Control (grey bars), bulk TiO2 (black bars), P25 TiO2 ENMs (white bars). The mucosa accumulates Ti indicating some potential for bioaccumulation. (B) In vivo results from trout fed diets containing no added TiO2 (control, grey bars), or 10 (stippled bars), or 100 mg P25 TiO2 ENMs kg -1 food (white bars) for six weeks. Data redrawn from Ramsden et al. 34 Note, like the gut sac studies, the intestine in vivo shows Ti accumulation, but not the liver. In both panels, data are means ± S.E., n = 6. * Significantly different from the control (ANOVA or Kruskal Wallis, P < 0.05). The in vivo studies were performed at Plymouth University with ethical approval from the local ethics committee and authorisation by a project license (under the UK Home Office Scientific Procedures Act) held by R. D. Handy.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Image 6
CC-BY-NC · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 84

  1. Strempel, 2012, Environ. Sci. Technol., 46, 5680, 10.1021/es3002713 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Klaine, 2008, Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 27, 1825, 10.1897/08-090.1 · DOI
  3. Lowry, 2012, Environ. Sci. Technol., 46, 6893, 10.1021/es300839e · DOI
  4. Peijnenburg, 2015, Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol., 45, 2084, 10.1080/10643389.2015.1010430 · DOI
  5. Kahru, 2010, Toxicology, 269, 105, 10.1016/j.tox.2009.08.016 · DOI
  6. Klaine, 2012, Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 31, 3, 10.1002/etc.733 · DOI
  7. Schultz, 2014, Environ. Chem., 11, 207, 10.1071/EN13221 · DOI
  8. R. D. Handy and F. B.Eddy , in Physicochemical Kinetics and Transport at Chemical-Biological Interphases , ed. H. P. V. L. W. Köster , John Wiley , Chichester , 2004 , pp. 337–356
  9. Shaw, 2011, Environ. Int., 37, 1083, 10.1016/j.envint.2011.03.009 · DOI
  10. Al-Jubory, 2013, Nanotoxicology, 7, 1282, 10.3109/17435390.2012.735268 · DOI
  11. Shaw, 2012, Aquat. Toxicol., 116, 90, 10.1016/j.aquatox.2012.02.032 · DOI
  12. Khan, 2012, Environ. Sci. Technol., 46, 7621, 10.1021/es301253s · DOI
  13. Wang, 2013, Environ. Sci. Technol., 47, 10601, 10.1021/es4017188 · DOI
  14. Felix, 2013, Environ. Sci. Technol., 47, 6589, 10.1021/es401403p · DOI
  15. Bjorkland, 2017, Environ. Sci.: Nano, 4, 747
  16. Veith, 1979, J. Fish. Res. Board Can., 36, 1040, 10.1139/f79-146 · DOI
  17. Handy, 2012, Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 31, 15, 10.1002/etc.706 · DOI
  18. Law, 2006, Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 25, 1757, 10.1897/05-445R.1 · DOI
  19. Barber, 2008, Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 27, 755, 10.1897/07-462.1 · DOI
  20. Arnot, 2015, Environ. Sci. Technol., 49, 4783, 10.1021/es506251q · DOI
  21. OECD , Bioaccumulation in fish: aqueous and dietary exposure. OECD guidelines for testing of chemicals. Technical Guidance (TG) 305 , Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Publishing , Paris, France , Available at: 10.1787/9789264185296-en , 2012 · DOI
  22. Handy, 2008, Ecotoxicology, 17, 287, 10.1007/s10646-008-0199-8 · DOI
  23. Felix, 2017, Aquat. Toxicol., 192, 58, 10.1016/j.aquatox.2017.09.008 · DOI
  24. Gitrowski, 2014, Toxicol. Lett., 226, 264, 10.1016/j.toxlet.2014.02.014 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Ferry, 2009, Nat. Nanotechnol., 4, 441, 10.1038/nnano.2009.157 · DOI
