Imaging and Characterization of Engineered Nanoparticles in Sunscreens by Electron Microscopy, Under Wet and Dry Conditions

References

• Teichmann A. Investigation of the homogeneity of the distribution of sunscreen formulations on the human skin: Characteri-zation and comparison of two different methods. J Biomed Opt. 1006; 11 (6).
   Google Scholar
• Schulz J, Hohenberg H, Pflacker F et al. Distribution of sunscreens on skin. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2002; 54: 5157–5163.
   Google Scholar
• Gallagher RDP, Rivers JK, Lee TK, Bajdik CD, McLean DI, Gold-man AJ. Broad-spectrum sunscreen use and the development of new nevi in white children. J Am Med Assoc 2000; 283(22)2955-2960.
   Google Scholar
• Gebbers N, Scarletta C, Berret J, Applegate LA. (Anwendung von Sonnencreme bei in der Schweiz lebenden Familien) [Sunscreen Application with Families living in Switzerland]. Paedi-atrica. 1998; 14: 26–28.
   Google Scholar
• Verbraucher analyse 2008 Jugend II [Consumer Analysis 2008 Adolescents II]. [Internet] 2008 [cited 2009 Aug]. Media Plan-ning Dialogue System (MDS) online. Mel Springer AG, Ver-lagsgruppe Bauer. Available from: http://www.verbraucher-analyse.de.
   Google Scholar
• Tarroux R, Assalit MF. Influence of applied quantity, water-emersion and air-drying on covering and microstructure of physical sunscreen films. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2000; 22 (6): 447–458.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mitchnick MA, Fairhurst D, Pinnell SR. Microfine zinc oxide (Z-Cote) as a photostable UVA/UVB sunblock agent. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1999; 40 (1): 85–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serpone N, Dondi D, Albini A. Inorganic and organic UV filters: Their role and efficacy in sunscreens and suncare products. Inorg Chimica Acta. 2007; 360 (3): 794–802.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maier T, Korting HC. Sunscreens-Which and what for? Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2005; 18 (6): 253–262.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlumpf M, Durrer S, Faass O et al. Developmental toxicity of UV filters and environmental exposure: A review. Int J Androl. 2008; 31 (2) 144–151.
   Google Scholar
• Fent K, Kunz PY, Gomez E. UV Filters in the aquatic environ-ment induce hormonaal effects and affect fertility and repro-duction in fish. Chimia. 2008;62(5).368–375.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nohynek GJ., Lademann J, Ribaud C, Roberts MS. Grey goo on the skin? Nanotechnology, cosmetic and sunscreen safety. Grit Rev Toxicol. 2007; 37 (3): 251–277.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Consolidated version of Council Directive of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cos-metic products (76/768/EEC). [Internet] 2008 [cited 2010 Feb 19]. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission, Enterprise and Industry Directorate. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/cosmetics/documents/directive.
   Google Scholar
• Salvador A., Chisvert A. Sunscreen analysis. A critical survey on UV filters determination. Anal Chimica Acta. 2005; 537 (1-2): 1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wormuth M, Scheringer M, Hungerbahler K. Linking use of scented consumer products to consumer exposure to polycyclic musk fragrances. J Ind Ecol. 2005; 9 (1-2): 237–258.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loretz LJ, Api AM, Barraj LM et al. Exposure data for cosmetic products: Lipstick, body lotion, and face cream. Food and Chem Toxicol. 2005; 43 (2): 279–291.
   Google Scholar
• Consumer Products Inventory of Nanotechnology Products. [ Internet 1 2009 [cited 2010 Feb 19]. Woodrow Wilson Inter-national Center for Scholars. Project on Emerging Nanotech-nologies. Available from: http://www.nanotechprojectorg/inventories/consumer
   Google Scholar
• Background Paper: Nanotechnik für Mensch und Umwelt-Chancen fördern und Risiken mindern [Nanotechnology for mankind and environment-Seizing opportunities and reduc-ing risk] [Internet] 2009 October 21 [updated 2009 Dec 16; cited 2010 Feb 19]. Federal Environment Agency of Germany (UBA). Available from: http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/uba-info-presse-e/e-pinfo09.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Friends of the Earth. Nanotechnology and sunscreens, a consumer guide for avoiding nano-sunscreens [Internet] 2007 [updated 2007 August; cited 2010 Feb 19]. Available from: http://www.foe.org/pdf/Nano_Sunscreens.pdf..
   Google Scholar
• Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks [SCENIHR]. Risk assessment of products of nanotech-nologies, 2009 January 19.
   Google Scholar
• Environmental Working Group. Comments to Food and Drug Administration on nano-scale ingredients in cosmetics [Inter-net; updated 2006 October; cited 2010 Feb 19]. Environmental Working Group. Available from: http://www.ewg.org/node/21738.
   Google Scholar
• Auffan M, Rose J, Bottero JY, Lowry GV, Jolivet JP, Wiesner MR. Towards a definition of inorganic nanoparticles from an envi-ronmental, health and safety perspective. Nature Nanotech. 2009;4(10)634–631.
