Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Effective density of inhaled environmental and engineered nanoparticles and its impact on the lung deposition and dosimetry

Particle and Fibre Toxicology volume 21, Article number: 7 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Airborne environmental and engineered nanoparticles (NPs) are inhaled and deposited in the respiratory system. The inhaled dose of such NPs and their deposition location in the lung determines their impact on health. When calculating NP deposition using particle inhalation models, a common approach is to use the bulk material density, ρb, rather than the effective density, ρeff. This neglects though the porous agglomerate structure of NPs and may result in a significant error of their lung-deposited dose and location.

Results

Here, the deposition of various environmental NPs (aircraft and diesel black carbon, wood smoke) and engineered NPs (silica, zirconia) in the respiratory system of humans and mice is calculated using the Multiple-Path Particle Dosimetry model accounting for their realistic structure and effective density. This is done by measuring the NP ρeff which was found to be up to one order of magnitude smaller than ρb. Accounting for the realistic ρeff of NPs reduces their deposited mass in the pulmonary region of the respiratory system up to a factor of two in both human and mouse models. Neglecting the ρeff of NPs does not alter significantly the distribution of the deposited mass fractions in the human or mouse respiratory tract that are obtained by normalizing the mass deposited at the head, tracheobronchial and pulmonary regions by the total deposited mass. Finally, the total deposited mass fraction derived this way is in excellent agreement with those measured in human studies for diesel black carbon.

Conclusions

The doses of inhaled NPs are overestimated by inhalation particle deposition models when the ρb is used instead of the real-world effective density which can vary significantly due to the porous agglomerate structure of NPs. So the use of realistic ρeff, which can be measured as described here, is essential to determine the lung deposition and dosimetry of inhaled NPs and their impact on public health.

Graphical abstract

Background

Over the past century, the exposure of humans to airborne environmental and engineered nanoparticles (NPs) has increased dramatically due to air pollution, technological advancements and use in nano-enabled products across the value chain and various industries [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Such nanoscale particles share unique physicochemical properties that stem from their small size and large surface area, chemistry and reactivity and render them rather toxic to human health [7].

In particular, environmental and engineered NPs have been linked with a variety of pulmonary [8,9,10,11], cardiovascular [12,13,14,15] and other effects [16,17,18,19], even though the underlying mechanisms are still not well understood. It is worth noting that given the continuous rise of air pollution due to climate change [20, 21], as well as the emerging markets for engineered nanomaterials [22], it is essential to get a better understanding of the impact of these NPs on public health.

Most of the (primary) airborne environmental pollutants, such as black carbon (BC) or wood smoke, are emitted from combustion sources, including engines, coal or biomass combustors and wildfires [23,24,25]. In addition to environmental pollutants, combustion contributes decisively to the formation of nanostructured commodities, including carbon black, silica and titania that are produced in flame reactors [22]. The environmental and engineered NPs formed during these processes coagulate into porous, fractal-like clusters (i.e. agglomerates) [26, 27]. The size of these agglomerates is commonly quantified by their mobility and aerodynamic diameters [28] that vary significantly between materials and combustion sources and processes, as summarized in Table 1. The agglomerate porosity is determined by the effective density, ρeff, that is defined here as the ratio of the particle mass and equivalent mobility volume and is just a fraction of the material bulk density, ρb [28, 29]. The small agglomerate ρeff affects the gravitational settling, inertial impaction and diffusion of NPs [30] and thus affects their lung deposition and dosimetry.

Table 1 Count Median (CMD), Mass Median Mobility (MMMD), Mass Median Aerodynamic (MMAD) diameters, median ρeff and bulk density, ρb, used in the Multiple-Path Particle Dosimetry (MPPD) model for the estimation of deposited NP mass
Full size table

In nanotoxicology research, both in vivo animal studies as well as in vitro cellular approaches are employed to assess potential toxicological endpoints [31, 32]. Particle lung deposition models such as the Multiple-Path Particle Dosimetry (MPPD) [33, 34] and International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) [35] models, are often used to determine the lung deposited dose using the airborne exposure levels of inhaled NPs. For example, MPPD has been recently used by the authors and others to derive the inhaled dose of ambient particulate matter [36,37,38], BC [39, 40], wood smoke [41], titania [42], ceria [31, 43], micro- and nanoplastics [44], nano-enabled products [45], printer emitted particles [46, 47] and e-cigarette [48] emissions using ρb rather than ρeff. From the calculated in vivo lung-deposited dose, the in vitro administered dose can also be back-calculated using in vitro particle-kinetic dosimetry models, as described in detail by the authors in previous publications [3, 31, 45, 49, 50]. It should be noted that the effective density for in vitro particle dosimetry is defined as the density of the formed agglomerate in a culture medium [49, 50].

For simplicity, MPPD is commonly employed using ρb which can differ significantly from the ρeff. [31, 38, 39]. This oversimplification may limit though the accuracy of MPPD calculations for various environmental and engineered NPs that form agglomerates with small ρeff [26]. For example, the total deposited mass of ceria NPs measured in mice was overestimated by MPPD using the ceria ρb by up to a factor of two [43]. Similarly, the mass of diesel BC deposited in the human respiratory system obtained using ρb (1 g/cm3) was a factor of two larger than that derived using the measured ρeff [51].

In this regard, the development and commercialization of aerosol particle mass (APM) analyzers have enabled the accurate measurement of the NP ρeff [52,53,54,55]. During APM measurements, NPs pass through an electric field between two rotating cylindrical electrodes. By adjusting the electric field potential and the rotating electrode angular velocity, the particle mass [52], volume fraction [56] and consequently ρeff [57] can be measured. It should be noted that APM is well suited for characterization of NP agglomerates, but its accuracy is not well established for elongated particles (e.g. fibers or tubes). For example, the alignment of such particles in an external electric field [58] can result in measurement errors up to 7% [59]. In addition to the APM analyzers, ρeff can be also measured using electrical low pressure [60] or hypersonic impactors [61] and time-of-flight mass spectrometers [62]. The agglomerate ρeff can be obtained also in vivo by fitting the MPPD simulations to the measured lung burden [63].

