A response to the letter to the editor by Driscoll et al.

Abstract

Abstract In response to the Letter to the Editor by Kevin Driscoll et al., we certainly agree that particle clearance halftimes are increased with increasing lung burden in rats, hamsters and mice, whereas complete inhibition of particle clearance has only been observed in rats, and only at high particle concentrations (50 mg/m3). Where we disagree with Kevin Driscoll and colleagues, is on the implications of the increased clearance halftimes observed at higher lung burden. We argue that it does not hamper the extrapolations from relatively high dose levels to lower dose levels. Furthermore, we highlight, again, the challenges of detecting particle-induced lung cancer in epidemiological studies where occupational, particle-induced lung cancer has to be detected on top of the background lung cancer incidence. Almost all available epidemiological studies on carbon black and titanium dioxide suffer from a number of limitations, including lack of control for smoking, the use of background population cancer rates as reference in the US studies, lack of information regarding particle size of the exposure, and incomplete follow-up for cause of death of the study population.

Keywords

• Chronic inhalation study
• Cancer
• Particle inhalation
• Risk assessment
• Nanoparticle
• Nanomaterial