Abiotic dissolution rates of 24 (nano)forms of 6 substances compared to macrophage-assisted dissolution and in vivo pulmonary clearance: Grouping by biodissolution and transformation

Abstract Numerous recent reviews have highlighted the urgent need for methods to determine the biodissolution of nanomaterials in relevant lung fluids, and to validate the results against the bioprocessing in vivo . Moreover, it is largely unknown to what extent (nano)forms of a substance that differ in size, shape, or coating also differ in biodissolution. Here we apply a previously optimized abiotic flow-through method to 24 (nano)forms of 6 substances and compare the results with alveolar macrophage-assisted biodissolution of a subset of these nanomaterials in vitro and short-term inhalation results in vivo . As a main result we found that the results obtained with the flow-through method for the lung were consistent to the results of in vivo studies and were not improved by measuring alveolar macrophage-assisted biodissolution for up to 48 h. Based on selected benchmark materials we propose four groups of materials according to quantitative biodissolution rates (1 ng/cm 2 /h to 100 ng/cm 2 /h cutoffs) and qualitative transformation parameters, as detected by TEM analysis. These groups were also reflected by different lung clearance rates, as previously determined in short term inhalation studies. Biodissolution was similar within substance (nano)forms of Fe 2 O 3 , SiO 2 , CeO 2 , ZnO, though slightly varied upon surface area/coating. But the difference of biodissolution between the substances was in some cases >1000-fold. Among the Cu-containing materials, the behavior of the two CuPhthalocyanin nanoforms was similar with each other, but completely different than the dissolution and transformation of Cu salts. Different production routes and/or surface coatings significantly modulated biodissolution, whereas effects of shape or size were limited. In summary, we refined a protocol for the abiotic determination of biodissolution along with an integrated assessment of nanomaterial transformation. The protocol is suggested as tier 2 methodology for grouping and read-across purposes.