4.7 Article

Assessment of in vitro particle dosimetry models at the single cell and particle level by scanning electron microscopy

期刊

JOURNAL OF NANOBIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 16, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12951-018-0426-2

关键词

Nanoparticles; FIB; SEM; Particokinetic models; Cellular dose

资金

  1. Helmholtz Program BIFTM and STN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundParticokinetic models are important to predict the effective cellular dose, which is key to understanding the interactions of particles with biological systems. For the reliable establishment of dose-response curves in, e.g., the field of pharmacology and toxicology, mostly the In vitro Sedimentation, Diffusion and Dosimetry (ISDD) and Distorted Grid (DG) models have been employed. Here, we used high resolution scanning electron microscopy to quantify deposited numbers of particles on cellular and intercellular surfaces and compare experimental findingswith results predicted by the ISDD and DG models.ResultsExposure of human lung epithelial A549 cells to various concentrations of differently sized silica particles (100, 200 and 500nm) revealed a remarkably higher dose deposited on intercellular regions compared to cellular surfaces. The ISDD and DG models correctly predicted the areal densities of particles in the intercellular space when a high adsorption (stickiness) to the surface was emulated. In contrast, the lower dose on cells was accurately inferred by the DG model in the case of non-sticky boundary conditions. Finally, the presence of cells seemed to enhance particle deposition, as aerial densities on cell-free substrates were clearly reduced.ConclusionsOur results further validate the use of particokinetic models but also demonstrate their limitations, specifically, with respect to the spatial distribution of particles on heterogeneous surfaces. Consideration of surface properties with respect to adhesion and desorption should advance modelling approaches to ultimately predict the cellular dose with higher precision.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据