No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 19, 2026.

Toxicity of Nanoparticles in Biomedical Application: Nanotoxicology

Chukwuebuka Egbuna, Vijaykumar K. Parmar, Jaison Jeevanandam and 19 more

Journal of Toxicology · 2021 · Review

doi:10.1155/2021/9954443

Abstract

Nanoparticles are of great importance in development and research because of their application in industries and biomedicine. The development of nanoparticles requires proper knowledge of their fabrication, interaction, release, distribution, target, compatibility, and functions. This review presents a comprehensive update on nanoparticles’ toxic effects, the factors underlying their toxicity, and the mechanisms by which toxicity is induced. Recent studies have found that nanoparticles may cause serious health effects when exposed to the body through ingestion, inhalation, and skin contact without caution. The extent to which toxicity is induced depends on some properties, including the nature and size of the nanoparticle, the surface area, shape, aspect ratio, surface coating, crystallinity, dissolution, and agglomeration. In all, the general mechanisms by which it causes toxicity lie on its capability to initiate the formation of reactive species, cytotoxicity, genotoxicity, and neurotoxicity, among others.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 20, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

1. Introduction

1Nanotoxicology is an aspect of nanoscience that deals with the study of the adverse effects of engineered nanomaterials or nanoparticles on living organisms. The ever-increasing application of engineered nanoparticles for biomedical application has raised serious concerns about their safety in humans. Nanoparticles (NPs) are widely used as nanomedicine and nanocarriers of drugs, due to their small size and exclusive properties. However, their size, morphology, surface functional groups, and dose-dependent properties may also be responsible for their toxicity towards normal, healthy human cells, tissues, and organs. Several studies have shown that chemically synthesized NPs have high toxicity on human cells due to the presence of synthetic chemicals as surface functional and capping agents, compared to biosynthesized nanoparticles that possess biocompatible surface functional groups. On the contrary, certain biosynthesized nanoparticles also exhibit toxicity upon reaction with cells, while disintegrating into its simpler forms or due to accumulation. The scope of nanotoxicology is aimed at identifying potential hazards that are useful for the safety evaluation of nanomedicines. This review consulted current literature and presented recent information about the toxic effects of nanoparticles.

2. Properties of Nanoparticles That Influence Toxicities

2The NPs properties that influence toxicity are size, surface area, shape, aspect ratio, surface coating, crystallinity, dissolution, and agglomeration.

2.1. Size and Surface Area

3As nanoparticle size decreases, the ratio of surface area to volume exponentially increases, which in turn increases biological and chemical reactivities. For instance, when the size of the NP decreased from 30 to 3 nm, the number of surface molecules expressed increased from 10 to 50%. The cytotoxicity of nanomaterials results from the interaction between the nanomaterial surface and cellular components. Thus, even when nanoparticles have the same chemical composition, they can have a significantly different level of cytotoxicity depending on surface area and particle size. In other words, NPs have higher toxicity in comparison to the bigger particles with similar compositions.

4Chao et al. reported silver NPs' size-dependent acute toxicity in BALB/c mice after intraperitoneal administration of silver nanoparticles, which had diameters of 10, 60, and 100 nm. Histopathological changes such as the thymus cortex apoptosis; focal necrosis, single-cell necrosis, vacuolation, and congestion in the liver; and congestion in the spleen were only seen after administering 10 nm silver nanoparticles and not for 60 and 100 nm silver nanoparticles. Thus, smaller nanoparticles have greater acute toxicities in mice.

5Du et al. investigated cardiovascular toxicity of different sizes of amorphous silica NPs (90, 60, and 30 nm) and 600 nm of fine silica NPs after intratracheal instillation in rats. The silica concentrations in serum and heart were evaluated using inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy. Blood levels of inflammation-related proteins, cytokines, and tumor necrosis factor were found higher in rats administered fine silica particles.

6In the case of the administration of nanoparticles via inhalation, different sizes of nanoparticles showed specific distribution patterns in the respiratory tract. The toxicological evaluation of the response to inhaled nanoparticles requires knowledge of the dose of nanomaterials deposited in the respiratory tract. Braakhuis et al. showed size-dependent pulmonary inflammation after inhalation of 15 and 410 nm of silver NPs. The NPs inhaled were not removed sufficiently compared to the large particles through the mechanisms of macrophage clearance in lungs and that could cause lung damage.

7Lopez-Chaves et al. evaluated subcellular location, toxic effects, and tissue distribution of three different gold NPs' sizes. They used particles of 10, 30, and 60 nm sizes and assessed in vivo distribution after intraperitoneal administration in the rat. The gold nanoparticles of 10 and 30 nm crossed the membrane of the nucleus, consequently favoring breaks in DNA. These 10 and 30 nm gold NPs seemingly accumulate more in liver, kidney, and intestine than 60 nm gold nanoparticles. The highest accumulation of 60 nm particle was observed in the spleen. Thus, the larger the sizes of gold NP, the higher they accumulate in the spleen.

8Nanoparticles' absorption from the GI tract is a multistep process; a function of mucus layer interaction, enterocytes contact and assimilate through a cellular entry or paracellular transport. NPs less than 100 nm get absorbed by intestinal cells, unlike the bigger NPs (300 nm). Smaller NPs' (100 nm) absorption in lymphatic tissues is higher than in cells of the intestine. Although some studies stated otherwise, endocytosis remains the main mechanism mostly common for NPs' uptake into epithelial cells of the intestine.

