4.7 Review

Do Carbon Nanotubes and Asbestos Fibers Exhibit Common Toxicity Mechanisms?

Journal

NANOMATERIALS
Volume 12, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nano12101708

Keywords

carbon nanotubes; asbestos; exposure; fiber toxicity; toxicity pathways

Funding

  1. Amity University Lucknow Campus
  2. European Union [814425]
  3. Helmholtz Virtual Institute HICE - Aerosol and Health, Germany

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This review compares CNTs and asbestos fibers in terms of their structural characteristics, bio-persistence, surface to volume ratio, and ability to adsorb toxins/pollutants. The study also examines the mechanisms underlying the toxicity caused by certain types of CNTs and asbestos fibers, using altered gene expression data. The results suggest that certain types of CNTs do indeed mimic asbestos fibers in terms of associated toxicity.
During the last two decades several nanoscale materials were engineered for industrial and medical applications. Among them carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are the most exploited nanomaterials with global production of around 1000 tons/year. Besides several commercial benefits of CNTs, the fiber-like structures and their bio-persistency in lung tissues raise serious concerns about the possible adverse human health effects resembling those of asbestos fibers. In this review, we present a comparative analysis between CNTs and asbestos fibers using the following four parameters: (1) fibrous needle-like shape, (2) bio-persistent nature, (3) high surface to volume ratio and (4) capacity to adsorb toxicants/pollutants on the surface. We also compare mechanisms underlying the toxicity caused by certain diameters and lengths of CNTs and asbestos fibers using downstream pathways associated with altered gene expression data from both asbestos and CNT exposure. Our results suggest that indeed certain types of CNTs are emulating asbestos fiber as far as associated toxicity is concerned.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available