4.4 Article

In vivo Genotoxicity of Silver Nanoparticles after 90-day Silver Nanoparticle Inhalation Exposure

期刊

SAFETY AND HEALTH AT WORK
卷 2, 期 1, 页码 34-38

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.5491/SHAW.2011.2.1.34

关键词

Silver nanoparticles; Genotoxicity; OECD test guidelines; In vivo micronuclei test; Good laboratory practice; Inhalation toxicity

资金

  1. National Research Foundation (NRF) of Korea
  2. Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology [2010-0019156]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The antimicrobial activity of silver nanoparticles has resulted in their widespread use in many consumer products. Yet, despite their many advantages, it is also important to determine whether silver nanoparticles may represent a hazard to the environment and human health. Methods: Thus, to evaluate the genotoxic potential of silver nanoparticles, in vivo genotoxicity testing (OECD 474, in vivo micronuclei test) was conducted after exposing male and female Sprague-Dawley rats to silver nanoparticles by inhalation for 90 days according to OECD test guideline 413 (Subchronic Inhalation Toxicity: 90 Day Study) with a good laboratory practice system. The rats were exposed to silver nanoparticles (18 nm diameter) at concentrations of 0.7 x 10(6) particles/cm(3) (low dose), 1.4 x 10(6) particles/cm(3) (middle dose), and 2.9 x 10(6) particles/cm(3) (high dose) for 6 hr/day in an inhalation chamber for 90 days. The rats were killed 24 hr after the last administration, then the femurs were removed and the bone marrow collected and evaluated for micronucleus induction. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in the micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes or in the ratio of polychromatic erythrocytes among the total erythrocytes after silver nanoparticle exposure when compared with the control. Conclusion: The present results suggest that exposure to silver nanoparticles by inhalation for 90 days does not induce genetic toxicity in male and female rat bone marrow in vivo.

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

4.4
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