4.1 Article

Toxicity of antimony, copper, cobalt, manganese, titanium and zinc oxide nanoparticles for the alveolar and intestinal epithelial barrier cells in vitro

期刊

CYTOTECHNOLOGY
卷 68, 期 6, 页码 2363-2377

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10616-016-0032-9

关键词

Metal oxide nanoparticles; Caco2 cells; A549 cells; Transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER); Long term viability; Non-monotonic dose-response (NMDR)

资金

  1. EU FP7 Project MODERN [309314]
  2. SA Archimedes project Functional Food Ingredients
  3. Tallinn University Centre of Excellence Natural sciences and sustainable development
  4. Estonian Institutional research funding project [IUT 23-5]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Heavy metals are found naturally on Earth and exposure to them in the living environment is increasing as a consequence of human activity. The toxicity of six different metal oxide nanoparticles (NP) at different points in time was compared using resazurin assay. After incubating Caco2 and A549 cells with 100 mu g/mL of Sb2O3, Mn3O4 and TiO2 nanoparticles (NPs) for 24 h no toxic effects were observed while Co3O4 and ZnO NPs had moderate effects and CuO NPs were toxic below 100 mu g/mL (24 h EC25 = 11 for A549 and 71 mu g/mL for Caco2). The long-term monitoring (up to 9 days) of cells to NPs revealed that the toxic effects of Mn3O4 and Sb2O3 NPs remarkably increased over time. The 9 day EC50 values for Sb2O3 NPs were 22 and 48 mu g/mL for A549 and Caco2 cells; and for Mn3O4 NPs were 47 and 29 mu g/mL for A549 and Caco2 cells, respectively. In general, the sensitivity of the cell lines in the resazurin assay was comparable. Trans epithelial electrical resistance (TEER) measurements were performed for both cell types exposed to Co3O4, Sb2O3 and CuO NPs. In TEER assay, the Caco2 cells were more susceptible to the toxic effects of these NPs than A549 cells, where the most toxic NPs were the Sb2O3 NPs: the permeability of the Caco2 cell layer exposed to 10 mu g/mL Sb2O3 NPs already increased after 24 h of exposure.

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

4.1
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