   Google Scholar
• Nel A, Xia T, Mddler L, Li N. Toxic Potential of materials at the nanolevel. Science. 2006; 311 (5761): 622–627.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oberdörster G, Maynard A, Donaldson K, et al. Principles for characterizing the potential human health effects from expo-sure to nanomaterials: Elements of a screening strategy. Partic Fibre Toxicol. 2005;2(8)
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brunner TJ, Wick P, Manser P, et al. In vitro cytotoxicity of oxide nanoparticles: Comparison to asbestos, silica and the effect of particle solubility. Environ Sci Technol. 2006; 40 (14): 4374–4381.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wick P, Manser P, Spohn P, Bruinik A. In vitro evaluation of pos-sible adverse effects of nanosized materials. Physica Status Solidi B Basic Res. 2006; 243 (13): 3556–3560.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagendorfer H, Lorenz C, Kaegi R, et al. Size-fractionated char-acterization and quantification of nanoparticle release rates from a consumer spray product containing engineered nano-particles. J Nanopart Res. 2009; DOI 10.1007/s11051-009-9816–6.
   Google Scholar
• Shin JA, Lee EJ, Seo SM, Kim HS, Kang JL, Park EM. Nanosized titanium dioxide enhanced inflammatory responses in the septic brain of mouse. Neurosci. 2010; 31 (1): 99–105.
   Google Scholar
• Nanoderm Project. Final report: Quality of skin as a barrier to ultra-fine particles [Internet] 2007 [updated 2007; cited 2010 Feb 19]. Available from: http://www.uni-leipzig.de/-nano-derm/Downloads/downloads.html.
   Google Scholar
• Gontier E, Ynsa MD, Biro T et al. Is there penetration of titania nanoparticles in sunscreens through skin? A comparative elec-tron and ion microscopy study. Nanotoxicol. 2008; 2 (4): 218–231.
   Google Scholar
• Lekki J, Stachura Z, Dabros W. On the follicular pathway of per-cutaneous uptake of nanoparticles: Ion microscopy and autora-diography studies. Nucl Instr Meth. 2007;B260: 174–177.
   Google Scholar
• Wu JH, Liu W, Xue CB et al. Toxicity and penetration of TiO2 nanoparticles in hairless mice and porcine skin after subchronic dermal exposure. Toxicol Lett. 2009; 191 (1): 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Muller NC, Nowack B. Exposure modeling of engineered nanoparticles on the environment. Environ Sci Technol. 2008; 42(12)4447-4453.
   Google Scholar
• Boxall ABA, Tiede K, Chaudhry Q. Engineered nanomaterials in soils and water: How do they behave and could they pose a risk to human health? Nanomed. 2007; 2 (6): 919–927.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenkranz P, Chaudhry Q Stone V, Fernandes TF. A comparison of nanoparticle uptake and fine particle uptake by Daphnia Magna. Env Tox Chem. 2009; 28 (10): 2142–2149.
   Google Scholar
• Semmler-Behnke M, Kreyling WG, Lipka J et al. Biodistribution of 1.4-and 18 nm gold particles in rats. Small. 2008; 4 (12): 2108–2111.
   Google Scholar
• Navarro E, Baun A, Behra R et al. Environmental behaviour and ecotoxicity of engineered nanoparticles to algae, plants, and fungi. Ecotoxicol. 2008; 17 (5): 372–386.
   Google Scholar
• Tiede K, Hassellöv M, Breitbarth E, Chaudhty Q Boxall ABA. Considerations for environmental fate and ecotoxicity testing to support environmental risk assessments for engineered nanoparticles. J Chromatogr. A 2009; 1216 (3): 503–509.
   Google Scholar
• Tiede K, Boxall ABA, Tear SP, Lewis J, David H, Hassellöv M. Detection and characterization of engineered nanoparticles in food and the environment. Food Addit Contam. 2008; 25 (8): 795–821.
   Google Scholar
• Tiede K, Tear SP, David H. Imaging of engineered nanoparticles and their aggregates under fully liquid conditions in environ-mental matrices. Water Res. 2009; 43 (13): 3335–3343.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tiede K, Boxall ABA, Tiede D, Teat SP, David H, Lewis J. A robust size-characterization methodology for studying nanopar-tide behaviour in ‘real’ environmental samples, using hydrody-namic chromatography coupled to ICP-MS. J Ana Atom Spec-tro. 2009; 24 (7): 964–972.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dussert AS, Gooris E. Characterization of the mineral content of a physical sunscreen emulsion and its distribution onto human stratum corneum. Intern J Cosm Sci. 1997; 19: 119–129.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cross SE, Innes B, Roberts MS, Tsuzuki T, Robertson TA, McCormick P. Human skin penetration of sunscreen nanopar-tides: In-vitro assessment of a novel micronized zinc oxide for-mulation. Skin Pharm Phys. 2007; 20 (3): 148–154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wokovich A, Tyner K, Doub W, Sadrieh N, Buhse LE Particle size determination of sunscreens formulated with various forms of titanium dioxide. Drug Develop Ind Pharm. 2009;35 (10): 1180–1189.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thiberge S, Zik O, Moses E. An apparatus for imaging liquids, cells, and other wet samples in the scanning electron microscopy. Rev Sci Instr. 2004; 75 (7): 2280–2289.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ImageJ software. [Internet] 2008 November [updated 2010 Feb 12; cited 2010 Feb 19]. Available from: http://rsbweb.nih.gov/Windex.html.
   Google Scholar