4.6 Article

Influence of size, surface area and microporosity on the in vitro cytotoxic activity of amorphous silica nanoparticles in different cell types

Journal

NANOTOXICOLOGY
Volume 4, Issue 3, Pages 307-318

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/17435390.2010.482749

Keywords

Nano-surfaces; nanoparticles; nanotoxicology; particle toxicology

Funding

  1. Belgian Science Policy Ministry [SD/HE/02A]
  2. Flemish Government

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Identifying the physico-chemical characteristics of nanoparticles (NPs) that drive their toxic activity is the key to conducting hazard assessment and guiding the design of safer nanomaterials. Here we used a set of 17 stable suspensions of monodisperse amorphous silica nanoparticles (SNPs) with selected variations in size (diameter, 2-335 nm), surface area (BET, 16-422 m(2)/g) and microporosity (micropore volume, 0-71 mu l/g) to assess with multiple regression analysis the physico-chemical determinants of the cytotoxic activity in four different cell types (J774 macrophages, EAHY926 endothelial cells, 3T3 fibroblasts and human erythrocytes). We found that the response to these SNPs is governed by different physico-chemical parameters which vary with cell type: In J774 macrophages, the cytotoxic activity (WST1 assay) increased with external surface area (alpha s method) and decreased with micropore volume (r(2) of the model, 0.797); in EAHY926 and 3T3 cells, the cytotoxic activity of the SNPs (MTT and WST1 assay, respectively) increased with surface roughness and small diameter (r(2), 0.740 and 0.872, respectively); in erythrocytes, the hemolytic activity increased with the diameter of the SNP (r(2), 0.860). We conclude that it is possible to predict with good accuracy the in vitro cytotoxic potential of SNPs on the basis of their physico-chemical characteristics. These determinants are, however, complex and vary with cell type, reflecting the pleiotropic interactions of nanoparticles with biological systems.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available