So, APM analyzers have been used to obtain the ρeff of environmental NPs, including wood smoke [64], BC emissions from diesel [57, 65], gasoline [66, 67] and marine [68] engines, as well as that of engineered nanomaterials (e.g. carbon black [69], silica [70], zirconia [71]). The ρeff measured that way has facilitated the derivation and validation of advanced computational models [72] for the particle morphology [26], light absorption [73, 74], scattering [75, 76] and even climate impact [77].

Here, APM is used to demonstrate how to measure the ρeff of model environmental NPs, namely, aircraft-like BC from enclosed jet fuel combustion [78]. The aircraft BC ρeff obtained here, as well as those of other model NPs obtained from the literature for diesel BC [65], wood smoke [64], silica [70] and zirconia [71] (summarized in Table 1) are used in MPPD to determine the error from dose calculations derived using the commonly used pristine material bulk density. The deposited mass distributions derived using ρeff are validated with experimental data of human exposure diesel BC emissions [65] and compared to those obtained commonly in the literature using ρb.

Results and discussion

Effective density of environmental and engineered NPs

Figure 1 shows the ρeff measured for various model NPs such as aircraft (squares, this work) or diesel BC (circles [65]), wood smoke (diamonds [64]), silica (triangles [70]) and zirconia (inverse triangles [71]) as a function of their mobility diameter, dm. The raw ρeff data presented in Fig. 1 have been obtained for NP agglomerates with distinct dm. The NP ρeff decreases up to a factor of about four with increasing dm due to their fractal-like, agglomerate morphology, which is consistent with theoretical [26] and empirical [79] power laws derived for agglomerates. The ρeff of zirconia NPs is up to factor of two larger than those of BC, wood smoke and silica due to their larger ρb (see Table 1). Similarly, the ρeff measured here for aircraft BC is up to a factor of 1.4 smaller than that of diesel BC and wood smoke NP agglomerates having the same dm. The bulk density, ρb, is practically the same for aircraft, diesel BC and wood smoke primary particles (Table 1). So, this ρeff difference can be attributed to the diameter of about 28 nm of diesel BC [65] and wood smoke [64] primary particles that is 50% larger than the diameter of aircraft BC primary particles (12 nm [78]). This is consistent with theoretical power laws showing that ρeff increases with the primary particle diameter [26]. It is worth noting that the ρeff presented here for environmental and engineered NPs is up to an order of magnitude smaller than the respective ρb.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Effective density, ρeff, as a function of the mobility diameter, dm, measured for aircraft (squares) or diesel BC (circles [65]), wood smoke (diamonds [64]), silica (triangles [70]) and zirconia (inverse triangles [71]) NPs

Full size image

Using the measured ρeff along with the entire mobility size distribution, one can obtain the overall NP mass median mobility diameter (MMMD), as well as the mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD; see Methods). The latter is essential for the estimation of the NP lung deposition and dose. Even though zirconia NPs have larger ρeff compared to silica (Fig. 1), their dm obtained from the entire size distribution is about 30% smaller. This explains the MMMD of silica NPs that is 27% larger than that of zirconia ones. Table 1 summarizes the count median diameter (CMD), MMMD, MMAD, ρb and ρeff of agglomerates having MMAD and MMMD for all NPs used in this study. For example, diesel BC agglomerates with MMAD = 152.8 nm and MMMD = 349.5 nm have ρeff = 0.28 g/cm3, which is within the ρeff = 0.96–0.26 g/cm3 measured for agglomerates with dm = 50–368 nm (Fig. 1: circles [65]).

Lung deposition calculations and validation of MPPD dosimetric calculations with human experimental data using ρ eff

Lung deposition of inhaled NPs was simulated using MPPD with realistic ρeff (Fig. 2) and validated with measurements for the case of diesel BC [65]. The deposited mass fractions derived here by MPPD accounting for the realistic ρeff of diesel BC are in excellent agreement with the measured ones, validating the MPPD simulations presented in this work. In particular, Fig. 2 compares the mass fraction of deposited diesel BC as a function of its dm derived by MPPD using ρeff (line) to those measured from 9 human subjects exposed to the exhaust of a real diesel engine (symbols [65]). These data were obtained using the dm distributions measured in the inhaled and exhaled air. The ρeff used in MPPD is varied with dm using Eq. 2 (see Methods) with mass-mobility exponent and prefactor derived by fitting Eq. 2 to the ρeff measured for diesel BC (see Additional file 1: Table S1). At this size range, the deposition of diesel BC particles by diffusion, inertial impaction and gravitational settling decreases with increasing dm [80, 81], reducing the total deposited mass fraction.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Mass fraction of deposited diesel BC NPs measured (symbols [65]) or estimated by MPPD (line) as a function of dm

Full size image

Impact of ρ b and ρ eff on lung deposition dose calculations

The deposited mass of environmental and engineered NPs in the respiratory tract of humans (Fig. 3) and mice (Fig. 4) was calculated using the MPPD model with the measured ρeff (filled bars) or ρb (open bars) under the same input parameters. It is worth noting that MPPD, like any other model, has its own limitations and more studies are needed to validate the model for the various conditions and animal models. In humans (Fig. 3), using ρb rather than ρeff results in an overestimation of the total deposited mass by a factor of about two for all environmental and engineered NPs investigated here. Neglecting the realistic agglomerate ρeff affects also the regional distribution of the deposited mass. For example, using ρb in MPPD overestimates the deposited mass of aircraft BC in the head human airways by just 17.1%. However, the deposited aircraft BC mass in the tracheobronchial and pulmonary regions is overestimated using ρb by 74.4 and 80.2%, respectively.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Mass of deposited NPs in the head, tracheobronchial (TB), pulmonary (P) and total region of the human respiratory tract derived by MPPD for a 40-h exposure to a aircraft, b diesel BC, c wood smoke, d silica or e zirconia NPs using ρb (open bars) or the measured ρeff (filled bars). The total inhaled dose is 180 µg

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Mass of deposited NPs in the head, TB, P and total region of the mouse respiratory tract derived by MPPD for a 40-h exposure to a aircraft, b diesel BC, c wood smoke, d silica or e zirconia NPs using ρb (open bars) or the measured ρeff (filled bars). The total inhaled dose is 1.2 µg

Full size image

The overestimation of the deposited mass of NPs can be attributed to the enhancement of the particle inertial impaction in the TB and pulmonary regions when large ρb is used instead of the realistic ρeff [30]. It should be noted that gravitational settling hardly contributes to the density effects observed here (Additional file 1: Fig. S1). So, the ρb is commonly assumed in literature estimations of inhaled NP deposition and dosimetry when the realistic ρeff is either not known, or for the purpose of simplifying the calculations [38, 39, 43]. This can however lead to significant error in the NP deposition calculation, as is shown here.

