| Literature DB >> 32101144 |
Sivakumar Murugadoss1, Frederic Brassinne2, Noham Sebaihi3, Jasmine Petry3, Stevan M Cokic4, Kirsten L Van Landuyt4, Lode Godderis5,6, Jan Mast2, Dominique Lison7, Peter H Hoet8, Sybille van den Brule9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The terms agglomerates and aggregates are frequently used in the regulatory definition(s) of nanomaterials (NMs) and hence attract attention in view of their potential influence on health effects. However, the influence of nanoparticle (NP) agglomeration and aggregation on toxicity is poorly understood although it is strongly believed that smaller the size of the NPs greater the toxicity. A toxicologically relevant definition of NMs is therefore not yet available, which affects not only the risk assessment process but also hinders the regulation of nano-products. In this study, we assessed the influence of NP agglomeration on their toxicity/biological responses in vitro and in vivo.Entities:
Keywords: Agglomerates; Biological responses; Nanomaterials; Titanium dioxide; Toxicity
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32101144 PMCID: PMC7045370 DOI: 10.1186/s12989-020-00341-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Part Fibre Toxicol ISSN: 1743-8977 Impact factor: 9.400
Fig. 1Representative TEM micrographs of freshly prepared TiO2 stock suspensions of small (SA) and large agglomerates (LA). 17 nm-SA (a), 17 nm-LA (b), 117 nm-SA (c) and 117 nm-LA (d)
Size characterization of freshly prepared TiO2 stock suspensions (2.56 mg/mL)
| Stock | TEM | DLS | PTA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | Mean | Mean | Z-average (nm) | Mean hydrodynamic size (nm) | |
| 17 nm-SA | 18 | 100 | 33 ± 2 | 600 | 134 |
| 17 nm-LA | 127 | 200 | 120 ± 19 | 900 | 207 |
| 117 nm-SA | 122 | 250 | 148 ± 10 | 280 | 259 |
| 117 nm-LA | 352 | 500 | 309 ± 64 | 580 | 221 |
Median and mean equivalent circle diameter (ECD) and mean feret minimum (feret min) measured by transmission electron microscopy (TEM), Z-average (mean hydrodynamic size) by dynamic light scattering (DLS) and mean hydrodynamic size by particle tracking analysis (PTA)
SD standard deviation
Size characterization of TiO2 in stock and exposure media (HBE,Caco2 and THP-1) using DLS
| Stock | DMEM/F12 | DMEM/HG | RPMI 1640 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Z-avg | PDI | Z-avg | PDI | Z-avg | PDI | Z-avg | PDI | ||
| 17 nm-SA | 0 h | 600 | 0.34 | 670 | 0.27 | 630 | 0.31 | 1140 | 0.18 |
| 24 h | 600 | 0.35 | 850 | 0.24 | 1580 | 0.28 | 1035 | 0.22 | |
| 17 nm-LA | 0 h | 900 | 0.42 | 900 | 0.27 | 870 | 0.30 | 1350 | 0.30 |
| 24 h | 800 | 0.40 | 980 | 0.20 | 1546 | 0.24 | 1330 | 0.25 | |
| 117 nm-SA | 0 h | 280 | 0.18 | 690 | 0.19 | 547 | 0.18 | 1010 | 0.18 |
| 24 h | 290 | 0.19 | 750 | 0.20 | 1145 | 0.40 | 900 | 0.18 | |
| 117 nm-LA | 0 h | 580 | 0.36 | 630 | 0.26 | 630 | 0.26 | 880 | 0.30 |
| 24 h | 590 | 0.37 | 650 | 0.21 | 1300 | 0.57 | 960 | 0.23 | |
Stock suspensions (2.56 mg/mL) were diluted to 100 μg/mL in different cell culture medium and, hydrodynamic sizes (Z-avg) and poly dispersity index (PDI) were measured directly and after 24 h
Fig. 2Estimated TiO2 dose reaching the bottom of the wells after 24 h as a function of increasing nominal doses applied in exposure media. Dosimetry simulation was performed with a distorted grid (DG) model for 17 (a and c) and 117 nm (b and d) using parameters obtained from exposure media DMEM/F12 (a and b) and RPMI 1640 (c and d). The slope values are indicated near the respective lines. R > 0.99 for all the suspensions. The percentage of dose delivered to the cells did not differ for 96 and 24 well plates, as the height of the liquid column was similar (6 mm)
