Lack of standardized testing makes comparing Nano skin tests hard:
Nanoparticles in products, like cosmetics, are unlikely to penetrate the skin but are more likely to try to do so if the skin is broken, a replacement report has confirmed. However, it notes that the lack of standardized, validated methods and the use of varying testing protocols made it difficult to compare and evaluate results.
The study, commissioned by the EU Observatory for Nanomaterials and administered by a consortium of Dutch researchers, analyzed existing research on whether nanomaterials utilized in consumer products and in workplaces are absorbed through the skin. It found that nanomaterials are rarely absorbed through intact skin. However, it notes that silver ions from silver nanoparticles – often added for his or their antibacterial properties – may partly penetrate the skin.
The team recommends that any new studies on absorption should use tests on tissue in natural conditions (ex vivo), use human or pig skin (not rodent skin), and follow OECD guidelines.Andrew Maynard, director of the danger innovation lab at Arizona State University, points out that the report confirms what has been known for a decade – that there's little to suggest that healthy skin presents a big point of entry for engineered nanomaterials. But the report does ‘appropriately highlight’ challenges in comparing studies using different approaches and methodologies. ‘However, even with these challenges, there's minimal scientific evidence that healthy skin penetration presents a serious non-material risk,’ he adds.
Michael Roberts, professor of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics at the University of Queensland, wonders why the study, while commendable, doesn’t examine the considerable pharmaceutical and dermatology literature during this area. ‘All environmental, pharmaceutical, and nanotoxicological in vivo and ex vivo human skin studies are consistent in showing that nanoparticles rarely penetrate the skin’s outermost layer,’ he says. ‘There is additionally much research to point out that nanoparticles can undergo damaged and animal ex vivo skin which, when small ions are released from nanoparticles, they also penetrate human skin.’ this is often a property of the dissolved ions, however, rather a property specific to nanoparticles.
Richard Guy, professor of pharmaceutical sciences at the University of Bath, points out that intact human skin is a superb barrier. The evidence for nanoparticles being absorbed through the skin and causing harm or maybe for the delivery of medicine ‘is weak to non-existent unless the skin barrier is significantly compromised’. However, he thinks a ‘section of investigators’ will still believe this despite the evidence and this report.
Nanoparticles in products, like cosmetics, are unlikely to penetrate the skin but are more likely to try to do so if the skin is broken, a replacement report has confirmed. However, it notes that the lack of standardized, validated methods and the use of varying testing protocols made it difficult to compare and evaluate results.
The study, commissioned by the EU Observatory for Nanomaterials and administered by a consortium of Dutch researchers, analyzed existing research on whether nanomaterials utilized in consumer products and in workplaces are absorbed through the skin. It found that nanomaterials are rarely absorbed through intact skin. However, it notes that silver ions from silver nanoparticles – often added for his or their antibacterial properties – may partly penetrate the skin.
The team recommends that any new studies on absorption should use tests on tissue in natural conditions (ex vivo), use human or pig skin (not rodent skin), and follow OECD guidelines.
Andrew Maynard, director of the danger innovation lab at Arizona State University, points out that the report confirms what has been known for a decade – that there's little to suggest that healthy skin presents a big point of entry for engineered nanomaterials. But the report does ‘appropriately highlight’ challenges in comparing studies using different approaches and methodologies. ‘However, even with these challenges, there's minimal scientific evidence that healthy skin penetration presents a serious non-material risk,’ he adds.
Michael Roberts, professor of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics at the University of Queensland, wonders why the study, while commendable, doesn’t examine the considerable pharmaceutical and dermatology literature during this area. ‘All environmental, pharmaceutical, and nanotoxicological in vivo and ex vivo human skin studies are consistent in showing that nanoparticles rarely penetrate the skin’s outermost layer,’ he says. ‘There is additionally much research to point out that nanoparticles can undergo damaged and animal ex vivo skin which, when small ions are released from nanoparticles, they also penetrate human skin.’ this is often a property of the dissolved ions, however, rather a property specific to nanoparticles.
Richard Guy, professor of pharmaceutical sciences at the University of Bath, points out that intact human skin is a superb barrier. The evidence for nanoparticles being absorbed through the skin and causing harm or maybe for the delivery of medicine ‘is weak to non-existent unless the skin barrier is significantly compromised’. However, he thinks a ‘section of investigators’ will still believe this despite the evidence and this report.
.jpg)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment