| Literature DB >> 29029643 |
Glen M DeLoid1, Yanli Wang2, Klara Kapronezai2, Laura Rubio Lorente2, Roujie Zhang3, Georgios Pyrgiotakis2, Nagarjun V Konduru2, Maria Ericsson4, Jason C White5, Roberto De La Torre-Roche5, Hang Xiao3, David Julian McClements2,3, Philip Demokritou6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) are increasingly added to foods to improve their quality, sensory appeal, safety and shelf-life. Human exposure to these ingested ENMs (iENMS) is inevitable, yet little is known of their hazards. To assess potential hazards, efficient in vitro methodologies are needed to evaluate particle biokinetics and toxicity. These methodologies must account for interactions and transformations of iENMs in foods (food matrix effect) and in the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) that are likely to determine nano-biointeractions. Here we report the development and application of an integrated methodology consisting of three interconnected stages: 1) assessment of iENM-food interactions (food matrix effect) using model foods; 2) assessment of gastrointestinal transformations of the nano-enabled model foods using a three-stage GIT simulator; 3) assessment of iENMs biokinetics and cellular toxicity after exposure to simulated GIT conditions using a triculture cell model. As a case study, a model food (corn oil-in-water emulsion) was infused with Fe2O3 (Iron(III) oxide or ferric oxide) ENMs and processed using this three-stage integrated platform to study the impact of food matrix and GIT effects on nanoparticle biokinetics and cytotoxicity .Entities:
Keywords: Ingested engineered nanomaterial; Nanosafety; iENM nanotoxicology
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29029643 PMCID: PMC5640936 DOI: 10.1186/s12989-017-0221-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Part Fibre Toxicol ISSN: 1743-8977 Impact factor: 9.400
Fig. 1iENM in vitro studies overview: An overview of the integrated platform for studies of iENMs using simulated digestion of nano-enabled food model and biokinetics and toxicity studies using a triculture model of intestinal epithelium
Fig. 2Preparation of nano-enabled food model: Sequence of steps used to add ENM to an oil/water
Fig. 3GIT Simulator. Simulated digestion of nano-enabled food consists of (clockwise from top) a mouth, stomach and small intestinal phase
Fig. 5In vitro triculture intestinal epithelial cell culture model characterization. a triculture model schematic. b TEER over time. c Mucin and GP2 immunostain. d Sialyl Lewis A antigen and Galectin 9 staining. d Sialyl Lewis A antigen and Galectin 9 staining. e TEM of enterocyte. f TEM of M-cell. g TEM of goblet cell
Characterization of surface area and mean particle diameter of pristine Fe2O3 ENMs used in this study
| Material | SSA |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| VENGES Fe2O3 | 54.7±3.7 | 22.5±1.5 | 24.5 |
SSA (specific surface area) by nitrogen adsorption/Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) method, d BET, primary particle diameter determined from SSA, d XRD particle diameter as determined by X-ray diffraction, d TEM particle diameter as determined by TEM image analysis, d DLS particle diameter as determined by DLS
Fig. 4Characterization of nano-enabled food model and digestae: size distributions. a Size distributions of emulsion and nano-enabled emulsion digestae by DLS (hydrodynamic diameter dH, intensity-weighted). b Size distributions of emulsion and nano-enabled emulsion digestae by laser diffraction (d32, surface-weighted). distribution of emulsion and digestae by DLS. c Size distributions by DLS of final small intestinal digesta and its dilutions in media with and without FBS. d Size distributions by laser diffraction of final small intestinal digesta and its dilutions in media with and without FBS. e TEM image of nano-enabled (0.1 wt% Fe2O3 ENM) food model. f TEM of mouth digesta. g TEM of stomach digesta. h TEM of small intestinal digesta
Colloidal characterization of ENM used in this study
| Sample |
|
| PdI | ζ | σ | pH |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fe2O3 in water | 108.3 ± 1.1 | – | 0.199 ± 0.007 | −27.2 ± 0.4 | 0.03 ± 0.00 | 6.05 |
| Emulsion | 191.7 ± 2.2 | 138 ± 1 | 0.190 ± 0.019 | −33.6 ± 1.3 | 0.81 ± 0.00 | 6.97 |
| Emulsion + Fe2O3 | 200.7 ± 4.1 | 132 ± 3 | 0.243 ± 0.007 | −36.3 ± 0.6 | 0.80 ± 0.01 | 6.94 |
| Mouth digesta | 365.4 ± 20.3 | 295 ± 9 | 0.489 ± 0.096 | −23.0 ± 0.8 | 1.04 ± 0.03 | 6.66 |
| Mouth digesta + Fe2O3 | 472.3 ± 4.3 | 270 ± 8 | 0.768 ± 0.008 | −23.7 ± 1.1 | 1.03 ± 0.3 | 6.76 |
| Stomach digesta | 272.4 ± 5.9 | 29,967 ± 1254 | 0.354 ± 0.052 | 0.7 ± 0.5 | 1.49 ± 0.07 | 1.64 |
| Stomach digesta + Fe2O3 | 332.2 ± 17.3 | 25,490 ± 550 | 0.541 ± 0.073 | 1.4 ± 0.2 | 1.40 ± 0.14 | 1.52 |
| Sm. Int digesta | 227.5 ± 1.7 | 1175 ± 182 | 0.322 ± 0.030 | −55.2 ± 3.7 | 1.05 ± 0.03 | 7.02 |
| Sm. Int digesta + Fe2O3 | 335.5 ± 0.7 | 491 ± 52 | 0.513 ± 0.015 | −47.6 ± 1.7 | 1.08 ± 0.04 | 6.98 |
| Sm. Int. digesta 1:3 D + F | 1736.7 ± 160.9 | 405 ± 40 | 0.390 ± 0.130 | −16.5 ± 1.1 | 2.23 ± 0.10 | 7.13 |
| Sm. Int. digesta + Fe2O3, 1:3 D + F | 1867.7 ± 144.3 | 336 ± 62 | 0.373 ± 0.023 | −16.3 ± 1.6 | 2.29 ± 0.15 | 7.03 |
| Sm. Int digesta 1:3 D-F | 242.4 ± 1.7 | 347 ± 8 | 0.322 ± 0.040 | −27.2 ± 1.4 | 2.17 ± 0.10 | 7.07 |
| Sm. Int digesta + Fe2O3,1:3 D-F | 394.2 ± 2.5 | 307 ± 52 | 0.536 ± 0.012 | −24.9 ± 3.2 | 2.35 ± 0.14 | 7.10 |
d H intensity-weighted mean hydrodynamic diameter by DLS, D 32 surface-weighted mean diameter by laser diffraction, PdI polydispersity index, ζ zeta potential, σ specific conductance
Fig. 6Biokinetics study results. Percent of applied (apical compartment) Fe2O3 in cells + membrane and basolateral compartments following incubation of transwell triculture inserts for the times indicated with digesta diluted 1:3 in DMEM with or without FBS as indicated. a 2 or 4 h incubations with digesta (0.1 wt% Fe2O3 in initial food emulsion) diluted with DMEM +10% FBS b 2 or 4 h incubations with digesta (0.1 wt% Fe2O3 in initial food emulsion) diluted with DMEM without FBS. c 4 h incubations with digesta from emulsions containing 0.05 or 0.1 wt% Fe2O3, diluted 1:3 with DMEM without FBS