| Literature DB >> 24885440 |
Joel M Cohen, Justin G Teeguarden, Philip Demokritou1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a great need for screening tools capable of rapidly assessing nanomaterial toxicity. One impediment to the development of reliable in vitro screening methods is the need for accurate measures of cellular dose. We present here a methodology that enables accurate determination of delivered to cell dose metrics. This methodology includes (1) standardization of engineered nanomaterial (ENM) suspension preparation; (2) measurement of ENM characteristics controlling delivery to cells in culture; and (3) calculation of delivered dose as a function of exposure time using the ISDD model. The approach is validated against experimentally measured doses, and simplified analytical expressions for the delivered dose (Relevant In Vitro Dose (RID)f function) are derived for 20 ENMs. These functions can be used by nanotoxicologists to accurately calculate the total mass (RIDM), surface area (RIDSA), or particle number (RIDN) delivered to cells as a function of exposure time.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24885440 PMCID: PMC4024018 DOI: 10.1186/1743-8977-11-20
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Part Fibre Toxicol ISSN: 1743-8977 Impact factor: 9.400
Delivered dose metrics
| Al2O3 | 14.7 | 3.97 | 1.81 | 57 | 0.0213 | 108 | 0.0317 | 72.7 |
| CeO2 | 18.3 | 7.22 | 1.43 | 416 | 0.116 | 19.8 | 0.166 | 13.9 |
| CoO | 71.8 | 6.44 | 2.56 | 199 | 0.969 | 23.7 | 0.142 | 16.1 |
| Cr2O3 | 193 | 5.22 | 2.21 | 358 | 0.246 | 9.37 | 0.343 | 6.71 |
| Fe2O3 | 12.3 | 5.25 | 1.91 | 310 | 0.140 | 16.5 | 0.197 | 11.7 |
| Fe3O4 | 12 | 5.17 | 1.46 | 274 | 0.0470 | 49.0 | 0.0751 | 30.7 |
| Gd2O3 | 43.8 | 7.41 | 1.57 | 296 | 0.0730 | 31.5 | 0.112 | 20.6 |
| Mn2O3 | 28.4 | 5.00 | 1.81 | 304 | 0.118 | 19.4 | 0.169 | 13.6 |
| SiO2 | 13.5 | 2.65 | 1.30 | 40 | 0.0259 | 88.9 | 0.0406 | 56.7 |
| TiO2 | 12.6 | 3.90 | 1.36 | 276 | 0.0366 | 62.9 | 0.0582 | 39.6 |
| ZrO2 | 40.1 | 5.68 | 2.53 | 226 | 0.124 | 18.5 | 0.177 | 13.0 |
| Printex (carbon black) | 4.16 | 1.25 | 1.04 | 247 | 0.0126 | 183 | 0.0169 | 136 |
| Carbon Nanohorns | 20.3 | 1.25 | 1.02 | 261 | 0.0101 | 227 | 0.0139 | 166 |
| VENGES SiO2 | 18.6 | 2.65 | 1.11 | 136 | 0.0138 | 166 | 0.0195 | 118 |
| VENGES Fe2O3 | 27.6 | 5.245 | 1.52 | 380 | 0.117 | 19.6 | 0.167 | 13.8 |
| VENGES CeO2-A | 5.4 | 7.21 | 1.47 | 179 | 0.0288 | 80.0 | 0.0444 | 51.8 |
| VENGES CeO2-B | 27.9 | 7.21 | 1.62 | 181 | 0.0339 | 67.9 | 0.0525 | 43.8 |
| VENGES CeO2-C | 71.3 | 7.21 | 2.37 | 215 | 0.0991 | 23.2 | 0.145 | 15.9 |
| EVONIK SiO2 | 14 | 2.65 | 1.15 | 227 | 0.0203 | 113 | 0.0297 | 77.6 |
| Au Nanospheres | 20* | 19.3 | 17.7 | 42.2 | 0.0747 | 30.8 | 0.117 | 19.7 |
ρENM: material density (g/cm3); ρEV: agglomerate effective density (g/cm3); dH: hydrodynamic diameter (nm); α: deposition fraction constant, (h−1); and t90: time for delivery of 90% of administered dose (h), for each ENM-media-concentration-well plate combination. Appropriate α can be used to accurately estimate the fraction of administered dose delivered to cells for any given exposure duration (see Equation 10).
Figure 1Schematic Map for proposed integrated In Vitro Dosimetry Methodology. a, Proper dispersion preparation requires selection of appropriate sonication media (such as DI H2O for metal oxide ENMs), and sonication above the critical sonication energy required to break ENMs down to the smallest possible agglomerates that are stable over time. Characterization of dispersion characteristics including agglomerate diameter and agglomerate effective density allow for accurate modeling of particokinetics in vitro, and determination of delivered dose metrics and the deposition fraction constant. b, Relevant In Vitro Dose functions (RIDf) provide a simplified tool for nanotoxicologists to quickly estimate delivered dose values for the ENMs investigated in this manuscript. Selection of the appropriate deposition fraction constant (α, listed in Table 1), allows nanotoxicologists to directly calculate relevant in vitro doses (RID) for any exposure duration, including delivered ENM mass (RIDM, μg), delivered particle number (RIDN, #), and delivered surface area (RIDSA, cm2), using the equations listed below. t is exposure duration (h), γ is ENM mass concentration (μg/ml), V is media volume applied to cells (ml), rh is hydrodynamic radius (cm, listed in Table 1), and ρE is agglomerate effective density (g/cm3, listed in Table 1).
Figure 2Validation of dosimetry methodology for two metal oxide ENMs. a. Validation of dosimetry approach for CeO2 (dXRD=28.4 nm) suspended in DMEM; b. Validation of dosimetry approach for SiO2 coated CeO2 (dXRD=28.4 nm) suspended in DMEM. All experiments were done in triplicate, error bars represent standard deviation.
Figure 3Comparison of time required to deliver 90% of the administered dose (t ) in hours (h), calculated following the described dosimetry methodology, for all materials investigated in two well plate configurations.