4.8 Article

In Vivo Toxicity Assessment of Occupational Components of the Carbon Nanotube Life Cycle To Provide Context to Potential Health Effects

期刊

ACS NANO
卷 11, 期 9, 页码 8849-8863

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.7b03038

关键词

life cycle; carbon nanotubes; exposure assessment; toxicity; composite; polymer coating; genotoxicity

资金

  1. Nanotechnology Research Center of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pulmonary toxicity studies on carbon nano tubes focus primarily on as-produced materials and rarely are guided by a life cycle perspective or integration with exposure assessment. Understanding toxicity beyond the as produced, or pure native material, is critical, due to modifications needed to overcome barriers to commercialization of applications. In the first series of studies, the toxicity of as-produced carbon nanotubes and their polymer-coated counterparts was evaluated in reference to exposure assessment, material characterization, and stability of the polymer coating in biological fluids. The second series of studies examined the toxicity of aerosols generated from sanding polymer-coated carbon-nanotube-embedded or neat composites. Postproduction modification by polymer coating did not enhance pulmonary injury, inflammation, and pathology or in vitro genotoxicity of as-produced carbon nanotubes, and for a particular coating, toxicity was significantly attenuated. The aerosols generated from sanding composites embedded with polymer-coated carbon nanotubes contained no evidence of free nanotubes. The percent weight incorporation of polymer-coated carbon nanotubes, 0.15% or 3% by mass, and composite matrix utilized altered the particle size distribution and, in certain circumstances, influenced acute in vivo toxicity. Our study provides perspective that, while the number of workers and consumers increases along the life cycle, toxicity and/or potential for exposure to the as-produced material may greatly diminish.

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

4.8
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