4.0 Article

Acute pulmonary toxicity caused by exposure to colloidal silica: Particle size dependent pathological changes in mice

Journal

TOXICOLOGIC PATHOLOGY
Volume 33, Issue 7, Pages 743-749

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1080/01926230500416302

Keywords

acute pulmonary toxicity; colloidal silica; electron microscopy; fine; intratracheal instillation mice; ultrafine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To compare the pulmonary toxicity between ultrafine colloidal silica particles (UFCSs) and fine colloidal silica particles (FCSs), mice were intratracheally instilled with 3 mg of 14 nm UFCSs and 230 nm FCSs and pathologically examined from 30 minutes to 24 hour postexposure. Histopathologically, lungs exposed to both sizes of particles showed bronchiolar degeneration and necrosis, neutrophilic inflammation in alveoli with alveolar type II cell swelling and particle-laden alveolar macrophage accumulation. UFCSs, however, induced extensive alveolar hemorrhage compared to FCSs from 30 minutes onwards. UFCSs also caused more severe bronchiolar epithelial cell necrosis and neutrophil influx in alveoli than FCSs at 12 and 24 hours postexposure. Laminin positive immunolabellings in basement membranes of bronchioles and alveoli of UFCSs treated animals was weaker than those of FCSs-treated animals in all observation times. Electron microscopy demonstrated UFCSs and FCSs on bronchiolar and alveolar wall surface as well as in the cytoplasm of alveolar epithelial cells, alveolar macrophages and neutrophils. Type I alveolar epithelial cell erosion with basement membrane damage in UFCSs treated animals was more severe than those in FCSs-treated animals. At 12 and 24 hours postexposure, bronchiolar epithelial cells in UFCSs-treated animals showed more intense vacuolation and necrosis compared to FCSs-treated animals. These findings suggest that UFCSs have greater ability to induce lung inflammation and tissue damages than FCSs.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available