4.8 Article

Bioavailability of Nanoscale Metal Oxides TiO2, CeO2, and ZnO to Fish

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 44, Issue 3, Pages 1144-1151

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es901971a

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NERC [NE/D004942/1]
  2. U.K. Environment Agency under the Post-Genomics and Proteomics Research Programme [NE/C002369/1]
  3. European Union [MEST-2004-504356]
  4. NERC [FENAC010001, NE/D004942/1, NE/G011133/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/D004942/1, FENAC010001, NE/C002369/1, NE/G011133/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Nanoparticles (NPs) are reported to be a potential environmental health hazard. For organisms living in the aquatic environment, there is uncertainty on exposure because of a lack of understanding and data regarding the fate, behavior, and bioavailability of the nanomaterials in the water column. This paper reports on a series of integrative biological and physicochemical studies on the uptake of unmodified commercial nanoscale metal oxides, zinc oxide (ZnO), cerium dioxide (CeO2), and titanium dioxide (TiO2), from the water and diet to determine their potential ecotoxicological impacts on fish as a function of concentration. Particle characterizations were performed and tissue concentrations were measured by a wide range of analytical methods. Definitive uptake from the water column and localization of TiO2 NPS in gills was demonstrated for the first time by use of coherent anti-Stokes Raman scattering (CARS) microscopy. Significant uptake of nanomaterials was found only for cerium in the liver of zebrafish exposed via the water and ionic titanium in the gut of trout exposed via the diet. For the aqueous exposures undertaken, formation of large NP aggregates (up to 3 mu m) occurred and it is likely that this resulted in limited bioavailability of the unmodified metal oxide NIPS in fish.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available