Figure 3 shows that most of the particles are deposited in the tracheobronchial (TB) and pulmonary (P) regions of the human respiratory system, where the deposition is governed by diffusion, inertial impaction and gravitational settling [80,81,82]. Therefore, the largest deposited mass was obtained for zirconia NPs. These NPs are described by small MMAD compared to those of diesel BC and wood smoke which enhances their deposition by diffusion [80, 82]. Moreover, zirconia NPs are described by high ρb and ρeff compared to those of aircraft BC and silica, which further enhance their inertial impaction [30]. In the head airways of the human respiratory system, only few particles are deposited in all cases, where this is done by an impaction mechanism [80, 81, 83].

The impact of ρeff on the estimation of the NP deposited dose is similar for both human and mouse models, as shown in Fig. 4. So, neglecting the realistic ρeff and calculating with ρb instead results in an overestimation of the total NP deposited mass in mouse lungs by up to a factor of about two. The largest mass deposited in the TB and pulmonary regions is obtained here for zirconia, consistent with the masses derived for zirconia NPs inhaled by humans (Fig. 3).

In summary, Table 2 shows the total mass of deposited NPs in the human and mouse respiratory tracts derived by MPPD using ρb or ρeff. The overestimation of the total deposited mass by a factor of 1.5–2 obtained here using MPPD with ρb is consistent with those reported in literature for engineered [43] and environmental [51] NPs. Clearly, the dose of inhaled engineered and environmental NPs can be overestimated substantially by MPPD using ρb, limiting the assessment of their impact on pulmonary [8, 9] and cardiovascular diseases [12,13,14,15].

Table 2 Total mass of deposited aircraft, diesel BC, wood smoke, silica and zirconia NPs in the human and mouse respiratory tracts derived by MPPD using ρb or ρeff. The total inhaled dose is 180 and 1.2 µg for human and mouse, respectively
Full size table

Furthermore, Fig. 5 shows the distribution across the respiratory system of the deposited mass fraction of inhaled aircraft BC NPs by humans (a) and mice (b) derived here by MPPD using ρb (open bars) or ρeff (filled bars). The deposited mass fraction is obtained by normalizing the mass deposited in the head, TB or pulmonary region of the tract with respect to the total deposited mass. Accounting for the realistic ρeff of aircraft BC reduces its inertial impaction in all regions of the human or mouse respiratory tract and does not alter significantly the distribution of the deposited mass fractions. The distributions of the deposited mass fractions derived here for diesel BC, wood smoke, silica and zirconia are similar to those obtained for aircraft BC and presented in Additional file 1: Fig. S2.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Fraction of deposited mass in the head, TB and P region of the a human and b mouse respiratory tract derived by MPPD for a 40-h exposure to aircraft BC using ρb (open bars) or the measured ρeff (filled bars)

Full size image

Conclusions

In sum, the error in NP lung deposition dose calculations which is derived using the ρb rather than the actual ρeff of NPs was assessed here using a variety of model environmental and engineered NPs. As shown, the ρeff measured here for aircraft black carbon (BC) NPs using an APM is one order of magnitude smaller than ρb and follows closely those measured in literature for diesel BC [65], wood smoke [64], silica [70] and zirconia [71]. It was shown that the MPPD-derived mass fraction of diesel BC NPs deposited in the human lungs is in excellent agreement with experimental data [65], validating the importance of using the realistic ρeff rather than the commonly used ρb.

More importantly, it was shown that using ρb and neglecting the realistic porous structure of environmental and engineered NPs results in an overestimation of their deposited mass by a factor of about two. This can be attributed to the NP inertial impaction that is overestimated by MPPD using ρb instead of ρeff. This may explain similar discrepancies reported in literature for ceria [43] and diesel BC [51] NPs and highlights the role of ρeff in the modeling of lung deposition of NPs. So, the use of realistic ρeff in lung deposition models is essential to determine the dose of inhaled NPs, enabling the accurate assessment of their impact on human health.

Methods

Synthesis of aircraft-like BC NPs and measurement of their size and effective density

Aircraft-like BC NPs were generated here by enclosed spray combustion of jet A fuel at an effective equivalence ratio of 1.77 [78]. The morphology, composition, nanostructure and primary particle size distribution of the BC NPs emitted by the present reactor (Additional file 1: Fig. S3) are in excellent agreement with those measured from real aircraft engines [84, 85]. So, the aircraft-like BC produced here was sampled using a straight tube and rapidly diluted by a factor of about 65 [71]. The diluted aerosol was directed to a scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) made of a differential mobility analyzer (Model 3081, TSI Inc.) coupled with a condensation particle counter (Model 3775, TSI Inc.) [71]. The CMD and MMMD of the dm distribution obtained by SMPS are given in Table 1. The mass, m, of the sampled aerosol was also measured by interfacing an aerosol particle mass (APM, Model APM-3600, Kanomax) analyzer with the SMPS [86]. That way, the ρeff can be derived from first principles [28]:

$$\rho_{eff} = \frac{m}{{\frac{\pi }{6}d_{m}^{3} }}$$
(1)

The NP agglomerate ρeff measured this way decreases with dm based on a power law [87]:

$$\rho_{eff} = \frac{6k}{\pi }d_{m}^{D_{fm} - 3}$$
(2)

where k and Dfm are the mass-mobility prefactor and exponent, respectively. The NP agglomerate k and Dfm were derived by fitting Eq. 2 to the data shown in Fig. 1 (Additional file 1: Table S1). So, ρeff can be estimated for any dm using Eq. 2 and the fitted k and Dfm. MMAD was derived based on the measured MMMD and ρeff [87, 88]:

$${\text{MMAD}} = {\text{MMMD}} \sqrt {\frac{{\rho_{eff} C_{C} \left( {{\text{MMMD}}} \right)}}{{\rho_{o} C_{C} \left( {{\text{MMAD}}} \right)}}}$$
(3)

where \(\rho_{o}\) = 1 g/cm3 is the unitary density and CC is the Cunningham slip correction factor [80]:

$$C_{C} \left( d \right) = 1 + \frac{2\lambda }{d}\left( {1.257 + 0.4\exp ( - 0.78d/\lambda } \right)$$
(4)

where d = MMMD or MMAD and λ = 66 nm is the gas mean free path at room temperature [80]. The MMAD was obtained for aircraft BC NPs generated here, as well as for the diesel BC [65], wood smoke [64], silica [70] and zirconia [71] NPs using ρeff and dm distribution data available in the literature (Table 1).

