4.5 Article

Influence of carboxylic acid functionalization on the cytotoxic effects induced by single wall carbon nanotubes on human endothelial cells (HUVEC)

Journal

TOXICOLOGY IN VITRO
Volume 25, Issue 8, Pages 1883-1888

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2011.05.027

Keywords

Cytotoxicity; Carbon nanotube; HUVEC cell

Categories

Funding

  1. Consejeria de Salud de la Junta de Andalucia [PI-00192/2007]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A vast variety of nanomaterials have been developed in the recent years, being carbon nanotubes (CNTs) the ones that have attracted more attention, due to its unique properties which make them suitable for numerous applications. Consequently, it is predicted that tons of CNTs will be produced worldwide every year, being its exposure of toxicological concern. Nanomaterials, once into the body, can translocate from the uptake sites to the blood circulation or the lymphatic system, resulting in distribution throughout the body. Thus, the vascular endothelium can be in contact with them and can suffer from their toxic effects. In this regard, the aim of this work was to investigate the cytotoxicity of single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) on human endothelial cells evaluating the influence of acid carboxylic functionalization and also the exposure time (24 and 48 h). Biomarkers assessed were neutral red uptake, protein content, a tetrazolium salt metabolization and cell viability by means of the Trypan blue exclusion test. Cells were exposed to concentrations between 0 and 800 mu g/mL SWCNTs for 24 and 48 h. Results have shown that both SWCNTs and carboxylic acid functionalized single-walled carbon nanotubes (COOH-SWCNTs) induce toxic effects in HUVEC cells in a concentration- and time-dependent way. Moreover, the carboxylic acid functionalization results in a higher toxicity compared to the SWCNTs. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available