Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPeijnenburg, Willie J G M
dc.contributor.authorRuggiero, Emmanuel
dc.contributor.authorBoyles, Matthew
dc.contributor.authorMurphy, Fiona
dc.contributor.authorStone, Vicki
dc.contributor.authorElam, Derek A
dc.contributor.authorWerle, Kai
dc.contributor.authorWohlleben, Wendel
dc.date.accessioned2020-05-25T19:24:24Z
dc.date.available2020-05-25T19:24:24Z
dc.date.issued2020-05-13
dc.identifier.issn1996-1944
dc.identifier.pmid32414026
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/ma13102235
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10029/623807
dc.description.abstractThe reactivity of particle surfaces can be used as a criterion to group nanoforms (NFs) based on similar potential hazard. Since NFs may partially or completely dissolve over the duration of the assays, with the ions themselves inducing a response, reactivity assays commonly measure the additive reactivity of the particles and ions combined. Here, we determine the concentration of ions released over the course of particle testing, and determine the relative contributions of the released ions to the total reactivity measured. We differentiate three classes of reactivity, defined as being A) dominated by particles, B) additive of particles and ions, or C) dominated by ions. We provide examples for each class by analyzing the NF reactivity of Fe2O3, ZnO, CuO, Ag using the ferric reduction ability of serum (FRAS) assay. Furthermore, another two reactivity tests were performed: Dichlorodihydrofluorescin diacetate (DCFH2‑DA) assay and electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy. We compare assays and demonstrate that the dose‑response may be almost entirely assigned to ions in one assay (CuO in DCFH2‑DA), but to particles in others (CuO in EPR and FRAS). When considering this data, we conclude that one cannot specify the contribution of ions to NF toxicity for a certain NF, but only for a certain NF in a specific assay, medium and dose. The extent of dissolution depends on the buffer used, particle concentration applied, and duration of exposure. This culminates in the DCFH2‑DA, EPR, FRAS assays being performed under different ion‑to‑particle ratios, and differing in their sensitivity towards reactions induced by either ions or particles. If applied for grouping, read‑across, or other concepts based on the similarity of partially soluble NFs, results on reactivity should only be compared if measured by the same assay, incubation time, and dose range.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectdissolution producten_US
dc.subjectgroupingen_US
dc.subjectnanoformen_US
dc.subjectnanoform dissolutionen_US
dc.subjectreactivity assayen_US
dc.subjectreactivity classen_US
dc.titleA Method to Assess the Relevance of Nanomaterial Dissolution During Reactivity Testing.en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.journalMaterials 2020; 13(10):pii.e2235 advance online publication (ahead of print)en_US
dc.source.journaltitleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record