| Literature DB >> 33287860 |
Kelly Fraser1,2, Vamsi Kodali1,2, Naveena Yanamala1,2, M Eileen Birch3, Lorenzo Cena4, Gary Casuccio5, Kristin Bunker5, Traci L Lersch5, Douglas E Evans3, Aleksandr Stefaniak6, Mary Ann Hammer1, Michael L Kashon1, Theresa Boots1, Tracy Eye1, John Hubczak1,2, Sherri A Friend1, Matthew Dahm7, Mary K Schubauer-Berigan7,8, Katelyn Siegrist1, David Lowry1, Alison K Bauer9, Linda M Sargent1, Aaron Erdely10,11.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Carbon nanotubes and nanofibers (CNT/F) have known toxicity but simultaneous comparative studies of the broad material class, especially those with a larger diameter, with computational analyses linking toxicity to their fundamental material characteristics was lacking. It was unclear if all CNT/F confer similar toxicity, in particular, genotoxicity. Nine CNT/F (MW #1-7 and CNF #1-2), commonly found in exposure assessment studies of U.S. facilities, were evaluated with reported diameters ranging from 6 to 150 nm. All materials were extensively characterized to include distributions of physical dimensions and prevalence of bundled agglomerates. Human bronchial epithelial cells were exposed to the nine CNT/F (0-24 μg/ml) to determine cell viability, inflammation, cellular oxidative stress, micronuclei formation, and DNA double-strand breakage. Computational modeling was used to understand various permutations of physicochemical characteristics and toxicity outcomes.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33287860 PMCID: PMC7720492 DOI: 10.1186/s12989-020-00392-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Part Fibre Toxicol ISSN: 1743-8977 Impact factor: 9.400
Fig. 1Schematic of material diameter and TEM images of CNT/F. Materials selection was based upon company reported diameter ranging from 6 to 150 nm in diameter to ensure a full range of materials were included in this study and the material arrangement is depicted in the upper left corner. These materials were identified as MW #1–7 and CNF #1–2. A well-studied benchmark material, MWCNT-7/Mitsui-7, was included in this study as MW #5. Materials were dispersed in isopropanol and placed onto a TEM grid to measure physical dimensions. Representative images of each material were selected with scale bars representing 1 μm, 300 nm, and 50 nm from left to right
Fig. 2Representative scanning electron microscopy images of CNT/F in DM to measure two-dimensional agglomerate sizes. LA = large agglomerates and SA = small agglomerates
Physical dimensions of CNT/F dispersed in isopropanol
| MW #1 | MW #2 | MW #3 | MW #4 | MW #5 | MW #6 | MW #7 | CNF #1 | CNF #2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company Reported Diameter (nm) | 6–9 | 10 | 10–15 | 5–30 | N/A | 70–80 | 150 | 100 | 150 |
| Geometric Mean (nm ± GSD) | 13 ± 1 | 14 ± 2 | 20 ± 2 | 19 ± 1 | 63 ± 1 | 28 ± 2 | 37 ± 2 | 102 ± 1 | 103 ± 1 |
| Arithmetic Mean (nm ± SE) | 13 ± 0 | 16 ± 1 | 26 ± 2 | 20 ± 1 | 67 ± 2 | 38 ± 3 | 54 ± 4 | 110 ± 3 | 110 ± 3 |
| Median | 12 | 14 | 19 | 18 | 63 | 25 | 28 | 98 | 100 |
| Diameter Range | 6–29 | 6–216 | 8–275 | 8–133 | 21–168 | 8–218 | 9–425 | 40–397 | 46–263 |
| Normal Distribution | Lognormal | Lognormal | |||||||
| Company Reported Length (μm) | 5 | N/A | 0.1–10 | 100 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 50–200 | 50–200 |
| Geometric Mean (μm ± GSD) | 0.67 ± 1.81 | 1.34 ± 2.21 | 1.10 ± 2.00 | 1.41 ± 1.97 | 4.39 ± 2.07 | 2.05 ± 2.53 | 2.88 ± 4.26 | 3.64 ± 2.36 | 2.16 ± 2.31 |
| Arithmetic Mean (μm ± SE) | 0.80 ± 0.03 | 1.79 ± 0.10 | 1.28 ± 0.07 | 1.84 ± 0.13 | 5.62 ± 0.29 | 3.42 ± 0.37 | 7.64 ± 0.78 | 5.23 ± 0.36 | 3.20 ± 0.28 |