Simulation of NP deposition in the respiratory system using MPPD model

The MPPD model (V3.04) was used here to simulate the deposition of inhaled engineered and environmental NPs in the lung airway from the head to the alveolar region [33, 34, 89, 90]. MPPD calculations for humans were done using the Yeh/Schum symmetric model [91] with a functional residual capacity of 3300 mL and head volume of 50 mL [92]. The nasal respiratory rate (RR) was set to 12 breaths/minute, the tidal volume (TV) to 625 mL and the inspiratory fraction to 0.5 [92]. MPPD calculations were also done for mice using the mouse BALB/c model [33] with body weight of 30 g [93]. The RR of 224 breaths/min and TV of 0.22 mL derived for mice using the allometric scaling equations of Guyton et al. [94] and Piccione et al. [95], respectively, were used for input into MPPD. The functional residual capacity (FRC) of 0.3 mL was used to be consistent with the measured range of 0.20–0.43 mL [96]. The upper respiratory tract (URT) volume of 0.0322 mL used here is the default MPPD value, which is based on experimental measurements [93] and is commonly utilized in MPPD simulations [97, 98]. Both humans and mice were assumed to be exposed to a particle concentration of 0.01 mg/m3 at “upright” and “on stomach” body orientations, respectively. The latter is consistent with in vivo conscious animal studies [99]. The mass concentration of 0.01 mg/m3 is the proposed PM2.5 limit by United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [100]. It should be noted that PM2.5 contains larger particles than those investigated here that are largely contained in the PM0.1 aerodynamic size fraction. In this regard, the mass concentration of PM0.1 emissions from the combustion sources investigated here are often much larger than the EPA PM2.5 limit used here. For example, mass concentrations of 3.3–26, 0.6–0.8 and 0.004–0.5 mg/m3 have been measured from pinewood [24], diesel [101], and jet fuel [102] combustion, respectively. The MPPD parameters are summarized in Additional file 1: Table S2. The inhaled NPs were assumed to be monodisperse having the measured MMAD and ρeff (Table 1) or the constant bulk densities, ρb = 1.8, 1.7, 2.2 and 5.7 g/cm3 for BC, wood smoke, silica and zirconia, respectively. The wood smoke ρb is obtained based on the measured organic carbon content and empirical ρb relations [74]. The deposited mass is calculated from the MPPD-derived regional deposited mass rate per minute (µg/min) by integrating over 40 h of exposure (equivalent to 8 h per day, 5 days per week), as previously described by Bitounis et al. [10]. It is worth noting that MPPD, despite its wide use in the nanotoxicology domain, has its own limitations (like any other available inhalation dosimetry model) and further validation studies related to its proposed conditions and animal models will be useful in advancing the dosimetry field.

The impact of the ρeff variation with dm on the MPPD calculations was also investigated here. To this end, the lung deposition of aircraft BC was simulated assuming monodisperse particles with MMAD, as well as accounting for their polydispersity by discretizing their dm distribution into 10 bins (Additional file 1: Table S3) using Eq. 2 with k, Dfm derived by fitting Eq. 2 to the ρeff measured for aircraft BC (Additional file 1: Table S1). Accounting for the geometric standard deviation of the mobility size distribution, as well as for the ρeff variation with dm decreased the total deposited mass just by 6% (Additional file 1: Fig. S4). Therefore, the lung deposition of inhaled NPs can be estimated rather accurately neglecting their polydispersity.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information file.

Abbreviations

APM:

Aerosol particle mass analyzer

BC:

Black carbon

CMD:

Count median diameter

EPA:

United States Environmental Protection Agency

ICRP:

International Commission on Radiological Protection

MMAD:

Mass median aerodynamic diameter

MMMD:

Mass median mobility diameter

MPPD:

Multiple-path particle dosimetry model

NPs:

Nanoparticles

P:

Pulmonary

PM:

Particulate matter

SMPS:

Scanning mobility particle sizer

TB:

Tracheobronchial

C C :

Cunningham slip correction factor

d :

Diameter (nm)

d m :

Mobility diameter (nm)

m :

Mass (kg)

λ :

Gas mean free path (nm)

ρ o :

Unitary density (1 g/cm3)

ρ b :

Bulk density (g/cm3)

ρ eff :

Effective density (g/cm3)

