It is well established that printers emit nanoparticles during their operation. To-date, however, the physicochemical and toxicological characterization of "real world" printer-emitted nanoparticles (PEPs) remains incomplete, hampering proper risk assessment efforts. Here, we investigate our earlier hypothesis that engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) are used in toners and ENMs are released during printing (consumer use). Furthermore, we conduct a detailed physicochemical and morphological characterization of PEPs in support of ongoing toxicological assessment. A comprehensive suite of state of the art analytical methods and tools was employed for the physicochemical and morphological characterization of 11 toners widely utilized in printers from major printer manufacturers and their PEPs. We confirmed that a number of ENMs incorporated into toner formulations (e.g. silica, alumina, titania, iron oxide, zinc oxide, copper oxide, cerium oxide, carbon black among others) and released into the air during printing. All evaluated toners contained large amounts of organic carbon (OC, 42-89%), metals/metal oxides (1-33%), and some elemental carbon (EC, 0.33-12%). The PEPs possess a composition similar to that of toner and contained 50-90% OC, 0.001-0.5% EC and 1-3% metals. While the chemistry of the PEPs generally reflected that of their toners, considerable differences are documented indicative of potential transformations taking place during consumer use (printing). We conclude that: (i) Routine incorporation of ENMs in toners classifies them as nano-enabled products (NEPs); (ii) These ENMs become airborne during printing; (iii) The chemistry of PEPs is complex and it reflects that of the toner and paper. This work highlights the importance of understanding life-cycle (LC) nano-EHS implications of NEPs and assessing real world exposures and associated toxicological properties rather than focusing on "raw" materials used in the synthesis of an NEP.
It is well established that printers emit nanoparpan class="Chemical">ticles during their operation. To-date, however, the physicochemical and toxicological characterization of "real world" printer-emitted nanoparticles (PEPs) remains incomplete, hampering proper risk assessment efforts. Here, we investigate our earlier hypothesis that engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) are used in toners and ENMs are released during printing (consumer use). Furthermore, we conduct a detailed physicochemical and morphological characterization of PEPs in support of ongoing toxicological assessment. A comprehensive suite of state of the art analytical methods and tools was employed for the physicochemical and morphological characterization of 11 toners widely utilized in printers from major printer manufacturers and their PEPs. We confirmed that a number of ENMs incorporated into toner formulations (e.g. silica, alumina, titania, iron oxide, zinc oxide, copper oxide, cerium oxide, carbon black among others) and released into the air during printing. All evaluated toners contained large amounts of organic carbon (OC, 42-89%), metals/metal oxides (1-33%), and some elementalcarbon (EC, 0.33-12%). The PEPs possess a composition similar to that of toner and contained 50-90% OC, 0.001-0.5% EC and 1-3% metals. While the chemistry of the PEPs generally reflected that of their toners, considerable differences are documented indicative of potential transformations taking place during consumer use (printing). We conclude that: (i) Routine incorporation of ENMs in toners classifies them as nano-enabled products (NEPs); (ii) These ENMs become airborne during printing; (iii) The chemistry of PEPs is complex and it reflects that of the toner and paper. This work highlights the importance of understanding life-cycle (LC) nano-EHS implications of NEPs and assessing real world exposures and associated toxicological properties rather than focusing on "raw" materials used in the synthesis of an NEP.
Authors: Dhimiter Bello; John Martin; Christopher Santeufemio; Qingwei Sun; Kristin Lee Bunker; Martin Shafer; Philip Demokritou Journal: Nanotoxicology Date: 2012-06-14 Impact factor: 5.913
Authors: Robert Landsiedel; Lan Ma-Hock; Thomas Hofmann; Martin Wiemann; Volker Strauss; Silke Treumann; Wendel Wohlleben; Sibylle Gröters; Karin Wiench; Bennard van Ravenzwaay Journal: Part Fibre Toxicol Date: 2014-04-04 Impact factor: 9.400
Authors: Aleksandr B Stefaniak; Ryan F LeBouf; Jinghai Yi; Jason Ham; Timothy Nurkewicz; Diane E Schwegler-Berry; Bean T Chen; J Raymond Wells; Matthew G Duling; Robert B Lawrence; Stephen B Martin; Alyson R Johnson; M Abbas Virji Journal: J Occup Environ Hyg Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: Marie-Cecile G Chalbot; Sandra V Pirela; Laura Schifman; Varun Kasaraneni; Vinka Oyanedel-Craver; Dhimiter Bello; Vincent Castranova; Yong Qian; Treye Thomas; Ilias G Kavouras; Philip Demokritou Journal: Environ Sci Nano Date: 2017-08-30
Authors: Sandra V Pirela; Xiaoyan Lu; Isabelle Miousse; Jennifer D Sisler; Yong Qian; Nancy Guo; Igor Koturbash; Vincent Castranova; Treye Thomas; John Godleski; Philip Demokritou Journal: NanoImpact Date: 2016-01-21
Authors: Jennifer D Sisler; Sandra V Pirela; Sherri Friend; Mariana Farcas; Diane Schwegler-Berry; Anna Shvedova; Vincent Castranova; Philip Demokritou; Yong Qian Journal: Nanotoxicology Date: 2014-11-11 Impact factor: 5.913