BACKGROUND: There is currently a need to develop and test in vitro systems for predicting the toxicity of nanoparticles. One challenge is to determine the actual cellular dose of nanoparticles after exposure. METHODS: In this study, human epithelial lung cells (A549) were exposed to airborne Cu particles at the air-liquid interface (ALI). The cellular dose was determined for two different particle sizes at different deposition conditions, including constant and pulsed Cu aerosol flow. RESULTS: Airborne polydisperse particles with a geometric mean diameter (GMD) of 180 nm [geometric standard deviation (GSD) 1.5, concentration 10(5) particles/mL] deposited at the ALI yielded a cellular dose of 0.4-2.6 μg/cm(2) at pulsed flow and 1.6-7.6 μg/cm(2) at constant flow. Smaller polydisperse particles in the nanoregime (GMD 80 nm, GSD 1.5, concentration 10(7) particles/mL) resulted in a lower cellular dose of 0.01-0.05 μg/cm(2) at pulsed flow, whereas no deposition was observed at constant flow. Exposure experiments with and without cells showed that the Cu particles were partly dissolved upon deposition on cells and in contact with medium. CONCLUSIONS: Different cellular doses were obtained for the different Cu particle sizes (generated with different methods). Furthermore, the cellular doses were affected by the flow conditions in the cell exposure system and the solubility of Cu. The cellular doses of Cu presented here are the amount of Cu that remained on the cells after completion of an experiment. As Cu particles were partly dissolved, Cu (a nonnegligible contribution) was, in addition, present and analyzed in the nourishing medium present beneath the cells. This study presents cellular doses induced by Cu particles and demonstrates difficulties with deposition of nanoparticles at the ALI and of partially soluble particles.
BACKGROUND: There is currently a need to develop and test in vitro systems for predicting the toxicity of nanoparticles. One challenge is to determine the actual cellular dose of nanoparticles after exposure. METHODS: In this study, human epithelial lung cells (A549) were exposed to airborne Cu particles at the air-liquid interface (ALI). The cellular dose was determined for two different particle sizes at different deposition conditions, including constant and pulsed Cu aerosol flow. RESULTS: Airborne polydisperse particles with a geometric mean diameter (GMD) of 180 nm [geometric standard deviation (GSD) 1.5, concentration 10(5) particles/mL] deposited at the ALI yielded a cellular dose of 0.4-2.6 μg/cm(2) at pulsed flow and 1.6-7.6 μg/cm(2) at constant flow. Smaller polydisperse particles in the nanoregime (GMD 80 nm, GSD 1.5, concentration 10(7) particles/mL) resulted in a lower cellular dose of 0.01-0.05 μg/cm(2) at pulsed flow, whereas no deposition was observed at constant flow. Exposure experiments with and without cells showed that the Cu particles were partly dissolved upon deposition on cells and in contact with medium. CONCLUSIONS: Different cellular doses were obtained for the different Cu particle sizes (generated with different methods). Furthermore, the cellular doses were affected by the flow conditions in the cell exposure system and the solubility of Cu. The cellular doses of Cu presented here are the amount of Cu that remained on the cells after completion of an experiment. As Cu particles were partly dissolved, Cu (a nonnegligible contribution) was, in addition, present and analyzed in the nourishing medium present beneath the cells. This study presents cellular doses induced by Cu particles and demonstrates difficulties with deposition of nanoparticles at the ALI and of partially soluble particles.
Authors: E Bitterle; E Karg; A Schroeppel; W G Kreyling; A Tippe; G A Ferron; O Schmid; J Heyder; K L Maier; T Hofer Journal: Chemosphere Date: 2006-06-09 Impact factor: 7.086
Authors: Gevdeep Bhabra; Aman Sood; Brenton Fisher; Laura Cartwright; Margaret Saunders; William Howard Evans; Annmarie Surprenant; Gloria Lopez-Castejon; Stephen Mann; Sean A Davis; Lauren A Hails; Eileen Ingham; Paul Verkade; Jon Lane; Kate Heesom; Roger Newson; Charles Patrick Case Journal: Nat Nanotechnol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 39.213
Authors: Ludwig K Limbach; Peter Wick; Pius Manser; Robert N Grass; Arie Bruinink; Wendelin J Stark Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2007-06-01 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Anke Gabriele Lenz; Erwin Karg; Bernd Lentner; Vlad Dittrich; Christina Brandenberger; Barbara Rothen-Rutishauser; Holger Schulz; George A Ferron; Otmar Schmid Journal: Part Fibre Toxicol Date: 2009-12-16 Impact factor: 9.400
Authors: Jose Zavala; Rebecca Greenan; Q Todd Krantz; David M DeMarini; Mark Higuchi; M Ian Gilmour; Paul A White Journal: Toxicol Res (Camb) Date: 2017-05-23 Impact factor: 3.524
Authors: Matthias Hufnagel; Ronja Neuberger; Johanna Wall; Martin Link; Alexandra Friesen; Andrea Hartwig Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2021-05-10 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: C R Svensson; S S Ameer; L Ludvigsson; N Ali; A Alhamdow; M E Messing; J Pagels; A Gudmundsson; M Bohgard; E Sanfins; M Kåredal; K Broberg; J Rissler Journal: J Nanopart Res Date: 2016-03-23 Impact factor: 2.253
Authors: Francesca Cappellini; Sebastiano Di Bucchianico; Venkatanaidu Karri; Siiri Latvala; Maria Malmlöf; Maria Kippler; Karine Elihn; Jonas Hedberg; Inger Odnevall Wallinder; Per Gerde; Hanna L Karlsson Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) Date: 2020-03-27 Impact factor: 5.076