References

  1. Sotiriou GA, Singh D, Zhang F, Chalbot M-CG, Spielman-Sun E, Hoering L, Kavouras IG, Lowry GV, Wohlleben W, Demokritou P. Thermal decomposition of nano-enabled thermoplastics: possible environmental health and safety implications. J Hazard Mater. 2016;305:87–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Singh D, Marrocco A, Wohlleben W, Park H-R, Diwadkar AR, Himes BE, Lu Q, Christiani DC, Demokritou P. Release of particulate matter from nano-enabled building materials (NEBMs) across their lifecycle: potential occupational health and safety implications. J Hazard Mater. 2022;422:126771.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pirela SV, Miousse IR, Lu X, Castranova V, Thomas T, Qian Y, Bello D, Kobzik L, Koturbash I, Demokritou P. Effects of laser printer–emitted engineered nanoparticles on cytotoxicity, chemokine expression, reactive oxygen species, DNA methylation, and DNA damage: a comprehensive in vitro analysis in human small airway epithelial cells, macrophages, and lymphoblasts. Environ Health Perspect. 2016;124:210–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pirela SV, Sotiriou GA, Bello D, Shafer M, Bunker KL, Castranova V, Thomas T, Demokritou P. Consumer exposures to laser printer-emitted engineered nanoparticles: a case study of life-cycle implications from nano-enabled products. Nanotoxicology. 2015;9:760–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sohal IS, O’Fallon KS, Gaines P, Demokritou P, Bello D. Ingested engineered nanomaterials: state of science in nanotoxicity testing and future research needs. Part Fibre Toxicol. 2018;15:1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Oberdörster G, Oberdörster E, Oberdörster J. Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environ Health Perspect. 2005;113:823–39.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Oberdörster G, Maynard A, Donaldson K, Castranova V, Fitzpatrick J, Ausman K, Carter J, Karn B, Kreyling W, Lai D. Principles for characterizing the potential human health effects from exposure to nanomaterials: elements of a screening strategy. Part Fibre Toxicol. 2005;2:1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sager TM, Castranova V. Surface area of particle administered versus mass in determining the pulmonary toxicity of ultrafine and fine carbon black: comparison to ultrafine titanium dioxide. Part Fibre Toxicol. 2009;6:1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Choi HS, Ashitate Y, Lee JH, Kim SH, Matsui A, Insin N, Bawendi MG, Semmler-Behnke M, Frangioni JV, Tsuda A. Rapid translocation of nanoparticles from the lung airspaces to the body. Nat Biotechnol. 2010;28:1300–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Bitounis D, Huang Q, Toprani SM, Setyawati MI, Oliveira N, Wu Z, Tay CY, Ng KW, Nagel ZD, Demokritou P. Printer center nanoparticles alter the DNA repair capacity of human bronchial airway epithelial cells. NanoImpact. 2022;25:100379.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Ardona HAM, Zimmerman JF, Shani K, Kim S-H, Eweje F, Bitounis D, Parviz D, Casalino E, Strano M, Demokritou P. Differential modulation of endothelial cytoplasmic protrusions after exposure to graphene-family nanomaterials. NanoImpact. 2022;26:100401.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Stampfl A, Maier M, Radykewicz R, Reitmeir P, Gottlicher M, Niessner R. Langendorff heart: a model system to study cardiovascular effects of engineered nanoparticles. ACS Nano. 2011;5:5345–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mills NL, Donaldson K, Hadoke PW, Boon NA, MacNee W, Cassee FR, Sandström T, Blomberg A, Newby DE. Adverse cardiovascular effects of air pollution. Nat Clin Pract Cardiovasc Med. 2009;6:36–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Carll AP, Salatini R, Pirela SV, Wang Y, Xie Z, Lorkiewicz P, Naeem N, Qian Y, Castranova V, Godleski JJ. Inhalation of printer-emitted particles impairs cardiac conduction, hemodynamics, and autonomic regulation and induces arrhythmia and electrical remodeling in rats. Part Fibre Toxicol. 2020;17:1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sotiriou GA, Diaz E, Long MS, Godleski J, Brain J, Pratsinis SE, Demokritou P. A novel platform for pulmonary and cardiovascular toxicological characterization of inhaled engineered nanomaterials. Nanotoxicology. 2012;6:680–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. DeLoid GM, Cao X, Coreas R, Bitounis D, Singh D, Zhong W, Demokritou P. Incineration-generated polyethylene micro-nanoplastics increase triglyceride lipolysis and absorption in an in vitro small intestinal epithelium model. Environ Sci Technol. 2022;56:12288–97.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Cao X, Khare S, DeLoid GM, Gokulan K, Demokritou P. Co-exposure to boscalid and TiO2 (E171) or SiO2 (E551) downregulates cell junction gene expression in small intestinal epithelium cellular model and increases pesticide translocation. NanoImpact. 2021;22:100306.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Toprani SM, Bitounis D, Huang Q, Oliveira N, Ng KW, Tay CY, Nagel ZD, Demokritou P. High-throughput screening platform for nanoparticle-mediated alterations of DNA repair capacity. ACS Nano. 2021;15:4728–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Bazina L, Bitounis D, Cao X, DeLoid GM, Parviz D, Strano MS, Lin H-YG, Bell DC, Thrall BD, Demokritou P. Biotransformations and cytotoxicity of graphene and inorganic two-dimensional nanomaterials using simulated digestions coupled with a triculture in vitro model of the human gastrointestinal epithelium. Environ Sci Nano. 2021;8:3233–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Jaffe DA, O’Neill SM, Larkin NK, Holder AL, Peterson DL, Halofsky JE, Rappold AG. Wildfire and prescribed burning impacts on air quality in the United States. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2020;70:583–615.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Jacob DJ, Winner DA. Effect of climate change on air quality. Atmospheric Environ. 2009;43:51–63.

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kelesidis GA, Pratsinis SE. A perspective on gas-phase synthesis of nanomaterials: process design, impact and outlook. Chem Eng J. 2021;421:129884.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Bond TC, Doherty SJ, Fahey DW, Forster PM, Berntsen T, DeAngelo BJ, Flanner MG, Ghan S, Kärcher B, Koch D. Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: a scientific assessment. J Geophys Res Atmos. 2013;118:5380–552.

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Singh D, Tassew DD, Nelson J, Chalbot M-CG, Kavouras IG, Demokritou P, Tesfaigzi Y. Development of an integrated platform to assess the physicochemical and toxicological properties of wood combustion particulate matter. Chem Res Toxicol. 2022;35:1541–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Singh D, Tassew DD, Nelson J, Chalbot M-CG, Kavouras IG, Tesfaigzi Y, Demokritou P. Physicochemical and toxicological properties of wood smoke particulate matter as a function of wood species and combustion condition. J Hazard Mater. 2023;441:129874.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kelesidis GA, Goudeli E, Pratsinis SE. Morphology and mobility diameter of carbonaceous aerosols during agglomeration and surface growth. Carbon. 2017;121:527–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Beltran-Huarac J, Zhang Z, Pyrgiotakis G, DeLoid G, Vaze N, Demokritou P. Development of reference metal and metal oxide engineered nanomaterials for nanotoxicology research using high throughput and precision flame spray synthesis approaches. NanoImpact. 2018;10:26–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. DeCarlo PF, Slowik JG, Worsnop DR, Davidovits P, Jimenez JL. Particle morphology and density characterization by combined mobility and aerodynamic diameter measurements. Part 1: theory. Aerosol Sci Technol. 2004;38:1185–205.

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Schmid O, Karg E, Hagen DE, Whitefield PD, Ferron GA. On the effective density of non-spherical particles as derived from combined measurements of aerodynamic and mobility equivalent size. J Aerosol Sci. 2007;38:431–43.

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Spyrogianni A, Karadima KS, Goudeli E, Mavrantzas VG, Pratsinis SE. Mobility and settling rate of agglomerates of polydisperse nanoparticles. J Chem Phys. 2018;148:064703.

    Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Demokritou P, Gass S, Pyrgiotakis G, Cohen JM, Goldsmith W, McKinney W, Frazer D, Ma J, Schwegler-Berry D, Brain J. An in vivo and in vitro toxicological characterisation of realistic nanoscale CeO2 inhalation exposures. Nanotoxicology. 2013;7:1338–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Cohen JM, DeLoid GM, Demokritou P. A critical review of in vitro dosimetry for engineered nanomaterials. Nanomedicine. 2015;10:3015–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Asgharian B, Price O, Oldham M, Chen L-C, Saunders E, Gordon T, Mikheev VB, Minard KR, Teeguarden JG. Computational modeling of nanoscale and microscale particle deposition, retention and dosimetry in the mouse respiratory tract. Inhal Toxicol. 2014;26:829–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Anjilvel S, Asgharian B. A multiple-path model of particle deposition in the rat lung. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1995;28:41–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Human respiratory tract model for radiological protection. A report of a task group of the international commission on radiological protection. Ann ICRP. 1994;24:1–482.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Oh H-J, Min Y, Kim J. Exposure to long-range transported particulate matter and modeling age-related particle deposition. Environ Sci Pollut. 2021;28:69286–300.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Wang H, Yin P, Fan W, Wang Y, Dong Z, Deng Q, Zhou M. Mortality risk associated with short-term exposure to particulate matter in China: estimating error and implication. Environ Sci Technol. 2020;55:1110–21.

    Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Man R, Wu Z, Zong T, Voliotis A, Qiu Y, Größ J, van Pinxteren D, Zeng L, Herrmann H, Wiedensohler A. Impact of water uptake and mixing state on submicron particle deposition in the human respiratory tract (HRT) based on explicit hygroscopicity measurements at HRT-like conditions. Atmospheric Chem Phys. 2022;22:12387–99.

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Qiu Z, Wang X, Liu Z, Luo J. Quantitative assessment of cyclists’ exposure to PM and BC on different bike lanes. Atmospheric Pollut Res. 2022;13:101588.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Hammer T, Gao H, Pan Z, Wang J. Relationship between aerosols exposure and lung deposition dose. Aerosol Air Qual Res. 2020;20:1083–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hammer T, Fissan H, Wang J. Determination of the delivered dose of nanoparticles in the trachea-bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung. NanoImpact. 2019;14:100162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Ling M-P, Chio C-P, Chou W-C, Chen W-Y, Hsieh N-H, Lin Y-J, Liao C-M. Assessing the potential exposure risk and control for airborne titanium dioxide and carbon black nanoparticles in the workplace. Environ Sci Pollut. 2011;18:877–89.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Dekkers S, Ma-Hock L, Lynch I, Russ M, Miller MR, Schins RP, Keller J, Römer I, Küttler K, Strauss V. Differences in the toxicity of cerium dioxide nanomaterials after inhalation can be explained by lung deposition, animal species and nanoforms. Inhal Toxicol. 2018;30:273–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Cary CM, Seymore TN, Singh D, Vayas KN, Goedken MJ, Adams S, Polunas M, Sunil VR, Laskin DL, Demokritou P. Single inhalation exposure to polyamide micro and nanoplastic particles impairs vascular dilation without generating pulmonary inflammation in virgin female Sprague Dawley rats. Part Fibre Toxicol. 2023;20:1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Pal AK, Watson CY, Pirela SV, Singh D, Chalbot M-CG, Kavouras I, Demokritou P. Linking exposures of particles released from nano-enabled products to toxicology: an integrated methodology for particle sampling, extraction, dispersion, and dosing. Toxicol Sci. 2015;146:321–33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Pirela SV, Bhattacharya K, Wang Y, Zhang Y, Wang G, Christophi CA, Godleski J, Thomas T, Qian Y, Orandle MS. A 21-day sub-acute, whole-body inhalation exposure to printer-emitted engineered nanoparticles in rats: exploring pulmonary and systemic effects. NanoImpact. 2019;15:100176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Pirela SV, Lu X, Miousse I, Sisler JD, Qian Y, Guo N, Koturbash I, Castranova V, Thomas T, Godleski J. Effects of intratracheally instilled laser printer-emitted engineered nanoparticles in a mouse model: a case study of toxicological implications from nanomaterials released during consumer use. NanoImpact. 2016;1:1–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Avino P, Scungio M, Stabile L, Cortellessa G, Buonanno G, Manigrasso M. Second-hand aerosol from tobacco and electronic cigarettes: Evaluation of the smoker emission rates and doses and lung cancer risk of passive smokers and vapers. Sci Total Environ. 2018;642:137–47.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. DeLoid GM, Cohen JM, Pyrgiotakis G, Demokritou P. Preparation, characterization, and in vitro dosimetry of dispersed, engineered nanomaterials. Nat Protoc. 2017;12:355–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. DeLoid GM, Cohen JM, Darrah T, Derk R, Rojanasakul L, Pyrgiotakis G, Wohlleben W, Demokritou P. Estimating the effective density of engineered nanomaterials for in vitro dosimetry. Nat Commun. 2014;5:3514.

    Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Wierzbicka A, Nilsson PT, Rissler J, Sallsten G, Xu Y, Pagels JH, Albin M, Österberg K, Strandberg B, Eriksson A. Detailed diesel exhaust characteristics including particle surface area and lung deposited dose for better understanding of health effects in human chamber exposure studies. Atmospheric Environ. 2014;86:212–9.

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Ehara K, Hagwood C, Coakley KJ. Novel method to classify aerosol particles according to their mass-to-charge ratio—aerosol particle mass analyser. J Aerosol Sci. 1996;27:217–34.

