Several studies suggested that gold nanoparticles (NPs) could be genotoxic in vitro and in vivo. However, gold NPs have currently produced present a wide range of sizes and functionalization, which could affect their interactions with the environment or with biological structures and, thus, modify their toxic effects. In this study, we investigated the role of surface charge in determining the genotoxic potential of gold NPs, as measured by the induction of DNA damage (comet assay) and chromosomal damage (micronucleus assay) in human bronchial epithelial BEAS-2B cells. The cellular uptake of gold NPs was assessed by hyperspectral imaging. Two core sizes (~5 nm and ~20 nm) and three functionalizations representing negative (carboxylate), positive (ammonium), and neutral (poly(ethylene glycol); (PEG)ylated) surface charges were examined. Cationic ammonium gold NPs were clearly more cytotoxic than their anionic and neutral counterparts, but genotoxicity was not simply dependent on functionalization or size, since DNA damage was induced by 20-nm ammonium and PEGylated gold NPs, while micronucleus induction was increased by 5-nm ammonium and 20-nm PEGylated gold NPs. The 5-nm carboxylated gold NPs were not genotoxic, and evidence on the genotoxicity of the 20-nm carboxylated gold NPs was restricted to a positive result at the lowest dose in the micronucleus assay. When interpreting the results, it has to be taken into account that cytotoxicity limited the doses available for the ammonium-functionalized gold NPs and that gold NPs have earlier been described to interfere with the comet assay procedure, possibly resulting in a false positive result. In conclusion, our findings show that the cellular uptake and cytotoxicity of gold NPs are clearly enhanced by positive surface charge, but neither functionalization nor size can single-handedly account for the genotoxic effects of the gold NPs.

This study considers fundamental methods in occupational risk assessment of exposure to airborne engineered nanomaterials. We discuss characterization of particle emissions, exposure assessment, hazard assessment with in vitro studies, and risk range characterization using calculated inhaled doses and dose-response translated to humans from in vitro studies. Here, the methods were utilized to assess workers’ risk range of inhalation exposure to nanodiamonds (NDs) during handling and sieving of ND powder. NDs were agglomerated to over 500 nm particles, and mean exposure levels of different work tasks varied from 0.24 to 4.96 µg·m⁻³ (0.08 to 0.74 cm⁻³). In vitro-experiments suggested that ND exposure may cause a risk for activation of inflammatory cascade. However, risk range characterization based on in vitro dose-response was not performed because accurate assessment of delivered (settled) dose on the cells was not possible. Comparison of ND exposure with common pollutants revealed that ND exposure was below 5 μg·m⁻³, which is one of the proposed exposure limits for diesel particulate matter, and the workers’ calculated dose of NDs during the measurement day was 74 ng which corresponded to 0.02% of the modeled daily (24 h) dose of submicrometer urban air particles.

The utility of decision-making tools for the risk governance of nanotechnology is at the core of this paper. Those working in nanotechnology risk management have been prolific in creating such tools, many derived from European FP7 and H2020-funded projects. What is less clear is how such tools might assist the overarching ambition of creating a fair system of risk governance. In this paper, we reflect upon the role that tools might and should play in any system of risk governance. With many tools designed for the risk governance of this emerging technology falling into disuse, this paper provides an overview of extant tools and addresses their potential shortcomings. We also posit the need for a data readiness tool. With the EUs NMP13 family of research consortia about to report to the Commission on ways forward in terms of risk governance of this domain, this is a timely intervention on an important element of any risk governance system.