9In summary, NPs have larger surface areas and higher particle numbers per unit mass in comparison with the bigger particles (Table 1). The body reacts in a different way with similar mass composed of billions of NPs in comparison with many microparticles. The engineered nanoparticles possess high surface reactivity, as well as high surface area, which could result in producing higher reactive oxygen species level, thus leading to cytotoxicity and genotoxicity.

2.2. Shape

10Shape is an important factor of nanoparticles that play a vital role in determining their biological reactivity as well as toxicity. The typical shapes of nanoparticles are sphere, cylinder, cube, sheet, or rod (Figure 1). The shape of the nanoparticle is important in determining its cellular uptake.

11The cellular uptake of carbon nanomaterial of spherical shape and tubes of multi-graphitic sheets was observed in epithelial tissues of both gut and gill, but not of cube-shaped carbon nanoparticles. Silver nanoplates were found to be more harmful than silver nanospheres in zebrafish (Danio rerio) embryos. The spherical nanoparticles are taken up in greater numbers in cells compared to the other shapes. Gold nanorods cause less accumulation of autophagosome than gold nanospheres. Steckiewicz et al. examined the cytotoxic properties of gold NP of stars, rods, as well as spheres against human fetal osteoblast, osteosarcoma, and pancreatic duct cell line using MTT assay. The star-shaped gold nanoparticles are the most cytotoxic against human cells. Both cytotoxicity and anticancer potentials of gold nanoparticles depend on shape. Mesoporous silica nanoparticles have shown potential as a drug carrier in oral drug delivery. The needle-shaped nanoparticles exhibit more toxicity than those with spherical shape, because of their improved multiple endocytic mechanisms, internalization rates, and more efficient adhesiveness to the surface of the target cell.

2.3. Aspect Ratio

12A nanoparticle aspect ratio is the width to height ratio. An aspect ratio of 1 represents a spherical particle, while nanotube has an aspect ratio close to zero. The greater the NPs' aspect ratio, the higher the toxicity of the NPs. Aspect-ratio-dependent toxicity is generally observed in the lung. The nanofibers with about 150 nm thickness and 2, 5, and 10 µm length show asbestosis, mesothelioma, and lung cancer, respectively. Muller et al. studied the pulmonary toxicities of carbon nanotube with a high aspect ratio in Sprague-Dawley rats following administration directly into the trachea. Carbon nanotube samples caused significant protein exudation and granulomas on the peritoneal side of the diaphragm.

13Li et al. systematically studied the effect of NPs of mesoporous silica with different aspect ratios of 5, 1.75, and 1 on their in vivo toxicity, excretion, and biodistribution after administration through the oral route. With a reduction in the aspect ratio, systematic absorption through organs, e.g., the small intestine, increased while the excretion via urine reduced. Renal toxicity which depends on shape of silica nanoparticles was reported.

2.4. Crystallinity

14The type of crystalline structure may affect the toxicity of nanomaterials. Polymorphs, the different crystalline structures of the same chemical composition showed different chemical and physical properties. Lai et al. reported cytotoxicity of 10-hydroxycamptothecin (HCPT) nanoparticle dispersions, which depends on the polymorph, in both in vivo and in vitro studies. Three 10-hydroxycamptothecin polymorphic nanoparticle dispersions, i.e., pan-cake, prismatic, and needle forms, were made and characterized. The cytotoxicity results indicated that all the different HCPT nanoparticles' cellular toxicities depended on size and shape. However, the needle-shaped HCPT nanoparticles are more potent in apoptotic response in cancer cells despite similar cellular uptakes as prismatic nanoparticles. This effect may explain the preference for polymorph with different thermodynamic properties, including lattice energy. Andersson et al. also reported titanium dioxide NPs' uptake and toxicity in A549 lung epithelial cells, which were polymorph-dependent. These reports lay emphasis on the significance of the accurate characterization of the polymorphic form (crystalline structure) of nanoparticles for reliable assessment of toxicity.

2.5. Surface Coating or Surface Functionalization

15Surface coatings of nanoparticles are applied in order to modify its properties. The surface of a particle (the “core”) is covered with a variety of layer(s) (the “shell”). The objective of the surface coating may be to tailor its stability, wettability, dissolution, or functionality. The surface coating can convert noxious particles to be nontoxic while less harmful particles may become more toxic due to bioavailability. Xu et al. performed an in vitro evaluation of the toxicity of iron oxide nanoparticles coated with silica (Fe3O4/SiO2 NP) on the cells of HeLa and A549. Reports indicate that surface passivation of NPs decreases the alteration of iron homeostasis and oxidative stress. As a result of this, there is overall toxicity reduction during cell internalization when compared to nanoparticles that are not passivated.

16In a separate study, the iron oxide NPs coated with polyethyleneimine (PEI) were reported to significantly exhibit higher uptake than PEGylated iron oxide nanoparticles in both cancer cells and macrophages which resulted in severe cytotoxicity. PEI-coated iron oxide NPs were more efficiently internalized than PEGylated iron oxide NPs despite having the same nanoparticle sizes, which could be the result of the cationic NPs' affinity to the protein domains or negative head groups of phospholipids on cellular membranes. Consequently, it is imperative to put surface coatings of NPs into consideration in toxicity studies.

2.6. Dissolution

17The dissolution ability of nanoparticles is a significant property that determines safety, uptakes, and associated toxic mechanism. Two identical NPs of similar composition and size may have completely different behavior in dissolution, depending on different surface modification. Nanoparticles that undertake media dissolution before uptake by the organisms usually have clear ion channels and ion transporters as the preferred cellular entry route.

