Minimal analytical characterization of engineered nanomaterials needed for hazard assessment in biological matrices

References

• Auffan M, Rose J, Wiesner MR, Bottero J-Y. 2009. Chemical stability of metallic nanoparticles: A parameter controlling their potential cellular toxicity in vitro. Environ Pollut 157(4):1127–1133.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bihari P, Vippola M, Schultes S, Praetner M, Khandoga A, Reichel C, Coester C, Tuomi T, Rehberg M, Krombach F. 2008. Optimized dispersion of nanoparticles for biological in vitro and in vivo studies. Particle Fibre Toxicol 5(1):14.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bouwmeester H, Dekkers S, Noordam MY, Hagens WI, Bulder AS, de Heer C, ten Voorde SECG, Wijnhoven SWP, Marvin HJP, Sips AJAM. 2009. Review of health safety aspects of nanotechnologies in food production. Regulat Toxicol Pharmacol 53(1):52–62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boverhof DR, David RM. 2010. Nanomaterial characterization: Considerations and needs for hazard assessment and safety evaluation. Anal Bioanal Chem 396(3):953–961.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown DM, Kinloch IA, Bangert U, Windle AH, Walter DM, Walker GS, Scotchford CA, Donaldson K, Stone V. 2007. An in vitro study of the potential of carbon nanotubes and nanofibres to induce inflammatory mediators and frustrated phagocytosis. Carbon 45(9):1743–1756.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown DM, Wilson MR, MacNee W, Stone V, Donaldson K. 2001. Size-dependent proinflammatory effects of ultrafine polystyrene particles: A role for surface area and oxidative stress in the enhanced activity of ultrafines. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 175(3):191–199.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casey A, Herzog E, Davoren M, Lyng FM, Byrne HJ, Chambers G. 2007. Spectroscopic analysis confirms the interactions between single walled carbon nanotubes and various dyes commonly used to assess cytotoxicity. Carbon 45(7):1425–1432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cedervall T, Lynch I, Lindman S, Berggard T, Thulin E, Nilsson H, Dawson KA, Linse S. 2007. Understanding the nanoparticle-protein corona using methods to quantify exchange rates and affinities of proteins for nanoparticles. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(7):2050–2055.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Das M, Saxena N, Dwivedi PD. 2009. Emerging trends of nanoparticles application in food technology: Safety paradigms. Nanotoxicology 3(1):10–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davoren M, Herzog E, Casey A, Cottineau B, Chambers G, Byrne HJ, Lyng FM. 2007. In vitro toxicity evaluation of single walled carbon nanotubes on human A549 lung cells. Toxicol In Vitro 21(3):438–448.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duffin R, Tran CL, Clouter A, Brown DM, MacNee W, Stone V, Donaldson K. 2002. The importance of surface area and specific reactivity in the acute pulmonary inflammatory response to particles. Ann Occup Hyg 46(suppl. 1):242–245.
   Google Scholar
• Duffin R, Tran L, Brown D, Stone V, Donaldson K. 2007. Proinflammogenic effects of low-toxicity and metal nanoparticles in vivo and in vitro: Highlighting the role of particle surface area and surface reactivity. Inhal Toxicol 19(10):849–856.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). 2009. Scientific Opinion of the Scientific Committee on a request from the European Commission on the Potential Risks Arising from Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies on Food and Feed Safety The EFSA J 958:1–39.
   Google Scholar
• Ferin J, Oberdörster G, Penney DP. 1992. Pulmonary retention of ultrafine and fine particles in rats. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 6(5):535–542.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernandes TF, Christofi N, Stone V. 2007. The environmental implications of nanomaterials. In: Monteiro-Riviere N, Tran CL, editors. Nanotoxicology: Characterisation, dosing and health effects. New York: Informa Healthcare USA, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Foucaud L, Wilson MR, Brown DM, Stone V. 2007. Measurement of reactive species production by nanoparticles prepared in biologically relevant media. Toxicol Lett 174(1–3):1–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassellov M, Readman JW, Ranville JF, Tiede K. 2008. Nanoparticle analysis and characterization methodologies in environmental risk assessment of engineered nanoparticles. Ecotoxicology 17(5):344–361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herzog E, Casey A, Lyng FM, Chambers G, Byrne HJ, Davoren M. 2007. A new approach to the toxicity testing of carbon-based nanomaterials – the clonogenic assay. Toxicol Lett 174(1–3):49–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang J, Oberdörster G, Elder A, Gelein R, Mercer P, Biswas P. 2008. Does nanoparticle activity depend upon size and crystal phase? Nanotoxicology 2(1):33–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li XY, Gilmour PS, Donaldson K, MacNee W. 1996. Free radical activity and pro-inflammatory effects of particulate air pollution (PM10) in vivo and in vitro. Thorax 51(12):1216-22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li XY, Gilmour PS, Donaldson K, MacNee W. 1997. In vivo and in vitro proinflammatory effects of particulate air pollution (PM10). Environ Health Perspect 105(Suppl. 5):1279–1283.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lundqvist M, Stigler J, Elia G, Lynch I, Cedervall T, Dawson KA. 2008. Nanoparticle size and surface properties determine the protein corona with possible implications for biological impacts. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(38):14265–14270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luykx DMAM, Peters RJB, van Ruth SM, Bouwmeester H. 2008. A review of analytical methods for the identification and characterization of nano delivery systems in food. J Agric Food Chem 56(18):8231–8247.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynch I, Dawson KA. 2008. Protein-nanoparticle interactions. Nano Today 3(1–2):40–47.
