| Literature DB >> 29113114 |
Marinda van Pomeren1, Willie J G M Peijnenburg2,3, Nadja R Brun4, Martina G Vijver5.
Abstract
Metallic nanoparticles (NPs) differ from other metal forms with respect to their large surface to volume ratio and subsequent inherent reactivity. Each new modification to a nanoparticle alters the surface to volume ratio, fate and subsequently the toxicity of the particle. Newly-engineered NPs are commonly available only in low quantities whereas, in general, rather large amounts are needed for fate characterizations and effect studies. This challenge is especially relevant for those NPs that have low inherent toxicity combined with low bioavailability. Therefore, within our study, we developed new testing strategies that enable working with low quantities of NPs. The experimental testing method was tailor-made for NPs, whereas we also developed translational models based on different dose-metrics allowing to determine dose-response predictions for NPs. Both the experimental method and the predictive models were verified on the basis of experimental effect data collected using zebrafish embryos exposed to metallic NPs in a range of different chemical compositions and shapes. It was found that the variance in the effect data in the dose-response predictions was best explained by the minimal diameter of the NPs, whereas the data confirmed that the predictive model is widely applicable to soluble metallic NPs. The experimental and model approach developed in our study support the development of (eco)toxicity assays tailored to nano-specific features.Entities:
Keywords: (metallic) nanoparticles; aquatic toxicology; nano-specific testing; risk assessment; translational modeling; zebrafish embryo
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29113114 PMCID: PMC5707987 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14111348
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1TEM images of (a) Ag nanospheres; (b) Ag nanoplates; (c) Ag elongated nanorods; (d) TiO2 nanobipyramids; (e) TiO2 nanoplates; and (f) TiO2 nanospheres.
Actual concentrations of Ag NPs and TiO2 NPs in suspension at 0 and 24 h. For each dilution step, total concentration (NPtotal), dissolved ion concentration (NPion) at 0 h, and total concentration (NPtotal) at 24 h are displayed for each NP tested.
| Particles | Dilution | NPtotal Concentration 0 h (mg/L) | NPion Concentration 0 h (mg/L) | NPtotal Concentration 24 h (mg/L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ag nanospheres PVP coated | 1 | 17.20 | 0.83 | 2.28 |
| 2 | 11.40 | 0.17 | 2.04 | |
| 10 | 3.50 | ≤ 0.016 | 0.62 | |
| Ag nanoplates PVP coated | 30 | 14.00 | 1.50 | 9.35 |
| 100 | 0.06 | ≤ 0.016 | 0.02 | |
| 3000 | ≤ 0.016 | ≤ 0.016 | 0.09 | |
| Ag elongated nanorods | 30 | 328.00 | 0.22 | 4.30 |
| 100 | 1.21 | 0.028 | 0.10 | |
| 3000 | 0.41 | 0.028 | 0.19 | |
| TiO2 nanoplates | 1 | 22.7 | - | 0.10 |
| 10 | 2.17 | - | 0.09 | |
| 100 | 0.28 | - | 0.05 | |
| TiO2 nanobipyramids | 1 | 20.7 | - | 0.08 |
| 10 | 0.70 | - | 0.15 | |
| 100 | 0.18 | - | 0.08 | |
| TiO2 nanospheres | 1 | 50.9 | - | 0.20 |
| 10 | - | - | - | |
| 100 | - | - | - |
Figure 2Dose–response curves for Ag NPs (a,b) and TiO2 NP (c,d) based on mortality and on number of malformed organisms. The dose is expressed as the log-transformed actual total concentration at T 0. Response data relate to 6 dpf embryos after days of exposure and are presented as means of three independent replicates ± standard error of the mean (SEM).
Relative contribution (%) of AgNPion and AgNPparticle to toxicity at the LC50 (lethality) level. LC50 concentrations are presented as median concentration (95% confidence interval) and n = 3.
| Particles | Median Concentration (mg Ag/L) | Relative Contribution to Toxicity (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| NPion | NPparticle | ||
| LC50 | |||
| Ag ions | 0.09 (0.08–0.10) | 100 | 0 |
| Nanospheres | 11.7 (9.9–13.6) | 100 | 0 |
| Nanoplates | 4.9 (4.8–5.0) | 9.2 | 90.8 |
| Nanorods | 9.2 (5.7–12.7) | 3.8 | 96.2 |
Figure 3LC50 values of NPparticle (based on actual particle number concentrations at T 0) expressed using the following dose metrics: (a) surface to volume ratio; (b) total surface area; (c) minimal diameter; and (d) effective diameter. For each line the adjusted R2 is provided in the inserted table. Experimental LC50 values for TiO2 (filled squares) were calculated using SPSS. Predicted TiO2 values are shown by open squares with calculated standard error.
Calculated average slope and corresponding standard deviation (SD) for effective diameter, surface to volume ratio, minimal diameter, and total surface area. For each parameter, the difference of the individual slopes of the metallic NPs is depicted by means of the p-value and the corresponding F-value in combination with the number of slopes (n), as well as the difference of the intercept (elevation) of the regression lines. For regression lines that are based on a maximum of five data points (see Figure 3), the significance level was set at p < 0.01.
| Parameter | Average Slope | SD Slope | Slope | Intercept | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | F | ||||||
| Minimal diameter | −3.04 | 0.43 | 3 | 0.95 | 0.15 | <0.0001 | 8.37 |
| Effective diameter | −2.95 | 0.59 | 3 | 0.90 | 0.16 | <0.0001 | 7.83 |
| Surface to volume ratio | 2.62 | 0.78 | 3 | 0.25 | 0.97 | <0.0001 | 10.74 |
| Total surface area | −1.91 | 1.17 | 3 | 0.49 | 0.73 | 0.0007 | 6.44 |