| Median | 0.6607 | 1.5437 | 1.0148 | 1.2896 | 4.547 | 2.1503 | 2.3781 | 3.7273 | 2.0003 |
| Length Range | 0.1–3.6 | 0.2–50.9 | 0.1–8.5 | 0.3–20.6 | 1.2–25.8 | 0.3–37.3 | 0.1–49.1 | 0.3–37.6 | 0.4–42.7 |
| Normal Distribution | Lognormal | Lognormal | Lognormal | Lognormal | Lognormal | Lognormal | |||
| Aspect Ratio (GeoMean ± GSD) | 53 ± 2 | 96 ± 2 | 50 ± 2 | 76 ± 2 | 69 ± 2 | 73 ± 2 | 78 ± 3 | 36 ± 2 | 21 ± 2 |
Results of additional particle characterization of CNT/F
| MW #1 | MW #2 | MW #3 | MW #4 | MW #5 | MW #6 | MW #7 | CNF #1 | CNF #2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 237.7 ± 1.0 | 211.9 ± 1.8 | 218.6 ± 1.2 | 99.4 ± 1.1 | 25.2 ± 0.4 | 25.4 ± 0.4 | 24.7 ± 0.4 | 29.4 ± 0.2 | 18.0 ± 0.2 | |
| Dustiness Total (%) | 3.8 | 2.9 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 14.0 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 4.9 | ND |
| Dustiness Respirable (%) | 0.84 | 1.10 | 0.20 | 0.20 | 2.40 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 1.40 | ND |
| Bulk Density (g/cm3) | 0.087 | 0.007 | 0.082 | 0.169 | 0.007 | 0.075 | 0.061 | 0.020 | 0.032 |
| Tapped Density (g/cm3) | 0.119 | 0.008 | 0.095 | 0.222 | 0.010 | 0.095 | 0.073 | 0.028 | 0.045 |
| BLD | BLD | BLD | BLD | BLD | BLD | BLD | BLD | BLD | |
| BLD | BLD | BLD | BLD | BLD | BLD | BLD | BLD | BLD | |
| % Fe | 0.317 | 1.725 | 1.603 | 3.423 | 0.270 | 5.006 | 6.169 | 1.168 | 1.142 |
| % Al | 0.310 | 0.028 | 2.116 | 0.019 | N/A | 0.035 | N/A | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| TGA -Avg onset oxidation, °C | 550 ± 2 | 603 ± 2 | 575 ± 0 | 560 ± 2 | 735 ± 2 | 581 ± 0 | 592 ± 0 | 593 ± 0 | 694 ± 0 |
| TGA - Mean Residual Ash, % | 1.74 ± 0.01 | 3.98 ± 0.26 | 8.21 ± 0.26 | 4.75 ± 0.07 | 1.11 ± 0.28 | 7.88 ± 0.15 | 8.95 ± 0.29 | 1.79 ± 0.12 | 2.21 ± 0.16 |
| % | 64.53 ± 23.91 | 75.41 ± 25.66 | 76.34 ± 27.37 | 88.17 ± 28.40 | 91.49 ± 21.37 | 84.78 ± 25.74 | 77.27 ± 19.96 | 100.12 ± 22.69 | 99.80 ± 24.19 |
BLD below the level of detection
Fig. 5Distributions of CNT/F aspect ratio. Particles were binned according to size along the lower x-axis with frequency on the left y-axis. Additionally, percentage of accumulation is graphed on the right y-axis with absolute aspect ratio along the upper x-axis. The overlay line is 3 parameter sigmoidal curve of best fit with the point of 50% accumulation indicated with dotted lines. Sizing was for particles in isopropanol suspension
Fig. 3Distributions of CNT/F diameter. Particles were binned according to size along the lower x-axis with frequency on the left y-axis. Additionally, percentage of accumulation is graphed on the right y-axis with the absolute diameter along the upper x-axis. The overlay line was 3 parameter sigmoidal curve of best fit with the point of 50% accumulation indicated with dotted lines. Sizes are for particles in isopropanol suspension
Fig. 4Distributions of CNT/F length. Particles were binned according to size along the lower x-axis with frequency on the left y-axis. Additionally, percentage of accumulation is graphed on the right y-axis with absolute length along the upper x-axis. The overlay line is 3 parameter sigmoidal curve of best fit with the point of 50% accumulation indicated with dotted lines. Sizing was for particles in isopropanol suspension
Hydrodynamic diameter, zeta potential, and two-dimensional sizing of CNT/F agglomerates dispersed in physiologic dosing media
