Literature DB >> 26417332

Gebel-criteria for risk assessment in nanotoxicology.

Seddik Hammad1, Ahmed M Abdou1, Mosaab A Omar2.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Year:  2014        PMID: 26417332      PMCID: PMC4464467     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  EXCLI J        ISSN: 1611-2156            Impact factor:   4.068


× No keyword cloud information.

Risk assessment of nanomaterials represents one of the cutting-edge topics in toxicology (Zhao et al., 2014[25]; Lucafo et al., 2013[16]; Fadeel et al., 2013[5]; Kroll et al., 2012[12]; Kim et al., 2012[10]; Hadrup et al., 2012[7]; Lange and Obendorf, 2012[15]; Xu et al., 2013[24]). Numerous nanomaterial containing consumer products have already been introduced on the market, including textiles, sunscreens, paints, car tyres and electronics (Bolt et al., 2012[2]; Kumar and Dhawan, 2013[13]; Schluesener and Schluesener, 2013[20]; Marchan, 2012[17]). The number of manuscripts published in this field is high, with more 500 publications focusing on nanosafety-associated topics per year (Bolt et al., 2012[2]; Schäfer et al., 2013[19]; Horie et al., 2013[9]; Klein et al., 2012[11]; Hoelting et al., 2013[8]; Silva et al., 2014[21]). It has become clear that a detailed physical and chemical characterization of nanomaterials is required for risk evaluation (Park et al., 2013[18]; Xiong et al., 2013[23]; Zhao et al., 2013[26]; Couto et al., 2014[4]). Among the current challenges are the methodological requirements in exposure monitoring (Babic et al., 2014[1]; Lainé et al., 2014[14]; Su et al., 2014[22]; Bruchet et al., 2013[3]). Because of the enormous variability and the rapid development of novel materials it has become difficult for regulators to keep pace and maintain overview. In this complex situation the Advisory Board of the German Society of Toxicology introduced the Gebel-criteria, a novel concept of risk assessment in nanotoxicology (Gebel et al., 2014[6]). According to this concept, a first step in evaluating novel nanomaterials should be to check whether they belong to one of the three following categories: Nanoparticles for which toxicity is mediated by the specific chemical properties of its components, such as relaxed ions. Nanomaterials belonging to this category must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. are rigid biopersistent respirable fibrous nanomaterials. They may cause lung cancer and mesotheliomas, if they show a high aspect ratio. In this case they will act similarly as carcinogenic asbestos fibres. are respirable granular biodurable particles. After inhalation they may cause inflammation and finally lung cancer. It should be considered that nanomaterials of categories 2 and 3 are of relevance only after inhalation (Gebel et al., 2014[6]). Considering the complex situation in current nanotoxicology the introduction of the three ‘Gebel-criteria’ will facilitate risk assessment in future.
  25 in total

Review 1.  Magnetic nanoparticles: an update of application for drug delivery and possible toxic effects.

Authors:  Ji-Eun Kim; Ji-Young Shin; Myung-Haing Cho
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2011-11-11       Impact factor: 5.153

2.  Interference of engineered nanoparticles with in vitro toxicity assays.

Authors:  Alexandra Kroll; Mike Hendrik Pillukat; Daniela Hahn; Jürgen Schnekenburger
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2012-03-11       Impact factor: 5.153

3.  Monitoring and treatment of selected nanoparticles.

Authors:  A Bruchet; P Charles; M-L Janex Habibi; K Glucina
Journal:  Water Sci Technol       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 1.915

4.  Profiling the molecular mechanism of fullerene cytotoxicity on tumor cells by RNA-seq.

Authors:  Marianna Lucafò; Marco Gerdol; Alberto Pallavicini; Sabrina Pacor; Sonia Zorzet; Tatiana Da Ros; Maurizio Prato; Gianni Sava
Journal:  Toxicology       Date:  2013-10-12       Impact factor: 4.221

Review 5.  Manufactured nanomaterials: categorization and approaches to hazard assessment.

Authors:  Thomas Gebel; Heidi Foth; Georg Damm; Alexius Freyberger; Peter-Jürgen Kramer; Werner Lilienblum; Claudia Röhl; Thomas Schupp; Carsten Weiss; Klaus-Michael Wollin; Jan Georg Hengstler
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2014-10-19       Impact factor: 5.153

Review 6.  Nanosilver: application and novel aspects of toxicology.

Authors:  Jan K Schluesener; Hermann J Schluesener
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2013-01-24       Impact factor: 5.153

7.  Subacute oral toxicity investigation of nanoparticulate and ionic silver in rats.

Authors:  Niels Hadrup; Katrin Loeschner; Anders Bergström; Andrea Wilcks; Xueyun Gao; Ulla Vogel; Henrik L Frandsen; Erik H Larsen; Henrik R Lam; Alicja Mortensen
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2011-10-04       Impact factor: 5.153

8.  Comparison of toxicity between the different-type TiO₂ nanowires in vivo and in vitro.

Authors:  Eun-Jung Park; Hyun-Woo Shim; Gwang-Hee Lee; Jae-Ho Kim; Dong-Wan Kim
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2013-02-07       Impact factor: 5.153

Review 9.  Genotoxic and carcinogenic potential of engineered nanoparticles: an update.

Authors:  Ashutosh Kumar; Alok Dhawan
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2013-09-26       Impact factor: 5.153

10.  A 3-dimensional human embryonic stem cell (hESC)-derived model to detect developmental neurotoxicity of nanoparticles.

Authors:  Lisa Hoelting; Benjamin Scheinhardt; Olesja Bondarenko; Stefan Schildknecht; Marion Kapitza; Vivek Tanavde; Betty Tan; Qian Yi Lee; Stefan Mecking; Marcel Leist; Suzanne Kadereit
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2012-12-02       Impact factor: 5.153

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.