How meaningful are risk determinations in the absence of a complete dataset? Making the case for publishing standardized test guideline and ‘no effect’ studies for evaluating the safety of nanoparticulates versus spurious ‘high effect’ results from single investigative studies

• Main Authors: David B Warheit, E Maria Donner
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Taylor & Francis Group 2015-06-01
• Series: Science and Technology of Advanced Materials
• Subjects: guideline studies; nanoparticles; no-effect studies; standardized studies; titanium dioxide; oral toxicity studies; biokinetic studies
• Online Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1468-6996/16/3/034603
• ISSN: 1468-6996; 1878-5514

A recent review article critically assessed the effectiveness of published research articles in nanotoxicology to meaningfully address health and safety issues for workers and consumers. The main conclusions were that, based on a number of flaws in study designs, the potential risk from exposures to nanomaterials is highly exaggerated, and that no ‘nano-specific’ adverse effects, different from exposures to bulk particles, have been convincingly demonstrated. In this brief editorial we focus on a related tangential issue which potentially compromises the integrity of basic risk science. We note that some single investigation studies report specious toxicity findings, which make the conclusions more alarming and attractive and publication worthy. In contrast, the standardized, carefully conducted, ‘guideline study results’ are often ignored because they can frequently report no adverse effects; and as a consequence are not considered as novel findings for publication purposes, and therefore they are never considered as newsworthy in the popular press. Yet it is the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) type test guideline studies that are the most reliable for conducting risk assessments. To contrast these styles and approaches, we present the results of a single study which reports high toxicological effects in rats following low-dose, short-term oral exposures to nanoscale titanium dioxide particles concomitant with selective investigative analyses. Alternatively, the findings of OECD test guideline 408, standardized guideline oral toxicity studies conducted for 90 days at much higher doses (1000 mg kg−1) in male and female rats demonstrated no adverse effects following a very thorough and complete clinical chemical, as well as histopathological evaluation of all of the relevant organs in the body. This discrepancy in study findings is not reconciled by the fact that several biokinetic studies in rats and humans demonstrate little or no uptake of nanoscale or pigment-grade TiO2 particles following oral exposures. We conclude that to develop a competent risk assessment profile, results derived from standardized, guideline-type studies, and even ‘no effect’ study findings provide critically useful input for assessing safe levels of exposure; and should, in principle, be readily acceptable for publication in peer-reviewed toxicology journals. This is a necessary prerequisite for developing a complete dataset for risk assessment determinations.