4.5 Article

Nanotoxicity of Silver Nanoparticles to Red Blood Cells: Size Dependent Adsorption, Uptake, and Hemolytic Activity

期刊

CHEMICAL RESEARCH IN TOXICOLOGY
卷 28, 期 3, 页码 501-509

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/tx500479m

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21307105, 21035005]
  2. Doctoral Program Foundation of Higher Education of China [20115301120002]
  3. fund of Chongqing Fundamental and the Cultivation Plan of Chongqing Science & Technology Commission for 100 Outstanding Science and Technology Leading Talents

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Silver nanopartides (AgNPs) are increasingly being used as antimicrobial agents and drug carriers in biomedical fields. However, toxicological information on their effects on red blood cells (RBCs) and the High mechanisms involved remain sparse. In this article, we examined the size dependent nanotoxicity of AgNPs using three different characteristic sizes of 15 rim (AgNPs15), 50 rim (AgNPs50), and 100 nm (AgNP5100) against fish RBCs. Optical microscopy and transmission electron microscopy observations showed that AgNPs exhibited a size effect on their adsorption and uptake by RBCs. The middle sized AgNP550, compared with the smaller or bigger ones, showed the highest level of adsorption and uptake by the RBCs, suggesting an optimal size of rim for passive uptake by RBCs. The toxic effects Low determined based on the hemolysis, membrane injury, lipid peroxidation, and antioxidant enzyme production were fairly size and dose dependent. In particular, the smallest sized AgNPs15 displayed a greater ability to induce hernolysis and membrane damage than AgNPs50 and AgNPs100. Such cytotoxicity induced by AgNPs should be attributed to the direct interaction of the nanoparticle with the RBCs, resulting in the production of oxidative stress, membrane injury, and subsequently hemolysis. Overall, the results suggest that particle size is a critical factor influencing the interaction between AgNPs and the RBCs.

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