2.7. Agglomeration

18Nanomaterials are likely to agglomerate in solution due to their high free surface energy. To avoid agglomeration, nanomaterials are shielded with protective agents. The toxicity of nanomaterials is also dependent on whether or not agglomeration occurred. The agglomeration of nanoparticles could be a potential inducer of inflammatory lung conditions in humans. The agglomeration-dependent toxicity of nanomaterials is more commonly observed in carbon nanotubes and oxide nanoparticles. The well-dispersed carbon nanotubes have been reported as having less toxicity than the agglomerated carbon nanotubes. Zook et al. showed the significance of agglomeration control by demonstrating that large silver NPs agglomerate significantly causing less hemolytic toxicity compared to small agglomerates.

3. General Mechanism of Nanoparticle Toxicity

19The general mechanism by which metallic oxide nanoparticle induces toxicity is a joint function of the properties of the nanoparticle and its corresponding ability to induce ROS, and cause toxicity to cells, genes, and neurons.

3.1. Nanoparticle-Induced Oxidative Stress

20Oxidative stress is among the commonly reported stresses that nanoparticles induce following exposure on a cellular level. Oxidative stress can be broadly defined as a lack of balance between antioxidants' activities and the production of oxidants. A state of oxidative stress arises via increase in ROS production favored over antioxidants. ROS are generally produced in the form of by-products of biochemical reactions, including neutrophil-mediated phagocytosis, enzymatic metabolism of cytochrome P450, and mitochondrial respiration, and commonly include peroxynitrite (ONOO−), nitric oxide (NO), hydroxyl radical (∙OH), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), and superoxide radical (O2∙−). The ROS attack nucleic acids, proteins, lipids, and most vital biomolecules which can lead to an NADPH-like system activation, electron transport chain impairment, mitochondrial membrane depolarization, and damage to the mitochondrial structure.

21Oxidative stress constitutes significant adverse effects in the use of nanoparticles, as it may generate oxidants and have the capacity to stimulate ROS generation partly as a result of relative stability of free radical intermediates, which occur on particles' reactive surfaces, or as NPs-induced cellular response, or redox-active groups caused by NPs functionalization, especially with the ability of the NP to interfere with cellular uptake. Such imbalance induced by nanoparticles directly or indirectly can lead to drastic effects that may lead to cytotoxicity. ROS induced by NPs can cause damage to genetic materials, including cross-linking of DNA, breakage of DNA strand, and genetic mutations. NPs can also increase ROS production by activating inflammatory cells, including neutrophils.

22Zinc Oxide NPs (ZnONPs) are widely applied for various purposes ranging from fillers, a component of creams, powders, dental creams, absorber of UV radiation, and biosensors. Nevertheless, studies have shown that zinc oxide can result in oxidative stress leading to damage on a cellular level. A study was conducted on human liver cells (HepG2) that are exposed to 14–20 lg per ml of ZnONP and are found to cause oxidative stress-mediated damage to DNA and ROS-triggered mitochondria-mediated apoptosis HepG2. ZnONPs also reduce cell viability and trigger apoptosis in primary astrocytes along with increased levels of intracellular ROS. According to Hou et al., ZnONPs induce the failure of minichromosome maintenance with a corresponding DNA replication disorder in different periods (G1, M, and G2 phase) in the cell cycle pathway.

23Super paramagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles, which have various uses in magnetic resonance imaging distinction, improvement, immunoassays as well as drug targeting systems for cancer, were found to cause oxidative stress in addition to disturbance in iron homeostasis exposures of the core of the iron oxide and can cause oxidative stress that could be linked with disorders in neurological system.

24Silver NP (AgNp) was found in several consumer items owing to their excellent anti-microbial activities. However, several reports have concluded that they have cytotoxic properties owing to oxidative stress. One report attributed oxidative stress-mediated programmed cell death of AgNPs in Candida albicans through the accumulation of intracellular ROS as well as other targets of the cells leading to changed ultrastructure, cellular morphology, ergosterol content, membrane microenvironment, and membrane fluidity. Another study conducted on mice administered treatment orally using AgNps coated with polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP-AgNPs) and reported permanent alterations in genes and DNA damage in several tissues. Finally, the silver species oxidation in AgNPs after their quick releasing from decreased silver-rich NP after being autophaghed by lysosymes results in cellular toxicity modulated by ROS generation. The same holds true for gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) which are widely used in cancer treatments; however, they have been reported to have oxidative stress-induced cytotoxicity on several cell lines, including the cells of HeLa, HepG2, and PMBC by generating ROS.

25Ahamed et al. carried a study and concluded that Bi2O3 nano particles cause dose-dependent apoptosis and cytotoxicity in cells of MCF-7. However, they found that supplementing external antioxidants, N-acetyl-cysteine, altered the Bi2O3 nanoparticles' cytotoxicity effectively, thereby suggesting that Bi2O3 nano particles caused the cytotoxicity by alteration of redox homeostasis.

26In addition to metallic NPs, nonmetallic nanoparticles can also cause oxidative stress. Ceramic NPs which are usually applied in drug delivery were shown to induce oxidative stress leading to cytotoxicity in the brain, heart, liver, and lungs, and also carcinogenic and teratogenic properties. Also, silica nanoparticles (SiNP) were shown to initiate a time- and dose-dependent NO/NOS imbalance and oxidative stress, resulting in inflammation and dysfunction of endothelium. Carbon nanotubes (CNT) were also shown to induce oxidative stress-related toxicity. Shvedova et al. demonstrated that in addition to free radicals, CNT cellular uptake induced oxidation of polyunsaturated fatty acids and caused cellular apoptosis.

