4.5 Article

Geometry of carbon nanotubes and mechanisms of phagocytosis and toxic effects

期刊

TOXICOLOGY LETTERS
卷 273, 期 -, 页码 69-85

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2017.03.016

关键词

Carbon nanotubes; Size effects; Phagocytosis; Toxicity; Nanotechnology safety

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A review of in vivo and in vitro toxicological studies of the potential toxic effects of carbon nanotubes is presented along with the analysis of experimental data and a hypothesis about the nanotube-asbestos similarity. Developments of the structure-activity paradigm have been reviewed along with the size effects and the classification of carbon nanotubes into eleven distinct classes (e.g., the high aspect ratio nanotubes, thick multi-wall nanotubes and short nanotubes). Scaling analysis of similarities between different classes of carbon nanotubes and asbestos fibers in the context of their potential toxicity and the efficiency of phagocytosis has been reviewed. The potential toxic effects of carbon nanotubes have been characterized by their normalized length, their aspect ratio and other parameters related to their inhalability, engulfment by macrophages and the effectiveness of phagocytosis. Geometric scaling parameters and the classification of carbon nanotubes are used to develop an updated parametric map for the extrapolation of the potential toxic effects resulting from the inhalation of long and short carbon nanotubes. An updated parametric map has been applied to the evaluation of the efficiency of phagocytosis involving distinct classes of carbon nanotubes. A critical value of an important nondimensional parameter characterizing the efficiency of phagocytosis for different nanotubes is presented along with its macrophage-based normalization. The present evaluation of the potential toxicological effects of the high aspect ratio carbon nanotubes is found to be in the agreement with other available studies and earlier scaling analyses. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.5
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