| Literature DB >> 30971757 |
Abstract
Toxicity of synthesized nanoparticles is the area of concern to all the researchers due to their possible health implications. Here we synthesized copper oxide nanoparticles (CuO NPs) without surfactant at pH value of 2, 7, 10 and with cetyletrimethylammoniumbromide (CTAB) surfactant at pH 7. Synthesized nanoparticles were characterized for various structural parameters including crystallite size, lattice parameters, strain, phase analysis using X-ray diffraction analysis, and morphological aspects have been analyzed using FESEM and HRTEM imaging. All the four nano-formulations were analyzed for their toxic potential using Allium cepa L. at three different concentrations (0.1, 0.01 and 0.001 g/100 ml). Cytological and genetic parameters including mitotic index, mitotic inhibition, aberrant cells, binucleated cells, micronucleated cells, chromosomal bridges, fragmentation, stickiness, laggards, vagrants, c-mitosis and disturbed spindle were analyzed. Our results revealed a dose dependent increase in cytotoxic parameters including decreased total dividing cells, mitotic index, and increased mitotic inhibition. Genotoxic parameters also increased at higher treatment concentrations including chromosomal aberrations and percent aberrant cells. The pH value at the time of particle synthesis has significant influence on the crystallite size and agglomeration as assessed by XRD, FESEM and HRTEM analysis. The NPs synthesized at pH 2 and 10 were found to be of smaller size and posed more toxic effects as compared to particles synthesized at neutral pH. On the other hand, CTAB assisted CuO NPs synthesized at pH 7 revealed even smaller crystallite sizes and thus boost the toxicity in all the parameters as compared to NPs synthesized without CTAB. The present study suggested an increase in toxic parameters of synthesized CuO NPs with respect to crystallite size which is pH dependent. Addition of CTAB at pH 7 decreased the crystallite as well as particle size and enhanced the toxic potential. Further studies are recommended to analyze the effect of surfactant addition in toxicological studies on CuO NPs.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30971757 PMCID: PMC6458183 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-42419-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Formulation of different treatment concentrations of CuO nanoparticles solutions.
| Sr. No. | CuO powder sample | Concentration | Sample annotation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | CuO pH2 (C1) | 0.001 | C1V1 |
| 0.01 | C1V2 | ||
| 0.1 | C1V3 | ||
| 2. | CuO pH7 (C2) | 0.001 | C2V1 |
| 0.01 | C2V2 | ||
| 0.1 | C2V3 | ||
| 3. | CuO pH10 (C3) | 0.001 | C3V1 |
| 0.01 | C3V2 | ||
| 0.1 | C3V3 | ||
| 4. | CuO CTAB pH7 (C4) | 0.001 | C4V1 |
| 0.01 | C4V2 | ||
| 0.1 | C4V3 |
Figure 1XRD spectrum of CuO samples synthesized at pH2: C1, pH7: C2, pH10: C3 and pH7 with CTAB: C4.
pH value of precursor solution, values of the lattice parameters, strain and crystallite size calculated from X-ray diffraction plot, crystallite size from TEM measurement for the C1, C2, C3, and C4 samples.
| Property | C1 (pH2) | C2 (pH7) | C3 (pH10) | C4 (0.5 M CTAB) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.691 (0.0025) | 4.682 (0.0006) | 4.673 (0.0012) | 4.698 (0.0030) | |
| 3.428 (0.0008) | 3.424 (0.0020) | 3.423 (0.0023) | 3.425 (0.0007) | |
| 5.112 (0.0046) | 5.114 (0.0042) | 5.109 (0.0052) | 5.116 (0.0024) | |
| 99.251 (0.0001) | 99.111 (0.0015) | 99.098 (0.0016) | 99.278 (0.0026) | |
| 81.148 (0.0869) | 80.949 (0.0822) | 80.693 (0.1005) | 81.242 (0.0038) | |
| strain ( | 0.0018 (tensile) | 0.0010 (tensile) | −0.0117 (compressive) | −0.006 (compressive) |
| 29.36 | 63.40 | 27.73 | 18.12 | |
| Crystallite size (nm) TEM | 30 | 50 | 25 | 7 |
Figure 2FESEM images of synthesized CuO nanoparticle samples at different magnifications. C1: CuO NPs synthesized at pH2 of precursor solution; C2: CuO NPs synthesized at pH7 of precursor solution; C3: CuO NPs synthesized at pH10 of precursor solution, and C4: CuO NPs synthesized at pH7 of precursor solution with CTAB addition.