3.2. Cytotoxicity of Nanoparticles: Biochemical and Molecular Mechanisms of Cytotoxicity

27In addition to cytotoxicity induced by ROS generation discussed earlier, cytotoxicity induced by nanoparticles can be caused by various physicochemical, biochemical, and molecular mechanisms.

3.2.1. Physicochemical Mechanisms

28As noted earlier, particle size could contribute to cytotoxic potency because smaller nanoparticles typically possess larger surface areas which enable interactions with components of the cells, including carbohydrates, fatty acids, proteins, and nucleic acids. Moreover, these very small nanoparticles have more likelihood of entering cells, resulting in damage to cells. Jiang et al. concluded that crystal type has a significant effect on cytotoxicity with amorphous TiO2 being the most cytotoxic form. Particle shape was also found to have a direct effect on cytotoxicity. Rod-shaped Fe2O3 NPs produce higher responses to cytotoxicity than Fe2O3 NPs with sphere shape in a cell line of murine macrophage (RAW 264.7), along with higher levels of necrosis, ROS production, inflammatory response, and leakage of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). In addition, CeO2 nanoparticles with rod shape were reported to give substantial tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF) and LDH release in the cell lines of murine macrophage, whereas none of the cubic or octahedron shape could give significant responses.

29Surface charge of particles could also have an effect on the nanoparticles' cellular uptake and their interaction with biomolecules and organelles, thereby directly influencing NP cytotoxicity with the toxicity increasing as surface charge increased. A study on the cell line of human hepatoma (BEL-7402) on several iron NPs with different surface charges concluded that the more positive charge NP has more electrostatic interaction with cells leading to more endocytic uptakes. This correlated with another study which concluded that positively charged ZnONPs produced more cytotoxicity in cells of A549 than particles with negative charges despite having similar size and shape, which was attributed to the interaction of particles of positive charges with the Glycosaminoglycan molecule (which is negatively charged) in the mammalian cell membrane leading to the NP being more internalized, and the same scenario can be applied in positive charge NPs that interact with negative charge DNA, resulting in damage to DNA.

30Dendrimers, which are widely used commercially in drug, gene, and siRNA delivery, with the anionic or PEGylated dendrimers showing low toxicity compared to cationic dendrimers, decrease cell integrity and permeability, and interact with the lipid bilayer of the biological membrane. PAMAM dendrimers have also been shown to have a cytotoxic effect because their surface amino groups impart a cationic charge, which upon endocytosis results in DNA damage, mitochondrial damage, oxidative stress, and consequently apoptosis.

3.2.2. Molecular and Biochemical Mechanisms

31The perturbation of Ca2+ (intracellular calcium) induced by nanoparticles is a major cause of cytotoxicity induced by NPs and linked to energetic imbalance, metabolic imbalance, and cellular dysfunctions. Although Ca2+ is among the major signaling molecules involved in the transduction of cell signal in the regulation of cellular metabolism and energy output, its increase has a direct toxic effect on cellular mitochondria which respond in an apoptic pathway via selectively releasing cytochrome c or by improved ROS production and making an inner pore of mitochondrial membrane open, all of which lead to cell death. ZnONPs increase Ca2+ and influx of extracellular calcium inflicted by membrane disruption through lipid peroxidation, malondialdehyde (MDA) causing cytotoxicity, and disruption in hemostasis. A study by Lai et al. reported a reduction in mitochondrial membrane potential (MMP) following ZnO exposure in alveolar adenocarcinoma cells (A549) and bronchial epithelial cells (BEAS-2B) of humans, indicating a higher risk of early apoptosis. Li et al. reported that ZnONP appeared to physically squeeze mitochondrial bodies in HaCa cell lines. TiO2 leads to loss of mitochondrial membrane potential in lung A549 cells and neuronal cells (PC12). Fe3O4 induced loss of mitochondrial membrane potential in human hepatoma cells (BEL-7402) and “human mesenchymal stem cells” (hMSCs). Bi2O3 NPs were also reported to cause low MMP together with a greater bax/bcl-2 genes expression ratio, inducing cell apoptosis via the pathway of mitochondria. Recently done studies showed that binding of proteins to metal oxide nanoparticles such as FeO, SiO2, TiO2, or ZnO NPs could lead to protein denaturation or minor changes in conformation, with irreversible proteins binding to NPs. Also, Cu and Zn ions were shown to inactivate some metalloproteins through the dislodging of metallic ions in them.

3.2.3. Cells Cycle Arrest

32Cell divisions comprise two successive progressions, Mitosis (M), which is the nuclear division and interphase process, including G1, G2, and S phases. DNA replication takes place in the S phase and is preceded by the G1 phase within which the cells prepare for the synthesis of DNA; then it is followed by the G2 phase in which cells prepare for M. Cells within G1 phase may enter a state of resting known as G0, which is responsible for most part of the nonproliferating and nongrowing cells in humans.

33Recently, it has been shown that nanoparticles' cytotoxic effect may not only lead to cell death but also to cell proliferation suppression that occurs once cells are arrested in at least one phase of the cell cycle (G2/M phase, S phase, or G0/G1 phase). Cells arrested within cell cycle either accumulate much damage leading to apoptosis or fix the damage.

