Nanotechnology offers enormous potential for technological progress. Fortunately, early and intensive efforts have been invested in investigating toxicology and safety aspects of this new technology. However, despite there being more than 6,000 publications on nanotoxicology, some key questions still have to be answered and paradigms need to be challenged. Here, we present a view on the field of nanotoxicology to stimulate the discussion on major knowledge gaps and the critical appraisal of concepts or dogma. First, in the ongoing debate as to whether nanoparticles may harbour a specific toxicity due to their size, we support the view that there is at present no evidence of 'nanospecific' mechanisms of action; no step-change in hazard was observed so far for particles below 100 nm in one dimension. Therefore, it seems unjustified to consider all consumer products containing nanoparticles a priori as hazardous. Second, there is no evidence so far that fundamentally different biokinetics of nanoparticles would trigger toxicity. However, data are sparse whether nanoparticles may accumulate to an extent high enough to cause chronic adverse effects. To facilitate hazard assessment, we propose to group nanomaterials into three categories according to the route of exposure and mode of action, respectively: Category 1 comprises nanomaterials for which toxicity is mediated by the specific chemical properties of its components, such as released ions or functional groups on the surface. Nanomaterials belonging to this category have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, depending on their chemical identity. Category 2 focuses on rigid biopersistent respirable fibrous nanomaterials with a specific geometry and high aspect ratio (so-called WHO fibres). For these fibres, hazard assessment can be based on the experiences with asbestos. Category 3 focuses on respirable granular biodurable particles (GBP) which, after inhalation, may cause inflammation and secondary mutagenicity that may finally lead to lung cancer. After intravenous, oral or dermal exposure, nanoscaled GBPs investigated apparently did not show 'nanospecific' effects so far. Hazard assessment of GBPs may be based on the knowledge available for granular particles. In conclusion, we believe the proposed categorization system will facilitate future hazard assessments.

Arsenic is a human carcinogen that occurs ubiquitously in soil and water. Based on epidemiological studies, a benchmark dose (lower/higher bound estimate) between 0.3 and 8 μg/kg bw/day was estimated to cause a 1 % increased risk of lung, skin and bladder cancer. A recently published study by EFSA on dietary exposure to inorganic arsenic in the European population reported 95th percentiles (lower bound min to upper bound max) for different age groups in the same range as the benchmark dose. For toddlers, a highly exposed group, the highest values ranged between 0.61 and 2.09 µg arsenic/kg bw/day. For all other age classes, the margin of exposure is also small. This scenario calls for regulatory action to reduce arsenic exposure. One priority measure should be to reduce arsenic in food categories that contribute most to exposure. In the EFSA study the food categories 'milk and dairy products,' 'drinking water' and 'food for infants' represent major sources of inorganic arsenic for infants and also rice is an important source. Long-term strategies are required to reduce inorganic arsenic in these food groups. The reduced consumption of rice and rice products which has been recommended may be helpful for a minority of individuals consuming unusually high amounts of rice. However, it is only of limited value for the general European population, because the food categories 'grain-based processed products (non rice-based)' or 'milk and dairy products' contribute more to the exposure with inorganic arsenic than the food category 'rice.' A balanced regulatory activity focusing on the most relevant food categories is required. In conclusion, exposure to inorganic arsenic represents a risk to the health of the European population, particularly to young children. Regulatory measures to reduce exposure are urgently required.

The use of hydraulic fracturing (HF) to extract oil and natural gas has increased, along with intensive discussions on the associated risks to human health. Three technical processes should be differentiated when evaluating human health risks, namely (1) drilling of the borehole, (2) hydraulic stimulation, and (3) gas or oil production. During the drilling phase, emissions such as NO x , NMVOCs (non-methane volatile organic compounds) as precursors for tropospheric ozone formation, and SO x have been shown to be higher compared to the subsequent phases. In relation to hydraulic stimulation, the toxicity of frac fluids is of relevance. More than 1100 compounds have been identified as components. A trend is to use fewer, less hazardous and more biodegradable substances; however, the use of hydrocarbons, such as kerosene and diesel, is still allowed in the USA. Methane in drinking water is of low toxicological relevance but may indicate inadequate integrity of the gas well. There is a great concern regarding the contamination of ground-and surface water during the production phase. Water that flows to the surface from oil and gas wells, so-called 'produced water', represents a mixture of flow-back, the injected frac fluid returning to the surface, and the reservoir water present in natural oil and gas deposits. Among numerous hazardous compounds, produced water may contain bromide, arsenic, strontium, mercury, barium, radioactive isotopes and organic compounds, particularly benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX). The sewage outflow, even from specialized treatment plants, may still contain critical concentrations of barium, strontium and arsenic. Evidence suggests that the quality of groundwater and surface water may be compromised by disposal of produced water. Particularly critical is the use of produced water for watering of agricultural areas, where persistent compounds may accumulate. Air contamination can occur as a result of several HF-associated activities. In addition to BTEX, 20 HF-associated air contaminants are group 1A or 1B carcinogens according to the IARC. In the U.S., oil and gas production (including conventional production) represents the second largest source of anthropogenic methane emissions. High-quality epidemiological studies are required, especially in light of recent observations of an association between childhood leukemia and multiple myeloma in the neighborhood of oil and gas production sites. In conclusion, (1) strong evidence supports the conclusion that frac fluids can lead to local environmental contamination; (2) while changes in the chemical composition of soil, water and air are likely to occur, the increased levels are still often below threshold values for safety; (3) point source pollution due to poor maintenance of wells and pipelines can be monitored and remedied; (4) risk assessment should be based on both hazard and exposure evaluation; (5) while the concentrations of frac fluid chemicals are low, some are known carcinogens; therefore, thorough, well-designed st...

Emissions of volatile species from flexible polyurethane foam mattresses were investigated by using large scale chamber tests designed to replicate the product use as mattress cores. Various trace impurities were identified and their concentrations were measured for input into a human health and toxicity risk assessment, which has concluded that none was injurious to health. The raw materials used to make the foam were analysed to identify the source of emanations and routes to their reduction or elimination. Several analytical artefacts were identified, and some recommendations made for their avoidance. Detailed product knowledge was essential to the reliable interpretation of analytical data. A quantitative risk assessment was carried out on each of the volatiles. No evidence of any human health risk was identified from the ‘worst-case’ exposure model employed

Polyurethanes (PU) are polymers made from diisocyanates and polyols for a variety of consumer products. It has been suggested that PU foam may contain trace amounts of residual toluene diisocyanate (TDI) monomers and present a health risk. To address this concern, the exposure scenario and health risks posed by sleeping on a PU foam mattress were evaluated. Toxicity benchmarks for key non-cancer endpoints (i.e., irritation, sensitization, respiratory tract effects) were determined by dividing points of departure by uncertainty factors. The cancer benchmark was derived using the USEPA Benchmark Dose Software. Results of previous migration and emission data of TDI from PU foam were combined with conservative exposure factors to calculate upper-bound dermal and inhalation exposures to TDI as well as a lifetime average daily dose to TDI from dermal exposure. For each non-cancer endpoint, the toxicity benchmark was divided by the calculated exposure to determine the margin of safety (MOS), which ranged from 200 (respiratory tract) to 3×10(6) (irritation). Although available data indicate TDI is not carcinogenic, a theoretical excess cancer risk (1×10(-7)) was calculated. We conclude from this assessment that sleeping on a PU foam mattress does not pose TDI-related health risks to consumers.