4.5 Article

Nano-TiO2 stability in medium and size as important factors of toxicity in macrophage-like cells

期刊

TOXICOLOGY IN VITRO
卷 54, 期 -, 页码 178-188

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2018.09.019

关键词

LASSO; Macrophages; Cytotoxicity; Nano-TiO2; Polydispersity

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic [LO1508, CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000765, LM2015073]
  2. Czech Science Foundation [P503-12-G147]
  3. Czech-BioImaging large RI project (MEYS CR) [LM2015062]
  4. OP RDE [CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_013/0001775]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

TiO2 along with nano-TiO2 are commonly found in consumer products. In vivo studies have observed an accumulation of nano-TiO2 in macrophages. However, characteristics of nano-TiO2 determining toxicity remain unclear. In our study, the cytotoxic effects of 14 diverse nano-TiO2 on THP-1 macrophage-like cells were measured by 3 cytotoxicity assays (MTS, WST-1 and LDH). Total averaged cytotoxicity was calculated using principal component analysis. Characteristics of all 14 nano-TiO2 included hydrodynamic diameter, zeta potential, shape, polydispersity index (PDI) and concentration; moreover, crystal form, specific surface area and crystallite size were measured for 10 nano-TiO2. The variables affecting cytotoxicity were chosen using LASSO (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator). Except for concentration, PDI in media measured within 1 h after preparation of the nanomaterial dispersion was selected as a variable affecting cytotoxicity: stable dispersion resulted in higher cytotoxic effects. Crystallite size has been shown to have nonlinear effects (particles of sizes between 20 and 60 nm were cytotoxic while smaller and larger ones were not) and thus it has been excluded from LASSO. The shape (particles/fibre) and crystal form did not affect the cytotoxicity. PDI and the nonlinear effect of size could be an explanation for the inconsistencies of the cytotoxicity of nano-TiO2 in various studies.

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

4.5
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