4.7 Article

Safety evaluation of hair-dryers marketed as emitting nano silver particles

期刊

SAFETY SCIENCE
卷 93, 期 -, 页码 121-126

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2016.11.021

关键词

Silver nanoparticle; Hair-dryer; Kirby Bauer assay; Escherichia colt; Toxicity

资金

  1. UCLEADS (University of California's Leadership Excellence through Advanced Degrees)
  2. National Science Foundation [CBET-0954130]
  3. University of California Center for Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology (UC-CEIN)
  4. National Science Foundation
  5. Environmental Protection Agency [DBI 0830117]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nanoparticle infused personal care products are becoming more common as consumer products. One example is a hair-dryer marketed as emitting silver nanoparticles (Ag NPs). The purpose of the silver nanoparticles (Ag NPs) is to give hair a sleek, shiny look while also promoting antimicrobial effects. This study investigates release of Ag NPs from hair-dryers and the effects associated with Ag NPs to the human epidural flora. To give an estimation of consumer exposure to Ag NPs with these products, three brands of hair-dryers were selected and particle samples emitted from the hair-dryers were collected based on size fractionation. Collected particles underwent elemental analysis. Silver was not detected in any of the samples. The Kirby-Bauer assay was used to detect a toxicity dose response relationship over a range of silver nanoparticles and silver nitrate (AgNO3) concentrations using five model bacteria species. This portion of the work represented the microbial response to Ag NPs and acted as a proxy for epidural microbial exposure to Ag NPs emitted from a hair-dryer. Findings from this study such as the recorded release of nanoparticles from the hair-dryers and the potential microbial toxicity effects caused from nanoparticle exposure will help consumers make more informed decisions regarding nanoparticle infused products. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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