4.7 Review

Toxicologic Concerns with Current Medical Nanoparticles

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23147597

关键词

nanoparticles; medical applications; nanotoxicity; cytotoxicity; inhalation; ingestion

资金

  1. Chair Professor Research Fund
  2. TMU Research Center of Cancer Translational Medicine from The Featured Areas Research Center Program [DP2-107-20000]
  3. Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan [MOST109-2314-B-038-125, MOST 110-2314-B-038-031, MOST110-2314-B-038-114, MOST110-2314-B-038-119, MOST110-2314-B-038-115]
  4. NIH [TR002866, CA225266, EB021230]
  5. U19 Canter for STI Vaccine developments
  6. NIFA [CADMCB-7399-H]
  7. Astrid Pharma USA [A18-1773]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nanotechnology, as a scientific advance in technology, has different effects on cell physiological responses due to changes in the shape of nanoparticles. The toxicity of nanomaterials is influenced by characteristics such as composition, surface chemistry, surface charge, and shape. This review explores the impact of NPs on nanomedicine and the mechanisms of cytotoxicity induced by different types of nanomaterials.
Nanotechnology is one of the scientific advances in technology. Nanoparticles (NPs) are small materials ranging from 1 to 100 nm. When the shape of the supplied nanoparticles changes, the physiological response of the cells can be very different. Several characteristics of NPs such as the composition, surface chemistry, surface charge, and shape are also important parameters affecting the toxicity of nanomaterials. This review covered specific topics that address the effects of NPs on nanomedicine. Furthermore, mechanisms of different types of nanomaterial-induced cytotoxicities were described. The distributions of different NPs in organs and their adverse effects were also emphasized. This review provides insight into the scientific community interested in nano(bio)technology, nanomedicine, and nanotoxicology. The content may also be of interest to a broad range of scientists.

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