  26. Skjolding, 2014, Aquat. Toxicol., 157, 101, 10.1016/j.aquatox.2014.10.005 · DOI
  27. Croteau, 2011, Nanotoxicology, 5, 79, 10.3109/17435390.2010.501914 · DOI
  28. Clearwater, 2002, Comp. Biochem. Physiol., Part C: Toxicol. Pharmacol., 132, 269, 10.1016/S1096-4959(01)00539-5 · DOI
  29. R. D. Handy , J. C.McGeer , H. E.Allen , P. E.Drevnick , J. W.Gorsuch , A. S.Green , A.-K.Lundebye-Haldorsen , S. E.Hook , D. R.Mount and W. A.Stubblefield , in Toxicity of Dietborne Metals to Aquatic Organisms , ed. J. S. Meyer , W. J. Adams , K. V. Brix , S. N. Luoma , D. R. Mount , W. A. Stubblefield and C. M. Wood , SETAC Press Pensacola , USA , 2005 , pp. 59–112
  30. Fisk, 1998, Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 17, 951, 10.1002/etc.5620170526 · DOI
  31. Ramsden, 2009, Ecotoxicology, 18, 939, 10.1007/s10646-009-0357-7 · DOI
  32. Fraser, 2011, Nanotoxicology, 5, 98, 10.3109/17435390.2010.502978 · DOI
  33. Arts, 2015, Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 71, S1, 10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.03.007 · DOI
  34. Oomen, 2015, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 12, 13415, 10.3390/ijerph121013415 · DOI
  35. K. Sellers , N. M.Deleebeeck , M.Messiean , M.Jackson , E. A. J.Bleeker , D. T. H. M.Sijm and F. A.Van Broekhuizen , Grouping nanomaterials: A strategy towards grouping and read-across. Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu RIVM. , 2015
  36. Walser, 2015, Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 72, 569, 10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.05.031 · DOI
  37. Hristovski, 2011, J. Environ. Sci. Health, Part A: Toxic/Hazard. Subst. Environ. Eng., 46, 636, 10.1080/10934529.2011.562859 · DOI
  38. Ottofülling, 2011, Environ. Sci. Technol., 45, 10045, 10.1021/es2023225 · DOI
  39. Praetorius, 2014, Environ. Sci. Technol., 48, 10690, 10.1021/es501655v · DOI
  40. OECD , Dispersion Stability of Nanomaterials in Simulated Environmental Media. OECD guidelines for testing of chemicals. Technical Guidance (TG) 318 , Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Publishing , Paris, France , Available at: 10.1787/9789264284142-en , 2017 · DOI
  41. OECD , Test No. 107: Partition Coefficient (n-octanol/water): Shake Flask Method , 1995 · DOI
  42. Fernández-Cruz, 2018, Environ. Sci.: Nano, 5, 381
  43. Landsiedel, 2016, Environ. Pollut., 218, 1376, 10.1016/j.envpol.2015.10.060 · DOI
  44. A. Worth , K.Aschberger , D.Asturiol Bofill , J.Bessems , K.Gerloff , R.Graepel , E.Joossens , L.Lamon , T.Palosaari and A.Richarz , Evaluation of the availability and applicability of computational approaches in the safety assessment of nanomaterials , EUR 28617 EN, Publications Office of the European Union , Luxembourg , 2017, ISBN 978-92-79-68708-2, 10.2760/248139 , JRC106386, 2017 · DOI
  45. Toropova, 2015, Mini-Rev. Med. Chem., 15, 608, 10.2174/1389557515666150219121652 · DOI
  46. Wang, 2015, Q. Rev. Biophys., 48, 488, 10.1017/S0033583515000190 · DOI
  47. Ambure, 2015, Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst., 147, 1, 10.1016/j.chemolab.2015.07.007 · DOI
  48. Chen, 2017, Int. J. Mol. Sci., 18, 1504, 10.3390/ijms18071504 · DOI
  49. Gottschalk, 2013, Environ. Pollut., 181, 287, 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.06.003 · DOI · Paper page
  50. Sun, 2017, Environ. Sci. Technol., 51, 2854, 10.1021/acs.est.6b05702 · DOI