34Cell cycle arrest can be specific to certain types of cells at specific phases, for instance, nickel oxide NP (NiONP) exposure led to a significant decrease in G0/G1 in the cell line of A549 and a significant increase in the G0/G1 phase in the cell line of BEAS-2B. Similarly, the G2/M phase in the cell line A549 significantly increased and the G2/M in the cell line of BEAS-2B significantly decreased, whereas only the cell line of BEAS-2B significantly affected the S phase. The type of nanoparticle also affects the cell cycle. In HaCa T cells, exposure to CuO and ZnO NPs led to G2/M phase arrest, whereas TiO2 exposure led to S phase arrest. Fe3O4 and Al2O3 resulted in an increase in the phase of sub-G0 of hMSFs. Also, cells of A549 was arrested in the G2/M phase following exposures to ZnO, NiO, and CuO, but upon Fe2O3 exposure experienced no cell cycle change.

3.3. Genotoxicity of Nanoparticles

35The mechanism behind nanoparticle-associated genotoxicity is majorly due to the overproduction of reactive nitrogen (RNS) species and ROS, which results in increased oxidative stress and hence oxidative damage to the genetic material. The NPs-mediated production of ROS and RNS can be due to intrinsic production, interaction with cell target, and/or inflammatory reaction. The resultant damage to the genetic material can be direct or indirect primary clastogenic or secondary (aneugenic, and DNA adduct production) genotoxicity. The primary toxicity occurs due to the interaction of the NPs themselves with the DNA, whereas in the secondary genotoxicity, the genetic damage occurs as a result of ROS/RNS produced/carried by the NPs. In the indirect primary clastrogenic mechanism, exocyclic DNA adducts are produced via unsaturated aldehydes produced as a result of ROS-mediated primary lipid oxidation. The secondary aneugenic mechanism's major consequence is chromosomal loss due to nondisjunctioning in the anaphase as a result of ROS and or RNS-induced protein oxidative lesions that affect the function of the mitotic apparatus. Many scientific studies are in support of nanoparticles-induced genotoxicity. For example, Kisin et al. reported that single-wall carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) caused single- and double-strand DNA lesions in Chinese hamster fibroblasts (V79 cell line) at 96 µg/cm2. In a different study, AgNPs at different concentrations were found to cause significant DNA damage in S. cerevisiae, larvae of the mulberry silkworm, adults of the microcrustacean C. cornuta, and abnormalities in micronuclei and nuclear of zebrafish (D. rerio). AgNPs' genotoxicity was also reported in microbes and plants. A summary of reported in vitro and in vivo studies for the genotoxic effects of NPs is presented in Table 2.

3.4. Neurotoxicity of Nanoparticles

36Neurotoxicity is a reversible or irreversible side effect that may affect the structure, function, or chemistry of the neurons in the nervous system. Though the research community has centered its efforts on developing a brain-targeted drug delivery system using smart NPs, there is less information available on the neurotoxicity of these particles. Various research papers suggested that the neurotoxicity of the NPs is due to oxidative stress triggered by free radical activity. A summary of the neurotoxic effects of selected nanoparticles is presented in Table 3.

4. Studies on Specific Nanoparticles and Their Associated Toxicity

37The basic mechanism of metal oxide nanoparticle toxicity is based on its colloidal dispersion, homeostasis alteration, and accumulation. The colloidal dispersion of metal oxide nanoparticles leads to ions of metals and oxygen, where the metals accumulate, alter the homeostasis of cells, and bind with cell organelles to cause toxic effects. The oxygen ion, being singlet oxygen, produces ROS, increases oxidative stress, and leads to lipid peroxidation. In the second case, the slow release of metal ions from the nanoparticles alters the cellular homeostasis as most of the fabricated metal oxide nanoparticles are trace and essential metals that are required for the development of cells. These alterations also cause the level of metals to increase more than their threshold limit, similar to the toxicity caused by heavy metal accumulation. In the third case, highly stable metal oxide nanoparticles accumulate either on the surface of the cells or internalize into the cells. These nanoparticles accumulate and agglomerate, which causes either 1st or 2nd case of toxicity or just the accumulation of high metal oxide concentration which may also lead to toxic effects.

38Metal nanoparticles exhibited cytotoxicity via three significant pathways as shown in Figure 2:Particle characterizationDosimetryInteraction with the cells

39Particle characterization

40Dosimetry

41Interaction with the cells

42The particle characteristics are highly dependent on the synthetic approach, which can alter their size, morphology, and surface functional groups. The dosimetry, including the dose and concentration of nanoparticles to initiate toxic reactions in cells, is also dependent on the physicochemical characteristics of the metal nanoparticles. The cell interaction is an independent characteristic which leads to toxicity. Sometimes, the size and morphology influence the interaction of metal oxide with the cells, yet, most of the time, it is their surface charge, stability, and surface functional groups that determine the nanoparticles' cellular interaction. As suggested earlier, the smaller size of these nanoparticles allows easy by-pass through the cell membrane and then to the nucleus, which may cause alterations in DNA and mitochondrial pathways, leading to serious genotoxicity. Low stable metal nanoparticles, which are dependent on the surface charge, will release free metal ions that will accumulate inside the cell organelles and inhibit their growth via oxidative stress, similar to heavy metal accumulation. However, biomolecules as surface functional groups, especially phytochemicals with antioxidant properties, rather than synthetic stabilizing and a capping agent from chemically synthesized nanoparticles, helps in reducing the release of ROS from the metal nanoparticles, which forms peroxides and inhibits cell growth and causes cell death.