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Charvet A, Bau S, Paez Coy NE, Bémer D, Thomas D. Characterizing the effective density and primary particle diameter of airborne nanoparticles produced by spark discharge using mobility and mass measurements (tandem DMA/APM). J Nanopart Res. 2014;16:1–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Wang J, Bahk YK, Chen S-C, Pui DY. Characteristics of airborne fractal-like agglomerates of carbon nanotubes. Carbon. 2015;93:441–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Park K, Cao F, Kittelson DB, McMurry PH. Relationship between particle mass and mobility for diesel exhaust particles. Environ Sci Technol. 2003;37:577–83.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Kelesidis GA, Pratsinis SE. Determination of the volume fraction of soot accounting for its composition and morphology. Proc Combust Inst. 2021;38:1189–96.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Olfert J, Symonds J, Collings N. The effective density and fractal dimension of particles emitted from a light-duty diesel vehicle with a diesel oxidation catalyst. J Aerosol Sci. 2007;38:69–82.

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Kim SH, Zachariah MR. In-flight kinetic measurements of the aerosol growth of carbon nanotubes by electrical mobility classification. J Phys Chem B. 2006;110:4555–62. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp0541718.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Kim SH, Mulholland GW, Zachariah MR. Density measurement of size selected multiwalled carbon nanotubes by mobility-mass characterization. Carbon. 2009;47:1297–302.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Maricq MM, Xu N. The effective density and fractal dimension of soot particles from premixed flames and motor vehicle exhaust. J Aerosol Sci. 2004;35:1251–74.

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Hering SV, Stolzenburg MR. On-line determination of particle size and density in the nanometer size range. Aerosol Sci Technol. 1995;23:155–73.

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Spencer MT, Shields LG, Prather KA. Simultaneous measurement of the effective density and chemical composition of ambient aerosol particles. Environ Sci Technol. 2007;41:1303–9.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Oberdörster G, Kuhlbusch TA. In vivo effects: Methodologies and biokinetics of inhaled nanomaterials. NanoImpact. 2018;10:38–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Leskinen J, Ihalainen M, Torvela T, Kortelainen M, Lamberg H, Tiitta P, Jakobi G, Grigonyte J, Joutsensaari J, Sippula O. Effective density and morphology of particles emitted from small-scale combustion of various wood fuels. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48:13298–306.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Rissler J, Swietlicki E, Bengtsson A, Boman C, Pagels J, Sandström T, Blomberg A, Löndahl J. Experimental determination of deposition of diesel exhaust particles in the human respiratory tract. J Aerosol Sci. 2012;48:18–33.

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Momenimovahed A, Olfert J. Effective density and volatility of particles emitted from gasoline direct injection vehicles and implications for particle mass measurement. Aerosol Sci Technol. 2015;49:1051–62.

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Quiros DC, Hu S, Hu S, Lee ES, Sardar S, Wang X, Olfert JS, Jung HS, Zhu Y, Huai T. Particle effective density and mass during steady-state operation of GDI, PFI, and diesel passenger cars. J Aerosol Sci. 2015;83:39–54.

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Trivanovic U, Corbin JC, Baldelli A, Peng W, Yang J, Kirchen P, Miller JW, Lobo P, Gagné S, Rogak SN. Size and morphology of soot produced by a dual-fuel marine engine. J Aerosol Sci. 2019;138:105448.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Wang M, Mei J, You X. Effect of potassium chloride addition on soot formation during ethylene pyrolysis in a flow reactor. Combust Flame. 2021;223:118–26.

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Kelesidis GA, Furrer FM, Wegner K, Pratsinis SE. Impact of humidity on silica nanoparticle agglomerate morphology and size distribution. Langmuir. 2018;34:8532–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Goudeli E, Gröhn AJ, Pratsinis SE. Sampling and dilution of nanoparticles at high temperature. Aerosol Sci Technol. 2016;50:591–604.

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Kelesidis GA, Goudeli E, Pratsinis SE. Flame synthesis of functional nanostructured materials and devices: surface growth and aggregation. Proc Combust Inst. 2017;36:29–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Kelesidis GA, Pratsinis SE. Soot light absorption and refractive index during agglomeration and surface growth. Proc Combust Inst. 2019;37:1177–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Kelesidis GA, Bruun CA, Pratsinis SE. The impact of organic carbon on soot light absorption. Carbon. 2021;172:742–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Kelesidis GA, Kholghy MR, Zuercher J, Robertz J, Allemann M, Duric A, Pratsinis SE. Light scattering from nanoparticle agglomerates. Powder Technol. 2020;365:52–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Kelesidis GA, Crepaldi P, Allemann M, Duric A, Pratsinis SE. The mobility diameter of soot determines its angular light scattering distribution. Combust Flame. 2022:112476.

  77. Kelesidis GA, Neubauer D, Fan L-S, Lohmann U, Pratsinis SE. Enhanced light absorption and radiative forcing by black carbon agglomerates. Environ Sci Technol. 2022;56:8610–8.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Kelesidis GA, Nagarkar A, Trivanovic U, Pratsinis SE. Toward elimination of soot emissions from jet fuel combustion. Environ Sci Technol. 2023;57:10276–83.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Olfert J, Rogak S. Universal relations between soot effective density and primary particle size for common combustion sources. Aerosol Sci Technol. 2019;53:485–92.

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Hinds WC, Zhu Y. Aerosol technology: properties, behavior, and measurement of airborne particles. Wiley; 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Taulbee DB, Yu C. A theory of aerosol deposition in the human respiratory tract. J Appl Physiol. 1975;38:77–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Hofmann W, Golser R, Balashazy I. Inspiratory deposition efficiency of ultrafine particles in a human airway bifurcation model. Aerosol Sci Technol. 2003;37:988–94.

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Cheng YS. Aerosol deposition in the extrathoracic region. Aerosol Sci Technol. 2003;37:659–71.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Trivanovic U, Kelesidis GA, Pratsinis SE. High-throughput generation of aircraft-like soot. Aerosol Sci Technol. 2022;56:732–43.

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Trivanovic U, Martins MP, Benz S, Kelesidis GA, Pratsinis SE. Dynamics of soot surface growth and agglomeration by enclosed spray combustion of jet fuel. Fuel. 2023;342:127864.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Eggersdorfer ML, Gröhn AJ, Sorensen C, McMurry PH, Pratsinis SE. Mass-mobility characterization of flame-made ZrO2 aerosols: primary particle diameter and extent of aggregation. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2012;387:12–23.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Sipkens TA, Boies A, Corbin JC, Chakrabarty RK, Olfert J, Rogak SN. Overview of methods to characterize the mass, size, and morphology of soot. J Aerosol Sci. 2023;173:106211.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. McMurry PH, Wang X, Park K, Ehara K. The relationship between mass and mobility for atmospheric particles: a new technique for measuring particle density. Aerosol Sci Technol. 2002;36:227–38.