  51. Winkler, 2016, Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol., 299, 96, 10.1016/j.taap.2015.12.016 · DOI
  52. Costa, 2016, Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol., 299, 101, 10.1016/j.taap.2015.12.014 · DOI
  53. Crane, 2008, Ecotoxicology, 17, 421, 10.1007/s10646-008-0215-z · DOI
  54. Bourgeault, 2015, Environ. Sci. Technol., 49, 2451, 10.1021/es504638f · DOI
  55. Dalai, 2014, Aquat. Toxicol., 152, 139, 10.1016/j.aquatox.2014.04.002 · DOI
  56. Hernando, 2012, Anal. Bioanal. Chem., 404, 2749, 10.1007/s00216-012-6256-4 · DOI
  57. Geppert, 2016, Environ. Sci.: Nano, 3, 388
  58. Yue, 2015, Nanotoxicology, 9, 54, 10.3109/17435390.2014.889236 · DOI
  59. Bermejo-Nogales, 2017, Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf., 138, 309, 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2016.12.039 · DOI
  60. Susewind, 2016, Nanotoxicology, 10, 53
  61. Oomen, 2002, Environ. Sci. Technol., 36, 3326, 10.1021/es010204v · DOI
  62. Denys, 2012, Environ. Sci. Technol., 46, 6252, 10.1021/es3006942 · DOI
  63. Wragg, 2011, Sci. Total Environ., 409, 4016
  64. Carter, 1999, Aquaculture, 179, 57, 10.1016/S0044-8486(99)00152-0 · DOI
  65. Rungruangsak-Torrissen, 2002, J. Sci. Food Agric., 82, 644, 10.1002/jsfa.1089 · DOI
  66. Tervonen, 2010, Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 29, 1072, 10.1002/etc.124 · DOI
  67. Hopson, 1963, J. Anim. Sci., 22, 448, 10.2527/jas1963.222448x · DOI
  68. Ong, 2014, PLoS One, 9, e90650, 10.1371/journal.pone.0090650 · DOI
  69. San, 2011, Angew. Chem., 123, 12130, 10.1002/ange.201101833 · DOI
  70. Besinis, 2014, Nanotoxicology, 8, 1, 10.3109/17435390.2012.742935 · DOI
  71. Shaw, 2013, Chemosphere, 92, 1136, 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.01.065 · DOI
  72. Hoyle, 2005, Aquat. Toxicol., 72, 147, 10.1016/j.aquatox.2004.11.015 · DOI
  73. Handy, 2000, J. Exp. Biol., 203, 2365, 10.1242/jeb.203.15.2365 · DOI
  74. Clark, 1995, Toxicol. Lett., 81, 33, 10.1016/0378-4274(95)03400-5 · DOI
  75. Connolly, 2016, Sci. Total Environ., 551, 334, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.01.186 · DOI
  76. Andersen, 1996, Aquacult. Nutr., 2, 41, 10.1111/j.1365-2095.1996.tb00006.x · DOI
  77. Vielma, 1998, Aquaculture, 160, 117, 10.1016/S0044-8486(97)00300-1 · DOI
  78. Davies, 2006, Aquacult. Nutr., 12, 451, 10.1111/j.1365-2095.2006.00448.x · DOI
  79. Petersen, 2009, Environ. Sci. Technol., 43, 2969, 10.1021/es8029363 · DOI
  80. Shaw, 2006, Aquat. Toxicol., 76, 111, 10.1016/j.aquatox.2005.10.002 · DOI
  81. Baker, 1998, Mar. Environ. Res., 45, 357, 10.1016/S0141-1136(98)00098-1 · DOI
  82. Gray, 2013, Environ. Sci. Technol., 47, 14315, 10.1021/es403558c · DOI
  83. Lee, 2014, Environ. Sci. Technol., 48, 10291, 10.1021/es502422v · DOI
  84. Al-Bairuty, 2013, Aquat. Toxicol., 126, 104, 10.1016/j.aquatox.2012.10.005 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Handy, R. D., Ahtiainen, J., Navas, J. M., Goss, G., Bleeker, E. A. J., & von der Kammer, F.
Venue
Environmental Science: Nano
Publisher
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
Published
2018
Volume
5
Issue
9
Pages
2030-2046
ISSN
  • 2051-8153
  • 2051-8161
DOI
10.1039/c7en01139c
Cited by
18
References
1
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (vor, 213 d)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review