4.1. Gold Nanoparticles

43Gold nanoparticles are arguably the first nanoparticles that are used in commercial materials and approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) as nanomedicine and nanocarrier. Moreover, these nanostructures possess unique size-dependent surface plasmon resonance properties that made them utilizable in biosensor applications. In spite of these applications, gold nanoparticles are also considered to be toxic based on the administered dose and concentration via accumulation in cells, similar to heavy metals. In recent times, several studies reported different factors that can lead to cytotoxicity towards human cells. Senut et al. explored the size-dependent toxicity of gold nanoparticles towards human embryonic stem cells and their neural derivatives. Particle sizes such as 1.5, 4, and 14 nm of gold nanoparticles were used to evaluate its neuronal differentiation, viability, DNA methylation, and pluripotency. The result of the study revealed that the chemically synthesized gold nanoparticles of size below 20 nm are highly toxic to stem cells by altering cellular DNA methylation and the hydromethylation pattern. Biosynthesized gold nanoparticles have shown to be an efficient anticancer drug carrier to deliver doxorubicin at the target site and cure cancer cells. Thus, it is evident from these two studies that the toxicity of gold nanoparticles depends on the synthesis approach, which affects their size, morphology, topology, and surface functional group.

44Recently, Jo et al. evaluated the in vitro and in vivo toxicity, as well as estimated the oral absorption and tissue distribution biokinetics of orally administered, chemically synthesized gold nanoparticles using human and rat intestinal cells for 14 days. The result revealed that the gold nanoparticles were nontoxic for 24 h in terms of membrane damage, oxidative stress, and cell proliferation inhibition. However, they also revealed that these nanosized gold particles are toxic after 14 days exhibiting long-term and high concentration exposure dependent toxic reactions. Similarly, there are several studies which demonstrate that gold nanoparticles are toxic to cancer cells and not to normal healthy cells. Semmler-Behnke et al. showed that gold nanoparticles can accumulate in the fetus of a rat via maternal blood and can lead to toxicity towards the fetus.

4.2. Silver Nanoparticles

45Silver nanoparticles are an important set of nanosized particles that are widely synthesized for various applications, next to gold. Bulk silver possess antimicrobial activities to a certain extent, whereas nanosized silver particles possess exclusive antimicrobial properties to inhibit the growth of specific microbes, including bacteria, fungi, algae, and viruses. The production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and elevating the oxidative stress in the microbial cells are significant factors that lead to their enhanced antimicrobial activities. Also, silver nanoparticles are toxic towards cancer cells by releasing ROS, specific to cancer cells. The in-depth analysis of literature has revealed that only biosynthesized silver nanoparticles exhibit anticancer activity. This evidence confirms that silver nanoparticles activate or enhance the immobilization of biomolecules into the cancer cells, which improve their anticancer property. Even though they show toxic reactions towards microbes and cancer cells, several studies demonstrated that silver nanoparticles are less toxic or nontoxic towards healthy human cells. Kim et al. examined the cytotoxicity of silver nanoparticles towards human hepatoma cells via oxidative stress. The results revealed that there is a negligible amount of free silver ions that are exposed from the nanoparticles to the cell culture. It is noteworthy that the nanoparticles are stable in the cell culture medium and agglomerate in the cellular cytoplasm and nuclei, which induces intracellular oxidative stress. In addition, the cytotoxicity of silver nanoparticles is found to be similar to the silver ions. However, the nanoparticle-mediated oxidative stress and DNA damage can be reduced by the antioxidant N-acetylcysteine. Similarly, Ahamed et al. demonstrated that the silver nanoparticles are toxic to the cells of the skin, brain, liver, lung, and reproductive and vascular systems of mammals. They also confirmed that the toxic reactions are dependent on the short- and long-term exposure of nanoparticles with the cells.

46de Lima et al. stated that silver nanoparticles possess the ability to trigger inflammatory reactions in human cells. Moreover, these nanosized silver particles had the ability to cross the cell membrane and reach the nucleus which causes increasing damage to the genetic material and hence genotoxicity. They also revealed the presence of biomolecules as functional groups in biosynthesized silver nanoparticles, which reduces ROS production with their antioxidant properties. Thus, they concluded that the biosynthesized silver nanoparticles are less toxic towards normal, healthy human cells, compared to chemically synthesized nanoparticles. Gaillet and Rouanet examined the toxicity of silver nanoparticles after their exposure towards humans via the oral route. They revealed that the silver nanoparticles cause toxic side effects mainly in the intestinal tract and liver via oral exposure. It is noteworthy that the silver nanoparticles produce free radicals and induces oxidative damage via cellular oxidative stress, which leads to inflammatory reaction-triggered toxicity and death by apoptosis or necrosis. In addition, Kennedy et al. showed that the human serum albumin helps in stabilizing aqueous silver nanoparticles, which inhibits the cellular uptake of particles, thereby reducing their potential exposure towards cells to reduce toxicity. Likewise, Smith et al. evaluated the kinetics of silver ions and particles using RAW 264.7 macrophages, wild-type C57BL/6J mice derived bone marrow macrophages, and scavenger receptor A–deficient (SR-A(-/-)) mice via in vitro analysis. Furthermore, the accumulation of silver at an increased concentration in cells may lead to Parkinson's disease, silver-Russell syndrome, and Alzheimer's diseases.

