Literature DB >> 22422174

Practical considerations for conducting ecotoxicity test methods with manufactured nanomaterials: what have we learnt so far?

Richard D Handy1, Nico van den Brink, Mark Chappell, Martin Mühling, Renata Behra, Maria Dušinská, Peter Simpson, Jukka Ahtiainen, Awadhesh N Jha, Jennifer Seiter, Anthony Bednar, Alan Kennedy, Teresa F Fernandes, Michael Riediker.   

Abstract

This review paper reports the consensus of a technical workshop hosted by the European network, NanoImpactNet (NIN). The workshop aimed to review the collective experience of working at the bench with manufactured nanomaterials (MNMs), and to recommend modifications to existing experimental methods and OECD protocols. Current procedures for cleaning glassware are appropriate for most MNMs, although interference with electrodes may occur. Maintaining exposure is more difficult with MNMs compared to conventional chemicals. A metal salt control is recommended for experiments with metallic MNMs that may release free metal ions. Dispersing agents should be avoided, but if they must be used, then natural or synthetic dispersing agents are possible, and dispersion controls essential. Time constraints and technology gaps indicate that full characterisation of test media during ecotoxicity tests is currently not practical. Details of electron microscopy, dark-field microscopy, a range of spectroscopic methods (EDX, XRD, XANES, EXAFS), light scattering techniques (DLS, SLS) and chromatography are discussed. The development of user-friendly software to predict particle behaviour in test media according to DLVO theory is in progress, and simple optical methods are available to estimate the settling behaviour of suspensions during experiments. However, for soil matrices such simple approaches may not be applicable. Alternatively, a Critical Body Residue approach may be taken in which body concentrations in organisms are related to effects, and toxicity thresholds derived. For microbial assays, the cell wall is a formidable barrier to MNMs and end points that rely on the test substance penetrating the cell may be insensitive. Instead assays based on the cell envelope should be developed for MNMs. In algal growth tests, the abiotic factors that promote particle aggregation in the media (e.g. ionic strength) are also important in providing nutrients, and manipulation of the media to control the dispersion may also inhibit growth. Controls to quantify shading effects, and precise details of lighting regimes, shaking or mixing should be reported in algal tests. Photosynthesis may be more sensitive than traditional growth end points for algae and plants. Tests with invertebrates should consider non-chemical toxicity from particle adherence to the organisms. The use of semi-static exposure methods with fish can reduce the logistical issues of waste water disposal and facilitate aspects of animal husbandry relevant to MMNs. There are concerns that the existing bioaccumulation tests are conceptually flawed for MNMs and that new test(s) are required. In vitro testing strategies, as exemplified by genotoxicity assays, can be modified for MNMs, but the risk of false negatives in some assays is highlighted. In conclusion, most protocols will require some modifications and recommendations are made to aid the researcher at the bench.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22422174      PMCID: PMC3325413          DOI: 10.1007/s10646-012-0862-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ecotoxicology        ISSN: 0963-9292            Impact factor:   2.823


  138 in total

Review 1.  Genotoxicological studies in aquatic organisms: an overview.

Authors:  Awadhesh N Jha
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2004-08-18       Impact factor: 2.433

2.  Understanding the nanoparticle-protein corona using methods to quantify exchange rates and affinities of proteins for nanoparticles.

Authors:  Tommy Cedervall; Iseult Lynch; Stina Lindman; Tord Berggård; Eva Thulin; Hanna Nilsson; Kenneth A Dawson; Sara Linse
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2007-01-31       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Tolerance of Oocystis nephrocytioides to copper: intracellular distribution and extracellular complexation of copper.

Authors:  Diana Soldo; Renata Hari; Laura Sigg; Renata Behra
Journal:  Aquat Toxicol       Date:  2005-01-20       Impact factor: 4.964

4.  Size and dynamics of the Vibrio cholerae porins OmpU and OmpT probed by polymer exclusion.

Authors:  Guillaume Duret; Anne H Delcour
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2010-05-19       Impact factor: 4.033

Review 5.  Marine invertebrate eco-genotoxicology: a methodological overview.

Authors:  David R Dixon; Audrey M Pruski; Linda R J Dixon; Awadhesh N Jha
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 3.000

6.  Induction of nuclear anomalies (micronuclei) in the peripheral blood erythrocytes of the eastern mudminnow Umbra pygmaea by ethyl methanesulphonate.

Authors:  R N Hooftman; W K de Raat
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1982-04       Impact factor: 2.433

7.  Titanium dioxide induced cell damage: a proposed role of the carboxyl radical.

Authors:  Nicholas J F Dodd; Awadhesh N Jha
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2008-11-01       Impact factor: 2.433

8.  Application of alkaline unwinding assay for detection of mutagen-induced DNA strand breaks.

Authors:  M Dusinská; D Slamenová
Journal:  Cell Biol Toxicol       Date:  1992 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 6.691

9.  Surfactive stabilization of multi-walled carbon nanotube dispersions with dissolved humic substances.

Authors:  Mark A Chappell; Aaron J George; Katerina M Dontsova; Beth E Porter; Cynthia L Price; Pingheng Zhou; Eizi Morikawa; Alan J Kennedy; Jeffery A Steevens
Journal:  Environ Pollut       Date:  2008-11-08       Impact factor: 8.071

10.  Toxicity of single walled carbon nanotubes to rainbow trout, (Oncorhynchus mykiss): respiratory toxicity, organ pathologies, and other physiological effects.