| MW #1 | MW #2 | MW #2 | MW #3 | MW #4 | MW #5 | MW #6 | MW #7 | CNF #1 | CNF #2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % Spherical Agglomerated | 87 | 0 | 0 | 83 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Spherical Agglomerate Mean Diameter μm ± SE | 1.28 ± 0.16 | N/A | N/A | 0.81 ± 0.10 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Spherical Agglomerate Diameter Geometric Mean μm (GSD) | 0.96 (2.01) | N/A | N/A | 0.66 (1.84) | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| % Bundle Agglomerates/Singlets | 13 | N/A | N/A | 17 | 99 | 96 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Bundle Agglomerate Mean Length μm ± SE | 1.90 ± 0.37 | 3.80 ± 0.38 | 49.55 ± 3.58 | 1.11 ± 0.25 | 3.77 ± 0.35 | 6.27 ± 0.44 | 9.47 ± 1.26 | 11.32 ± 1.08 | 9.30 ± 1.07 | 2.96 ± 0.36 |
Bundle Agglomerate Geometric Mean Length μm (GSD) | 1.66 (1.71) | 3.09 (1.82) | 47.94 (1.31) | 0.72 (2.98) | 2.92 (2.05) | 5.17 (1.94) | 5.90 (2.57) | 7.91 (2.49) | 6.18 (2.49) | 2.11 (2.25) |
Bundle Agglomerate Mean Diameter μm ± SE | 0.38 ± 0.12 | 0.03 ± 0.00 | 9.50 ± 2.24 | 0.03 ± 0.00 | 0.10 ± 0.01 | 0.13 ± 0.01 | 0.08 ± 0.01 | 0.10 ± 0.01 | 0.21 ± 0.01 | 0.12 ± 0.01 |
Bundle Agglomerate Diameter Geometric Mean μm (GSD) | 0.18 (4.20) | 0.03 (1.60) | 6.99 (2.24) | 0.03 (1.56) | 0.08 (1.89) | 0.11 (1.07) | 0.07 (2.09) | 0.09 (1.64) | 0.19 (1.42) | 0.11 (1.63) |
| 660 ± 19 | 771 ± 33 | 608 ± 30 | 478 ± 24 | 504 ± 15 | 714 ± 24 | 652 ± 26 | 615 ± 19 | 664 ± 18 | ||
| −10.4 ± 0.4 | −12.1 ± 0.6 | −11.1 ± 0.06 | −12.0 ± 0.4 | −13.5 ± 0.8 | −11.8 ± 0.6 | −13.2 ± 0.5 | −11.1 ± 0.8 | −11.3 ± 0.5 | ||
Fig. 6Principal component analysis (PCA) of different CNT/F materials comparing ‘all characterization’ parameters (a), length – diameter – aspect ratio physical dimension (b; L-W-AR binning) and means only (c) physicochemical characteristics. The first two principal components (PC), PC1 and PC2, define the x- and y-axes of the scatter plots, respectively. The distance between two materials reflects the proximity in physicochemical properties between them. PC1, PC2 and PC3 together accounted for ~ 71, 68 and 82% of the contribution to the variance in the case of all characterization, L-W-AR binning and means only, respectively. The scatter plot of the PCA along with vectors depicting the loadings of variables is shown
Fig. 7Toxicity assessment of BEAS-2B cells exposed to CNT/F. a WST-1 cell proliferation assay was used to assess the viability of BEAS-2B cells following exposure to increasing concentrations (0.024–24 μg/ml) of CNT/F. The dose at which the particle significantly reduced cell viability is indicated with an asterisk (p < 0.05). b Oxidative stress was measured using the CellROX assay. * p < 0.05 fold change vs. control cells represented as a reference line. c Protein secretions from cells exposed to 2.4 or 24 μg/ml of various CNT/F for 24 h represented as heat maps of fold change from controls with no exposure.. Significant changes from control cells were indicated with an asterisk (* p < 0.05). Log fold change was represented by color with green indicating a decrease in protein concentration and red indicating an increase on a scale of − 0.2 to 1. (*p < 0.05)
Fig. 8Genotoxicity assessments. a Cells with micronuclei were quantified and presented as percentage of total cells at treatments of 0.024 and 2.4 μg/ml. b Inference into double stranded DNA breaks were quantified via detection of γH2AX. Percentage change from DM is presented on the y-axis. *p < 0.05 represents significant change from control
Fig. 9Clustering of physicochemical characteristics with the epithelial cell toxicity outcomes of cell viability, cellular oxidative stress, γH2AX and micronuclei formation. Toxicity outcomes compared to (a) all characteristics, (b) L-W-AR binning, and (c) means only were presented