4.3. Copper Oxide Nanoparticles

47Copper oxides belong to the family of metal oxides that possess enormous applications as bulk or microparticles. When these copper oxides are reduced to the nano-size, they behave differently than their bulk counterparts and exhibit exclusive properties. Copper oxide nanoparticles are widely utilized as antimicrobial agents and are also explored to possess anticancer activity, bioimaging, and nano-medicinal properties (Abdelhamid). Numerous studies have revealed that the copper oxide nanoparticles are highly toxic towards microbes such as bacteria, fungi, algae, and viruses as well as cancer cells. In spite of these exclusive biomedical properties, several reports showed that copper oxide nanoparticles are also highly toxic to normal and healthy human cells. Karlsson et al. evaluated the toxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles such as oxides of titanium, iron, zinc, and copper with carbon nanoparticles and multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) using the human A549 lung epithelial cell line. The result showed that the copper oxide nanoparticles are highly toxic to lung cells by causing oxidative lesions and damaging DNA, compared to other nanosized metal oxides, carbon nanoparticles, and MWCNTs. Similarly, Studer et al. compared the toxicity of stabilized copper metal and degradable copper oxide nanoparticles using Chinese hamster oocytes and HeLa cells. The results revealed that the copper oxide nanoparticles disintegrated into copper ions, and free metallic copper ions inhibit healthy cells via trojan horse-type mechanism and its physicochemical parameters, especially intracellular solubility, plays a dominating effect on their cytotoxicity. In addition, Fahmy and Cormier demonstrated that copper oxide nanoparticles exhibit cytotoxicity in airway epithelial cells by inducing oxidative stress. Furthermore, Alarifi et al. showed that copper oxide nanoparticles are cytotoxic and genotoxic towards human skin keratinocyte cells. It is noteworthy that the copper oxide nanoparticles also showed toxic reactions towards human lung epithelial cells, cardiac microvascular endothelial cells, HepG2 cells, and human skin organ culture. Moreover, Atha et al. demonstrated that copper oxide nanoparticles are toxic to terrestrial plant models such as Raphanus sativus, Lolium perenne, and Lolium rigidum by damaging their DNA.

48In recent times, Wongrakpanich et al. stated that copper oxide nanoparticles exhibit high toxicity towards lung epithelial cells, which depends on their size. Four and 24 nm sized particles were used for the study and the result demonstrated that the 24 nm sized oxide nanoparticles of copper were highly toxic to cells, compared to 4 nm sized ones. They proposed that the post-internalization events of larger nanoparticles such as disintegration into their ionic state and releasing reactive oxygen lead to their higher toxicity than smaller nanoparticles. In addition, Akhtar et al. showed that copper oxide nanoparticles induce dose-dependent genotoxicity by stimulating ROS generation in human lung epithelial cells. Likewise, Srikanth et al. showed that the copper oxide nanoparticles exhibited cytotoxicity towards Chinook salmon cells by altering their morphology and inducing oxidative stress. Moreover, Ude et al. evaluated the toxicity of copper oxide nanoparticles and bulk copper sulphate towards differentiated and undifferentiated Caco-2 intestinal epithelial cells. The result showed that both nano and bulk particles exhibited a concentration-dependent cytotoxicity towards undifferentiated cells. Furthermore, the study revealed that the nanoparticles stimulated the production of interleukin-8 in Caco-2 cells, decreasing the integrity of the cell barrier which helps in the translocation of copper ions. In addition to cytotoxicity and genotoxicity, it is noteworthy that the copper oxide nanoparticles also induce neurotoxicity and hepatoxicity. Bulcke and Dringen examined the toxicity of copper oxide nanoparticles towards astrocytes in the brain and revealed that the nanoparticles rapidly undergo endocytosis-mediated accumulation in astrocytes, which increases cellular copper content, ROS production, reduces cell viability, and causes diseases due to metabolic disturbances in brain copper balance. All these studies stand as evidence for the enhanced cytotoxicity of copper oxide nanoparticles and emphasize that size, morphology, dose, and concentration are the significant factors that lead to cytotoxicity. Furthermore, the mechanism of cytotoxicity involves the disintegration into its ionic states; metal ion accumulates in the cells, leading to oxidative stress and lipid peroxidation. In certain cases, the copper ions act as heavy metals and exhibit trojan horse–like mechanism and bind with cell organelles including genetic material and inhibit cell development.