Authors:  Catherine J Smith; Benjamin J Shaw; Richard D Handy
Journal:  Aquat Toxicol       Date:  2007-02-11       Impact factor: 4.964

View more
  40 in total

1.  Multiple Method Analysis of TiO2 Nanoparticle Uptake in Rice (Oryza sativa L.) Plants.

Authors:  Yingqing Deng; Elijah J Petersen; Katie E Challis; Savelas A Rabb; R David Holbrook; James F Ranville; Bryant C Nelson; Baoshan Xing
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2017-08-25       Impact factor: 9.028

Review 2.  Bioavailability of silver nanoparticles and ions: from a chemical and biochemical perspective.

Authors:  Renata Behra; Laura Sigg; Martin J D Clift; Fabian Herzog; Matteo Minghetti; Blair Johnston; Alke Petri-Fink; Barbara Rothen-Rutishauser
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2013-07-24       Impact factor: 4.118

Review 3.  Analytical approaches to support current understanding of exposure, uptake and distributions of engineered nanoparticles by aquatic and terrestrial organisms.

Authors:  Carolin Schultz; Kate Powell; Alison Crossley; Kerstin Jurkschat; Peter Kille; A John Morgan; Daniel Read; William Tyne; Elma Lahive; Claus Svendsen; David J Spurgeon
Journal:  Ecotoxicology       Date:  2014-12-17       Impact factor: 2.823

4.  CeO2 nanoparticle fate in environmental conditions and toxicity on a freshwater predator species: a microcosm study.

Authors:  Agathe Bour; Florence Mouchet; Stéphanie Cadarsi; Jérôme Silvestre; David Baqué; Laury Gauthier; Eric Pinelli
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2017-06-05       Impact factor: 4.223

5.  Does the exposure mode to ENPs influence their toxicity to aquatic species? A case study with TiO2 nanoparticles and Daphnia magna.

Authors:  Beatrice Salieri; Andrea Pasteris; Jonas Baumann; Serena Righi; Jan Köser; Rosaria D'Amato; Benedetta Mazzesi; Juliane Filser
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2015-01-09       Impact factor: 4.223

6.  Fate and effects of metal-based nanoparticles in two marine invertebrates, the bivalve mollusc Scrobicularia plana and the annelid polychaete Hediste diversicolor.

Authors:  Catherine Mouneyrac; Pierre-Emmanuel Buffet; Laurence Poirier; Aurore Zalouk-Vergnoux; Marielle Guibbolini; Christine Risso-de Faverney; Douglas Gilliland; Déborah Berhanu; Agnieszka Dybowska; Amélie Châtel; Hanane Perrein-Ettajni; Jin-Fen Pan; Hélène Thomas-Guyon; Paul Reip; Eugénia Valsami-Jones
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2014-03-21       Impact factor: 4.223

7.  How should the completeness and quality of curated nanomaterial data be evaluated?

Authors:  Richard L Marchese Robinson; Iseult Lynch; Willie Peijnenburg; John Rumble; Fred Klaessig; Clarissa Marquardt; Hubert Rauscher; Tomasz Puzyn; Ronit Purian; Christoffer Åberg; Sandra Karcher; Hanne Vriens; Peter Hoet; Mark D Hoover; Christine Ogilvie Hendren; Stacey L Harper
Journal:  Nanoscale       Date:  2016-05-04       Impact factor: 7.790

8.  Strategies for robust and accurate experimental approaches to quantify nanomaterial bioaccumulation across a broad range of organisms.

Authors:  Elijah J Petersen; Monika Mortimer; Robert M Burgess; Richard Handy; Shannon Hanna; Kay T Ho; Monique Johnson; Susana Loureiro; Henriette Selck; Janeck J Scott-Fordsmand; David Spurgeon; Jason Unrine; Nico van den Brink; Ying Wang; Jason White; Patricia Holden
Journal:  Environ Sci Nano       Date:  2019

Review 9.  Nanomaterials in the aquatic environment: A European Union-United States perspective on the status of ecotoxicity testing, research priorities, and challenges ahead.

Authors:  Henriette Selck; Richard D Handy; Teresa F Fernandes; Stephen J Klaine; Elijah J Petersen
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 3.742

Review 10.  Toxicity of engineered nanoparticles in the environment.

Authors:  Melissa A Maurer-Jones; Ian L Gunsolus; Catherine J Murphy; Christy L Haynes
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2013-03-07       Impact factor: 6.986

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.