UKNDHN Plenary Workshop Summary
Check Points – please supply information on the following:
 Ed Derbyshire – single studies along Mediterranean of Saharan dust impact on Spain.
 Ed Derbyshire – Dale Griffin review paper.
 Ed Derbyshire – reference for Chinese Loess being of average crustal composition.
 Mike Moore – Science paper showing that bacteria spend some of life cycle in atmosphere
 Jon Ayres - EPSRC nanogroup – proceedings in Inhalation Toxicology
 Frank Kelly – Urban coarse particles oxidative potential - Dutch and London studies
 Ross Anderson – further information on WHO meeting in Bonn
 Ross Anderson -– World Bank modelling exercise to model global exposure to PM10 and PM2.5
 Ross Anderson – more information on group doing review on Asian studies.
 Bice Fubini – clarification regarding statement about quartz causing its own disease
 John Cherrie – new monitors in development
 Adam Durant – French group which mapped crustal particles.
 ?? – Nano Risk study (South Ken) – does it include natural particles?
 Ed sent through replies
 Mike Moore sent paper (28/7/08)
 Frank Kelly responded (28/7/08) saying that urban coarse particulate studies are still unpublished
so must be pers. Comm.. for now.
 Jon Ayres EPSRC nanogroup proceedings sent by Frank Kelly 28/7/08
 Adam Durant sent reply: 30/7/08 Claquin, T., et al. (1999), Modeling the mineralogy of
atmospheric dust sources, Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 104(D18), 22243-22256.
Key Questions
 What do we define as NMP?
 Do environmental exposure to natural mineral particles cause disease?
 Can we document the burden of ill health? If exposure not great then is there a problem?
 Should we use volcanic particles as a model for other NMP?
 How can we show that coarse fraction is as potent as toxicology indicates? Epidemiology
indicates that fine fraction is primary cause.
Ideas for Outcomes and recommendations
Research
 Review paper
o Formal systematic review of all studies – what is the health burden of NMP?
o Driver for future research
o Requires definition of our protocol (what do we include as NMP?)
 Toxicology and surface reactivity laboratory study following production of newly created ash
surfaces e.g. by explosive vesiculation in the laboratory (vesiculation experiments could be done
on dome rock at Prof. Don Dingwell’s labs in Munich … but how would we then immediately
look at surface reactivity and toxicity without ageing the dusts?)
 Epidemiological studies needed as currently the evidence is thin.
o Acute effects are a priority. Good location would be Canary Islands.
 Exposure investigation like World Bank modelling exercise but for coarse fraction.
 Assessment of best metrics of exposure (to be included in review paper?) and understanding of
why surface area techniques give such varying results
 Formation of a panel of particles which are toxicologically and mineralogically defined:
o a standard suite of respirable crustal minerals to be used as reference points
o a suite of simulated mixed dusts (average crustal composition?) to be used as standards
o
o
include effects of ageing
possibly include of endotoxins.
Recommendations
 Capacity to respond to environmental episodes – have a protocol in place for lab. analyses etc.
 Do nanoparticles exist in crustal emissions?
 We should set up a listserv.
 Future toxicological studies should incorporate mineralogical analysis so we can assess
structure/activity relationships