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Price O, Asgharian B, Miller F, Cassee F, de Winter-Sorkina R. Multiple Path Particle Dosimetry model (MPPD v1. 0): a model for human and rat airway particle dosimetry. RIVM rapport 650010030. 2002.

  90. Asgharian B, Hofmann W, Bergmann R. Particle deposition in a multiple-path model of the human lung. Aerosol Sci Technol. 2001;34:332–9.

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Yeh H-C, Schum G. Models of human lung airways and their application to inhaled particle deposition. Bull Math Biol. 1980;42:461–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Martin J, Bello D, Bunker K, Shafer M, Christiani D, Woskie S, Demokritou P. Occupational exposure to nanoparticles at commercial photocopy centers. J Hazard Mater. 2015;298:351–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Gross EA, Swenberg JA, Fields S, Popp J. Comparative morphometry of the nasal cavity in rats and mice. J Anat. 1982;135:83.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Guyton AC. Measurement of the respiratory volumes of laboratory animals. Am J Physiol Legacy. 1947;150:70–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Piccione G, Caola G, Mortola JP. Scaling the daily oscillations of breathing frequency and skin temperature in mammals. Comp Biochem Physiol Part A Mol Integr Physiol. 2005;140:477–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. De Vleeschauwer SI, Rinaldi M, De Vooght V, Vanoirbeek JA, Vanaudenaerde BM, Verbeken EK, Decramer M, Gayan-Ramirez GN, Verleden GM, Janssens W. Repeated invasive lung function measurements in intubated mice: an approach for longitudinal lung research. Lab Anim. 2011;45:81–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Jew K, Herr D, Wong C, Kennell A, Morris-Schaffer K, Oberdörster G, O’Banion MK, Cory-Slechta DA, Elder A. Selective memory and behavioral alterations after ambient ultrafine particulate matter exposure in aged 3xTgAD Alzheimer’s disease mice. Part Fibre Toxicol. 2019;16:1–17.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. Herr D, Jew K, Wong C, Kennell A, Gelein R, Chalupa D, Raab A, Oberdörster G, Olschowka J, O’Banion MK. Effects of concentrated ambient ultrafine particulate matter on hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease in the 3xTgAD mouse model. Neurotoxicology. 2021;84:172–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. Glaab T, Daser A, Braun A, Neuhaus-Steinmetz U, Fabel H, Alarie Y, Renz H. Tidal midexpiratory flow as a measure of airway hyperresponsiveness in allergic mice. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol. 2001;280:L565–73.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. EPA: National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM. https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs-pm (2023). Accessed May 15 2023.

  101. Zhang J, Fan X, Graham L, Chan TW, Brook JR. Evaluation of an annular denuder system for carbonaceous aerosol sampling of diesel engine emissions. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2013;63:87–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2012.739582.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Jonsdottir HR, Delaval M, Leni Z, Keller A, Brem BT, Siegerist F, Schönenberger D, Durdina L, Elser M, Burtscher H. Non-volatile particle emissions from aircraft turbine engines at ground-idle induce oxidative stress in bronchial cells. Commun Biol. 2019;2:90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This research was funded by EPHEDRA grant no. 1R01ES033250-01A1, CEED NIEHS Center grant no. P30 ES005022, and in part by the Particle Technology Laboratory, ETH Zurich and the Swiss National Science Foundation (200020_182668, 250320_163243 and 206021_170729).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nanoscience and Advanced Materials Center (NAMC), Environmental and Occupational Health Science Institute, School of Public Health, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 170 Frelinghuysen Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA

    Denisa Lizonova, Philip Demokritou & Georgios A. Kelesidis

  2. Particle Technology Laboratory, Department of Mechanical and Process Engineering, Institute of Process Engineering, ETH Zürich, Sonneggstrasse 3, 8092, Zurich, Switzerland

    Amogh Nagarkar & Georgios A. Kelesidis

Authors
  1. Denisa Lizonova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amogh Nagarkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Philip Demokritou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Georgios A. Kelesidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

DL: MPPD calculations, manuscript preparation, preparation of figures. AN: effective density measurements. PD: conceptualization, funding, manuscript preparation. GAK: conceptualization, research project supervision, manuscript preparation, funding.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Georgios A. Kelesidis.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:

Supplementary Information including Figure S1. Mass of deposited NPs in the head, TB, P and total region of the human respiratory tract derived by MPPD for a 40-h exposure to aircraft black carbon using the bulk or the measured effective density and gravitational constants of 9.81 (a) or 0 m/s (b); Figure S2. Fraction of deposited mass in the head, TB and P region of the human and mouse respiratory tract derived by MPPD for a 40-h exposure to a-b diesel BC, c-d woodsmoke, e-f silica and g-h zirconia using the bulk or the measured effective density; Figure S3. Schematic of the experimental set up for preparation of aircraft black carbon nanoparticles from enclosed spray combustion of jet fuel; Figure S4. Mass of deposited aircraft black carbon nanoparticles in the human respiratory tract derived by MPPD for a 40-h exposure based on one bin or the mass-weighted average of 10 bins used to discretize the mobility size distribution of aircraft black carbon; Table S1. Summary of the massmobility prefactor and exponent derived by fitting Eq. 2 to the measured effective densities shown in Fig. 1; Table S2. Summary of parameters used for the particle deposition calculations for humans and mice using the MPPD model (V3.04); Table S3. Count Median Diameter, Mass Median Aerodynamic Diameter, bin median effective density and mass fraction of aircraft black carbon having a mobility size distribution discretized into 10 bins.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lizonova, D., Nagarkar, A., Demokritou, P. et al. Effective density of inhaled environmental and engineered nanoparticles and its impact on the lung deposition and dosimetry. Part Fibre Toxicol 21, 7 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12989-024-00567-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12989-024-00567-9

Keywords

Particle and Fibre Toxicology

ISSN: 1743-8977

Contact us