   Google Scholar
• Lynch I, Dawson KA, Linse S. 2006. Detecting cryptic epitopes created by nanoparticles. Sci STKE 2006(327):pe14.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lyng FM, Faolain EO, Conroy J, Meade AD, Knief P, Duffy B, Hunter MB, Byrne JM, Kelehan P, Byrne HJ. 2007. Vibrational spectroscopy for cervical cancer pathology, from biochemical analysis to diagnostic tool. Exp Mol Pathol 82(2):121–129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maynard A, Rejeski D. 2009. Too small to overlook. Nature 460(7252):174–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murdock RC, Braydich-Stolle L, Schrand AM, Schlager JJ, Hussain SM. 2008. Characterization of nanomaterial dispersion in solution prior to in vitro exposure using dynamic light scattering technique. Toxicol Sci 101(2):239–253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST] 2007. http://www.nist.gov/cnst/
   Google Scholar
• Nel A, Xia T, Madler L, Li N. 2006. Toxic potential of materials at the nanolevel. Science 311(5761):622–627.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oberdörster G, Maynard A, Donaldson K, Castranova V, Fitzpatrick J, Ausman K, Carter J, Karn B, Kreyling W, Lai D, 2005a. Principles for characterizing the potential human health effects from exposure to nanomaterials: Elements of a screening strategy. Part Fibre Toxicol 2:8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oberdörster G, Oberdörster E, Oberdörster J. 2005b. Nanotoxicology: An emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environ Health Perspect 113(7):823–839.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oberdörster G, Stone V, Donaldson K. 2007. Toxicology of nanoparticles: A historical perspective. Nanotoxicology 1(1):2–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poland CA, Duffin R, Kinloch I, Maynard A, Wallace WA, Seaton A, Stone V, Brown S, Macnee W, Donaldson K. 2008. Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study. Nat Nanotechnol 3(7):423–428.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powers KW, Brown SC, Krishna VB, Wasdo SC, Moudgil BM, Roberts SM. 2006. Research strategies for safety evaluation of nanomaterials. Part VI. Characterization of nanoscale particles for toxicological evaluation. Toxicol Sci 90(2):296–303.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powers KW, Palazuelos M, Moudgil BM, Roberts SM. 2007. Characterization of the size, shape and state of dispersion of nanoparticles for toxicological studies. Nanotoxicology 1(1):42–51.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenkranz P, Chaudhry Q, Stone V, Fernandes T. 2009. A comparison of nanoparticle and fine particle uptake by Daphnia magna. Environ Toxicol Chem 28(10):2142–2149.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risk (SCENIHR). 2007a. Opinion on: The appropriateness of the risk assessment methodology in accordance with the technical guidance documents for new and existing substances for assessing the risks of nanomaterials European Commission Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General. Directorate C – Public Health and Risk Assessment C7- Risk Assessment.
   Google Scholar
• Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risk (SCENIHR). 2007b. Opinion on: The scientific aspects of the existing and proposed definitions relating to products of nanoscience and nanotechnologies European Commision Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General. Directorate C – Public Health and Risk Assesment C7- Risk Assessment.
   Google Scholar
• Stoeger T, Reinhard C, Takenaka S, Schroeppel A, Karg E, Ritter B, Heyder J, Schulz H. 2006. Instillation of six different ultrafine carbon particles indicates a surface area threshold dose for acute lung inflammation in mice. Environ Health Perspect 114(3):328–333.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone V, Shaw J, Brown DM, MacNee W, Faux SP, Donaldson K. 1998. The role of oxidative stress in the prolonged inhibitory effect of ultrafine carbon black on epithelial cell function. Toxicol in Vitro 12(6):649–659.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering. 2004. The Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. London, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas K, Sayre P. 2005. Research strategies for safety evaluation of nanomaterials, Part I: Evaluating the human health implications of exposure to nanoscale materials. Toxicol Sci 87(2):316–321.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tiede K, Boxall AB, Tear SP, Lewis J, David H, Hassellov M. 2008. Detection and characterization of engineered nanoparticles in food and the environment. Food Addit Contam 25(7):795–821.
   Google Scholar
• Wijnhoven SWP, Peijnenburg WJGM, Herberts CA, Hagens WI, Oomen AG, Heugens EHW, Roszek B, Bisschops J, Gosens I, Van De Meent D, 2009. Nano-silver – a review of available data and knowledge gaps in human and environmental risk assessment. Nanotoxicology 3(2):109–138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson MR, Lightbody JH, Donaldson K, Sales J, Stone V. 2002. Interactions between ultrafine particles and transition metals in vivo and in vitro. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 184(3):172–179.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Worle-Knirsch JM, Pulskamp K, Krug HF. 2006. Oops they did it again! Carbon nanotubes hoax scientists in viability assays. Nano Lett 6(6):1261–1268.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar