4.5 Article

Band Alignment-Driven Oxidative Injury to the Skin by Anatase/Rutile Mixed-Phase Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles Under Sunlight Exposure

期刊

TOXICOLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 164, 期 1, 页码 300-312

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfy088

关键词

titanium oxide; nanoparticles; property-activity relationship; oxidative injury; sunlight exposure

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21573216, 21501170, 21777152, 21703232]
  2. Hundred Talent Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Science and Technology Development Project Foundation of Jilin Province [20160101304JC, 20160520134JH, 20180520145JH]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Anatase/rutile mixed-phase titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles (NPs) have been found in cosmetics and cotton textiles. Once exposed to sunlight, mixed-phase TiO2 NPs are even more toxic to cells than pure phase NPs; however, the underlying mechanism remains unclear. Considering the unique anatase/rutile heterojunction structure existing in mixed-phase NPs, the potent toxicity of mixed-phase TiO2 NPs probably originates from the high reactive oxygen species (ROS) production because the anatase/rutile heterojunction is constituted by the staggered energy bands that facilitate the electron-hole separation at the interface due to the band alignment. In the present study, a library of mixed-phase TiO2 NPs with different anatase/rutile ratios was established to investigate the potential property-activity relationship and further clarify the underlying molecular mechanism. Under sunlight exposure, these mixed-phase TiO2 NPs could produce significant abiotic ROS and induce hierarchical oxidative stress to HaCaT skin cells and mice skin. The ROS magnitude and toxicity potential of these NPs were found to be proportional to their energy band bending (BB) levels. This means that the toxicity of mixed-phase TiO2 NPs can be correlated to their heterojunction density, and the toxicity potential of mixed-phase TiO2 NPs can be weighed by their BB levels.

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