Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

To the Editors:

J. D. Brain, W. Kreyling, P. Gehr
European Respiratory Journal 2010 35: 226-227; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00159909
J. D. Brain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
W. Kreyling
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
P. Gehr
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

We are writing to express concern about the recent paper by Song et al. 1, which was published in a recent issue of the European Respiratory Journal. We read the paper with great interest, as it would constitute the first report of human nanoparticle-related disease and death. The title attracted our attention, as well as that of the international media: “Exposure to nanoparticles is related to pleural effusion, pulmonary fibrosis and granuloma.” Note the use of the word “is.” The title appears to state a fact. We object.

We write as individuals committed to the science of nanotoxicology. It is known that nanomaterials have unusual physical and chemical properties 2 and that these unusual characteristics, combined with the ever expanding use of nanomaterials, deserve careful investigation 3, 4. It is not the time for complacency. Serious methodical investigations of potential toxicity from nanoparticles and nanofibers are clearly warranted. We believe wholeheartedly in the cautionary principle and in providing the best possible data to protect workers and consumers.

This paper, however, draws premature conclusions and does not add objective evidence permitting us to evaluate the possibility of adverse health effects of nanoparticles in humans 1. We do not agree with the implied conclusion that it was nanoparticles which caused the pulmonary problems and the deaths of two workers. The study by Song et al. 1 clearly describes a primitive workplace characterised by a total lack of even the most rudimentary precautions. In the face of dangerous activities, including air spraying and curing polymers with heat, exposure controls were absent. Song et al. 1 state, “It is estimated that the air flow or turn over rates of indoor air would be very slow, or quiescent due to the lack of windows and the closed door”.

Moreover, adequate exposure assessment is utterly lacking. We are especially concerned about a variety of hazards in this workplace. Yes, there is some evidence for the existence of nanoparticles, but the list of chemicals and dusts to which these workers were exposed is extensive. Many chemicals were used in this space where ventilation was inadequate or even absent. During spraying and related procedures, indoor concentrations of a variety of toxic materials were probably very high. All seven females who worked there for 5–13 months had a variety of symptoms; there is convincing evidence of that. The title of this article should have read, “Poor working conditions cause pleural effusion, pulmonary fibrosis and granuloma”. It would have been appropriate if the presence of nanoparticles had been mentioned, and even speculations made that they may have contributed to the resulting pathology. But the current message that nanoparticle exposure is primarily responsible is not warranted. Song et al. 1 fail to provide any information about other respirable toxic agents which were inhaled both as solid aerosols and in the gas phase. Hence, the conclusion that nanoparticles are causally related to these pulmonary diseases is much too premature and scientifically not acceptable.

The outcome is certainly tragic and deserves the attention of the public and the international community of chest physicians, pneumologists and lung biologists. But this study primarily emphasises the importance of implementing appropriate industrial hygiene practices. It fails to provide evidence about unusual risks posed by nanoparticles. We simply do not know to what extent exposures to nanoparticles in this workplace contributed to the evident pulmonary pathology and to the documented unfortunate consequences.

We encourage careful studies of nanotoxicology, both in the laboratory and in the workplace. But we ask that excellent journals, such as the European Respiratory Journal, critically review papers like this. Eliciting concerns through provocative but unfounded titles and conclusions which are not justified by the data does not enhance the reputation of the European Respiratory Journal, its reviewers or its editors.

Statement of interest

A statement of interest for P. Gehr can be found at www.erj.ersjournals.commisc/statements.dtl

    • © ERS Journals Ltd

    References

    1. ↵
      Song Y, Li X, Du X. Exposure to nanoparticles is related to pleural effusion, pulmonary fibrosis, and granuloma. Eur Respir J 2009;34:559–567.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    2. ↵
      Haruta M. Size and support dependency in the catalysis of gold. Catalysis Today 1997;36:153–166.
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    3. ↵
      Nanoscience And Nanotechnologies: Opportunities And Uncertainties. The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. 2004. www.nanotec.org.uk/report/Nano%20report%202004%20fin.pdf
    4. ↵
      Brain JD, Curran MA, Donaghey T, et al. Biologic responses to nanomaterials depend on exposure, clearance, and material characteristics. Nanotoxicology 2009;3:174–180.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    View Abstract
    PreviousNext
    Back to top
    View this article with LENS
    Vol 35 Issue 1 Table of Contents
    European Respiratory Journal: 35 (1)
    • Table of Contents
    • Index by author
    Email

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    To the Editors:
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Print
    Citation Tools
    To the Editors:
    J. D. Brain, W. Kreyling, P. Gehr
    European Respiratory Journal Jan 2010, 35 (1) 226-227; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00159909

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero

    Share
    To the Editors:
    J. D. Brain, W. Kreyling, P. Gehr
    European Respiratory Journal Jan 2010, 35 (1) 226-227; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00159909
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    Full Text (PDF)

    Jump To

    • Article
      • Statement of interest
      • References
    • Info & Metrics
    • PDF
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Google Plus One

    More in this TOC Section

    • Clinical outcomes of bronchiectasis in India
    • Reply: Clinical outcomes of bronchiectasis in India
    • Risk factors for disease progression in fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis
    Show more Correspondence

    Related Articles

    Navigate

    • Home
    • Current issue
    • Archive

    About the ERJ

    • Journal information
    • Editorial board
    • Reviewers
    • Press
    • Permissions and reprints
    • Advertising

    The European Respiratory Society

    • Society home
    • myERS
    • Privacy policy
    • Accessibility

    ERS publications

    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS books online
    • ERS Bookshop

    Help

    • Feedback

    For authors

    • Instructions for authors
    • Publication ethics and malpractice
    • Submit a manuscript

    For readers

    • Alerts
    • Subjects
    • Podcasts
    • RSS

    Subscriptions

    • Accessing the ERS publications

    Contact us

    European Respiratory Society
    442 Glossop Road
    Sheffield S10 2PX
    United Kingdom
    Tel: +44 114 2672860
    Email: journals@ersnet.org

    ISSN

    Print ISSN:  0903-1936
    Online ISSN: 1399-3003

    Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society