In vitro methods provide a key opportunity to model human-relevant exposure scenarios for hazard identification of inhaled toxicants. Compared to in vivo tests, in vitro methods have the advantage of assessing effects of inhaled toxicants caused by differences in dosimetry, e.g., variations in concentration (exposure intensity), exposure duration, and exposure frequency, in an easier way. Variations in dosimetry can be used to obtain information on adverse effects in human-relevant exposure scenarios that can be used for risk assessment. Based on the published literature of exposure approaches using air-liquid interface models of the respiratory tract, supplemented with additional experimental data from the EU H2020 project “PATROLS” and research funded by the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, the advantages and disadvantages of different exposure methods and considerations to design an experimental setup are summarized and discussed. As the cell models used are models for the respiratory epithelium, our focus is on the local effects in the airways. In conclusion, in order to generate data from in vitro methods for risk assessment of inhaled toxicants it is recommended that (1) it is considered what information really is needed for hazard or risk assessment; (2) the exposure system that is most suitable for the chemical to be assessed is chosen; (3) a deposited dose that mimics deposition in the human respiratory tract is used, and (4) the post-exposure sampling methodology should be carefully considered and relevant to the testing strategy used.
Keywords: NAMs; air-liquid interfact; experimental design; in vitro to in vivo extrapolation; inhalation exposure; respiratory toxicity.
The impact of airborne pollutants on human health is determined by what pollutant it is, how much we breathe in, for how long and how often. Testing in animals is cumbersome and results may not reflect human health impacts. Advanced cell models of the human lung allow prediction of the health impact of many different exposure scenarios. Here, we compare different models and exposure methods and provide criteria that may assist in designing experiments, interpreting the results, and thus assessing the risks posed by airborne pollutants. We recommend (1) determining what information is needed to plan the experiment, (2) choosing an exposure method that is suitable for the pollutant of interest, (3) determining the amount of pollutant that interacts with the human lung, to relate this to realistic deposition in the lung, and (4) considering the time between the exposure and measurement of the effect.