Summary of the in vitro (A) and in vivo (B) responses to TiO2 exposure
| (A) | ||||||
| In vitro responses to TiO2 exposure | ||||||
| Biological endpoint | HBE | Caco2 | THP-1 | |||
| 17 nm | 117 nm | 17 nm | 117 nm | 17 nm | 117 nm | |
| Cell metabolic activity | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| Cell viability | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| DNA damage | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| GSH | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No |
| TEER | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | n/a | n/a |
| IL-8 | No | No | No | No | Yes | No |
| IL-6 | Yes | No | No | No | No | No |
| TNF-α | No | No | No | No | Yes | No |
| IL-1β | No | Yes | No | No | Yes | No |
| (B) | ||||||
| In vivo responses to TiO2 exposure | ||||||
| Biological endpoint | Aspiration | Gavage | ||||
| 17 nm | 117 nm | 17 nm | 117 nm | |||
| BAL cell number | No | No | n/a | n/a | ||
| BALF LDH | No | Yes | n/a | n/a | ||
| BALF proteins | No | No | n/a | n/a | ||
| BAL macrophages | No | No | n/a | n/a | ||
| BAL neutrophils | No | No | n/a | n/a | ||
| BAL lymphocytes | Yes | Yes | n/a | n/a | ||
| Blood lymphocytes | No | No | No | No | ||
| Blood monocytes | No | No | No | No | ||
| Blood granulocytes | No | No | No | No | ||
| Lung Ti | Yes | Yes | n/a | n/a | ||
| Blood Ti | No | No | No | No | ||
| BAL DNA damage | No | No | n/a | n/a | ||
| Blood DNA damage | n/a | n/a | Yes | Yes | ||
| GSH lung | No | No | n/a | n/a | ||
| GSH liver | n/a | n/a | No | No | ||
“Yes” indicates p < 0.05 (One-way ANOVA) and a significant difference compared to control; “No” indicates p > 0.05; n/a-not available
Summary of in vitro (A) and in vivo (B) responses to differently agglomerated TiO2 suspensions
SA = LA (indicated in green) when p > 0.05; LA > SA (red) or SA > LA (blue) when p < 0.05(Two-way ANOVA). When suspensions are statistically different, a post hoc - Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test was used to statistically determine whether LA or SA induced a stronger effect at the same mass concentrations/doses; nc- not compared as both suspensions did not induce any significant activity compared to control. n/a-not available
Fig. 3Influence of TiO2 agglomeration on THP-1 biological responses. Total glutathione (GSH) (a), IL-8 (b) and IL-1β secretion (c), and DNA damage (d) measured in cell cultures after 24 h exposure to different concentrations of small (SA) and large agglomerates (LA) of 17 nm TiO2. Data are expressed as means ± SD from three independent experiments performed in duplicates. p < 0.05 (*), p < 0.01 (**) and p < 0.001 (***) represent significant difference compared to control (One-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s multiple comparison test). Two-way ANOVA was used to determine the significant differences between suspensions (significant p value indicated at the top left corner)
Fig. 4Influence of TiO2 agglomeration on in vivo responses in mice exposed via oropharyngeal aspiration or oral gavage. BAL lymphocytes (a) and Ti persistence in lung tissues (b) in aspirated mice and blood DNA damage in gavaged mice (c and d) measured 3 d after exposure to increasing doses of small (SA) and large agglomerates (LA) of 17 and 117 nm TiO2. Data are expressed as means ± SD from 4 to 5 mice in each group. p < 0.05 (*), p < 0.01 (**) and p < 0.001 (***) represent significant difference compared to control (One way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s multiple comparison test). Two-way ANOVA was used to determine the significant differences between suspensions (significant p value indicated at the top left corner)