Figure 3HRTEM images of synthesized CuO nanoparticle samples. C1: CuO NPs synthesized at pH2 of precursor solution; C2: CuO NPs synthesized at pH7 of precursor solution; C3: CuO NPs synthesized at pH10 of precursor solution, and C4: CuO NPs synthesized at pH7 of precursor solution with CTAB addition.
Figure 4Mean root length among different concentrations of CuO nanoparticles.
Figure 5Relative mean root length among different concentrations of CuO nanoparticles with respect to exposure period.
Cytological parameters after exposure to different concentrations of CuO nanoparticles in Allium cepa root analysis.
| Test Sample | DC | MI (%) | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DC | MI (%) | DC | MI (%) | DC | MI (%) | DC | MI (%) | |||
| Control | 396 | 19.8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| V1 | — | — | 350 | 17.5 | 374 | 18.7 | 326 | 16.3 | 310 | 15.5 |
| V2 | — | — | 336 | 16.8 | 350 | 17.5 | 308 | 15.4 | 286 | 14.3 |
| V3 | — | — | 312 | 15.6 | 330 | 16.5 | 290 | 14.5 | 264 | 13.2 |
DC, Number of dividing cells; MI, Mitotic index.
Total cells analysed: 2000.
Figure 6Mean dividing cells among different CuO NP treatment groups.
Mitotic inhibition among different concentrations of CuO nanoparticles.
| Test Sample | Treatment group | DC | NDC | Mitotic inhibition |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | — | 396 | 1604 | — |
| C1 | C1V1 | 350 | 1650 | 11.61616 |
| C1V2 | 336 | 1664 | 15.15152 | |
| C1V3 | 312 | 1688 | 21.21212 | |
| C2 | C2V1 | 374 | 1626 | 5.555556 |
| C2V2 | 350 | 1650 | 11.61616 | |
| C2V3 | 330 | 1670 | 16.66667 | |
| C3 | C3V1 | 326 | 1674 | 17.67677 |
| C3V2 | 308 | 1692 | 22.22222 | |
| C3V3 | 290 | 1710 | 26.76768 | |
| C4 | C4V1 | 310 | 1690 | 21.71717 |
| C4V2 | 286 | 1714 | 27.77778 | |
| C4V3 | 264 | 1736 | 33.33333 |
DC, Number of dividing cells; NDC, Number of non-dividing cells; Total cells analysed, 2000.
Figure 7Mitotic inhibition among different concentration groups of CuO nanoparticles.
Genotoxicity parameters in different concentrations of CuO nanoparticles in Allium cepa root chromosomal assay.
| Test Sample | Chromosomal aberrations | Total | % of aberrant cells | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BN | MN | BR | FR | ST | LG | VG | CM | DS | |||
| Control | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1 | — | — | 1 | 0.25 |
| C1V1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 3.71 |
| C1V2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 20 | 5.95 |
| C1V3 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 28 | 8.97 |
| C2V1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 2.67 |
| C2V2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 16 | 4.57 |
| C2V3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 25 | 7.57 |
| C3V1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 16 | 4.90 |
| C3V2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 26 | 8.44 |
| C3V3 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 35 | 12.06 |
| C4V1 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 24 | 7.74 |
| C4V2 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 35 | 12.23 |
| C4V3 | 9 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 50 | 18.93 |
BN, Binucleated; MN, Micronucleus; BR, Chromosomal bridge; FR, Fragment; ST, Stickiness; LG, Laggards, VG, Vagrant; CM, c-mitosis; DS, Disturbed spindle.
Total cells analysed: 2000.