Aerosol Dosimetry Research Needs
Aerosol Dosimetry Research Needs
复制标题
气溶胶剂量测定研究需求
DOI：
10.1080/08958370600748778
复制
发表时间：
2006
影响因子：
2.1
通讯作者：
Mark D. Hoover
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. Phalen;Mark D. Hoover
吸入毒理学，18：841-843，2006 c Taylor和弗朗西斯集团有限责任公司版权所有ISSN：0895-8378打印/ 1091-7691在线DOI：10.1080/08958370600748778气溶胶剂量学研究需求Robert F.美国加州尔湾市加州大学社区与环境医学系。Hoover Division of Respiratory Disease Studies，National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health，Morgantown，West Virginia，USA 2005年10月的Frontiers in Aerosol Dosimetry Research Conference汇集了来自12个不同国家的53个组织的95名专家，讨论了估计吸入气溶胶颗粒和气体的内部剂量的最新技术水平。大约三分之一的与会者来自大学，三分之一来自商业公司，三分之一来自政府/国家实验室，咨询公司和其他实体。在为期两天的会议结束时，这是在贝克曼中心的国家科学院对加州大学欧文分校，校园举行，与会者被邀请提交书面建议的高优先级的研究。提交了50多个建议项目，这些建议被分为32个具体专题，涵盖四大类。这里提供了经过编辑的建议摘要，从最常提到的主题开始。这些建议只是科学家个人优先事项的一个快照，并没有得到任何监管或资助机构的批准。剂量测定模型的发展和验证虽然现有的气溶胶沉积模型在数学上的优雅和提供有用的剂量预测的能力方面令人印象深刻，但仍提出了许多与其改进有关的建议：2006年3月20日收到; 2006年3月22日接受。会议得到了加州大学烟草相关疾病研究计划（TRDRP补助金13 ST-0176）、加州大学欧文分校研究和研究生办公室（CSP-2004-2005-5）以及疾病控制和预防中心/国家职业安全和健康研究所（200-2005-M-13183号命令）的财政支持。本文件中的调查结果和结论尚未由国家职业安全与健康研究所正式发布，不应被解释为代表任何机构的决定或政策。Susan Akhavan提供行政、编辑和手稿整理服务。这份简短的报告试图准确地整合并提出50多条书面建议，其中许多建议是重叠的。出于必要，大多数建议都经过了编辑，以使行文清晰统一。作者感谢参与者的贡献，并为任何不准确或可能歪曲提交建议的人的意图而道歉。写信给罗伯特·F. Phalen，空气污染健康影响实验室，社区和环境医学系，加州大学，欧文，CA 92697-1825，美国。E-mail：rfphalen@uci.edu 1.仔细检查过去和现在的颗粒沉积，保留和清除模型，以确定改进的需求以及开发和验证新模型的逻辑顺序。2.研究粒子沉积的基本理论（包括蒸发和整体行为等现象），并评估替代方法解释观测结果的能力。3.分析导致吸入颗粒沉积的基本现象（包括流动不稳定性和颗粒动力学等因素），特别是亚微米、非惯性状态。4.确定关于获得正确剂量评估的已知和未知内容（不仅仅是颗粒沉积预测），包括纳米颗粒的任何特殊保留或清除率。5.改进呼吸道中颗粒沉积的物理模拟，以提供更真实的生理条件。这种模拟应该包括以集成方式对呼吸道的所有区域（从鼻孔到远端肺泡）进行建模，而不是集中在孤立区域。6.为确定模型参数的相对重要性以及如何验证关键模型参数和模型建立科学依据。7.开发所有气道的更好的物理（中空）模型，并建立实验设计和原型，以验证体内颗粒吸入。8.对大叶粒子沉积模式的预测进行了验证。
Inhalation Toxicology, 18:841–843, 2006 c Taylor and Francis Group, LLC Copyright ISSN: 0895-8378 print / 1091-7691 online DOI: 10.1080/08958370600748778 Aerosol Dosimetry Research Needs Robert F. Phalen Department of Community and Environmental Medicine, University of California, Irvine, California, USA Mark D. Hoover Division of Respiratory Disease Studies, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA The October 2005 Frontiers in Aerosol Dosimetry Research Conference brought together 95 experts representing 53 orga- nizations from 12 different countries to discuss the state of the art in estimating internal doses from inhaled aerosol particles and gases. About one-third of the conference participants were from universities, one-third from commercial firms, and one- third from government/national laboratories, consulting firms, and other entities. At the end of the 2-day meeting, which was held at the Beckman Center of the National Academies on the University of California, Irvine, campus, attendees were invited to submit written suggestions for high-priority research. More than 50 suggested projects were submitted and the suggestions have been grouped into 32 specific topics covering four broad categories. An edited summary of the suggestions is provided here, starting with those topics most often noted. These sug- gestions are simply a snapshot of the priorities of individual scientists, and do not carry the approval of any regulatory or funding agency. DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF DOSIMETRY MODELS Although existing aerosol deposition models are impressive in their mathematical elegance and ability to provide useful dose predictions, many suggestions were offered that related to their improvement: Received 20 March 2006; accepted 22 March 2006. The conference was financially supported by the University of California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program (TRDRP grant 13ST-0176), the University of California, Irvine Office of Research and Graduate Studies (award CSP-2004-2005-5), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (order 200-2005-M-13183). The findings and con- clusions in this document have not been formally disseminated by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy. Susan Akhavan provided administrative, editorial, and manuscript prepara- tion services. This brief report represents an attempt to accurately in- tegrate and present more than 50 written suggestions, many of which overlapped. Of necessity, most of the suggestions have been edited in the interest of clarity and uniformity of style. The authors thank the participants for their contributions and apologize for any inaccuracies or possible distortion of the intent of those who submitted suggestions. Address correspondence to Robert F. Phalen, Air Pollution Health Effects Laboratory, Department of Community and Environmental Medicine, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-1825, USA. E-mail: rfphalen@uci.edu 1. Scrutinize past and present particle deposition, retention, and clearance models to identify needs for improvement and a logical sequence for developing and validating new models. 2. Study the fundamental theories of particle deposition (in- cluding phenomena such as evaporation and bulk behavior) and evaluate the alternative approaches for their ability to explain observations. 3. Analyze the basic phenomena responsible for the deposition of inhaled particles (including factors such as flow instability and particle dynamics), especially for the submicrometer, noninertial regime. 4. Ascertain what is known and what is unknown regarding ob- taining correct dose assessments (not just particle deposition predictions), including any special retention or clearance is- sues for nanoparticles. 5. Improve physical simulations of particle deposition in the respiratory tract to provide more realistic physiological con- ditions. Such simulations should include modeling all re- gions of the respiratory tract in an integrated fashion, from the nares to distal alveoli, instead of focusing on isolated regions. 6. Establish a scientific basis for determining the relative im- portance of model parameters and how the key model pa- rameters and models can be validated. 7. Develop better physical (hollow) models of all of the airways and establish experimental designs and proto- cols for their validation with respect to in vivo particle inhalation. 8. Validate the predictions of lobar particle deposition models.