4.4. Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles

49Zinc oxide nanoparticles are the most common nanosized metal oxides that are extensively utilized as anticancer agents. They also exhibit enhanced antimicrobial activity, similar to copper oxide nanoparticles. The microbial inhibition ability of zinc oxide nanoparticles is used to fabricate antimicrobial food packages, textiles, cotton fabric, and paints. Moreover, the exclusive anticancer activity of zinc oxide nanoparticles enables them to be useful as nanomedicine, nanocarrier of cancer drugs, and optical imaging materials. The zinc oxide nanoparticles also exhibited toxic reactions towards normal, healthy cells, similar to other nanosized metal oxides. However, they are less toxic compared to other metal oxide nanoparticles. Kao et al. evaluated the toxicity of zinc oxide nanoparticles in broncho-alveolar lavage and white blood cells. The result shows that the nanoparticles interfere with the homeostasis of zinc ions present in the body fluid. The disintegration of zinc oxide nanoparticles led to an increase in the zinc ions which eventually causes dysfunction of mitochondria, activation of caspase and apoptosis of cells. Similarly, Sharma et al. examined the in vitro cytotoxicity of zinc oxide nanoparticles towards human HepG2 liver cells. The result demonstrated that the nanoparticles exhibited apoptotic and genotoxic mediated toxicity towards liver cells. They proved that the genotoxicity is due to the damages in DNA and apoptotic toxicity is due to the ROS triggered mitochondrial damage. Furthermore, Heng et al. evaluated the cytotoxicity of spherical and sheet-shaped zinc oxide nanoparticles towards RAW-264.7 mouse cells, BEAS-2B human cells, and primary bone marrow–derived dendritic mouse culture cells. Both the shapes of zinc oxide nanoparticles increased the release of ROS, upregulated the expression of CD80, CD86, and released pro-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-6 and TNF-α which inhibits the growth of cells. Likewise, Valdiglesias et al. also proved that zinc oxide nanoparticles induce cyto- and genotoxicity in neurons which they proved by using SHSY5Y human neuronal cells. They emphasized that the nanoparticle did not enter into the cells and toxicity was due to the presence of nanoparticles in the medium, which lead to cell cycle alterations, apoptosis, micronuclei production, H2AX phosphorylation, and DNA damage mediated cyto- and genotoxicity. Furthermore, they added that the toxicity is dose- and time-dependent, whereas free zinc ions from the nanoparticles are not responsible for cytotoxicity in neuronal cells. Several studies also reported the cytotoxicity of zinc oxide nanoparticles towards rat retinal ganglion cells, human epidermal cells, human nasal mucosa cells, murine macrophages, and human bronchial epithelial cells.

50Recently, Ng et al. evaluated the toxicity of zinc oxide nanoparticles using MRC5 human lung fibroblasts as an in vitro model and Drosophila melanogaster (fruit fly) as the in vivo model. The in vitro studies' result showed that zinc oxide nanoparticles triggered the extracellular secretion of lactate dehydrogenase, which indicates cellular damage and decreased lung cell viability. Furthermore, the presence of DNA damage-inducible transcript (DDIT3) and endoplasmic reticulum to nucleus signaling 1 (ERN1) genes revealed the generation of ROS in the lung cells after nanosized zinc oxide exposure. The in vivo studies also showed that the nanosized zinc oxides are lethal to D. melanogaster by releasing ROS, which was indicated by the presence of nuclear factor E2-related factor 2 (Nrf2). Likewise, Pati et al. reported that the zinc oxide nanoparticles exhibited genotoxic, cytotoxic, clastogenic, and actin depolymerization effects by inducing ROS-mediated oxidative stress responses towards macrophages of mice. In addition, they examined their histopathological effects on adult mice, which revealed that these nanoparticles are highly toxic and lead to severe inflammation and damage to the liver, lungs, and kidneys. Moreover, Abdelmonem et al. synthesized zinc oxide nanoparticles with the same sizes and different surface charges by coating amphiphilic polymers such as poly (isobutylene-alt-maleic anhydride)-graft-dodecyl, mercaptoundecanoic acid, and L-arginine. They examined their in vitro cytotoxicity and uptake of these nanoparticles towards 3T3 fibroblasts and HeLa cells and the result showed that the positively charged arginine-capped nanoparticles facilitate agglomeration internalization into the cells. Thus, they proved that the surface charge of zinc oxide nanoparticles is highly significant in determining their toxicity towards normal cells.

4.5. Iron Oxide Nanoparticles

51Iron oxide nanoparticles are unique metal oxides that possess magnetic as well as biomedical properties along with their enhanced biocompatibility, bioavailability, and bioactivity. The superparamagnetic property of iron oxide nanoparticles makes them an essential material in the magnetically targeted delivery system for the treatment of cancer. They also possess enhanced antimicrobial properties against bacteria, fungi, algae, and viruses, similar to other metal oxides; however, the mechanism of action is different from other nanosized metal oxides. Several pieces of literature also reported that the combination of silver and iron oxide nanoparticles as nanocomposites possess exclusive and unique antimicrobial activities. Even though iron oxide nanoparticles are used in biomedical applications, numerous reports showed that they also exhibit toxicity towards normal healthy cells. Singh et al. reported that the superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs) exhibited cytotoxicity via subtle cellular perturbation such as actin cytoskeleton modulation, gene expression profile alteration, iron homeostasis disturbance, impaired alterations in signaling pathways, cell regulation, DNA damage, and oxidative stress. Similarly, different magnetic nanoparticles such as dextran-coated Endorem, carboxydextran-coated Resovist, lipid-coated magnetoliposomes, and citrate-coated iron oxide particles are evaluated to test their cytotoxicity against C17.2 neural progenitor cells, PC12 rat pheochromocytoma cells, and human blood outgrowth endothelial cells. The results revealed that only lipid-coated magnetoliposomes can internalize at high concentration into all the cell lines which can exhibit enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) properties. Likewise, Petri-Fink et al. examined the cytotoxicity of SPIONs coated with polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), vinyl alcohol/vinyl amine copolymer (A-PVA), and polyethyleneimine (PEI) towards HeLa cells. The result revealed that A-PVA coated nanoparticles showed good cell viability, compared to others. The study also shows that cytotoxicity is dependent on the colloidal stability in cell media and cellular uptake of the magnetic nanoparticles.

52In recent times, Valdiglesias et al. reviewed literature and reported the effects of iron oxide nanoparticles on healthy, normal human cells. The article emphasized that the magnetic nanoparticles are highly cytotoxic, genotoxic, developmental toxic, and neurotoxic among humans during short-term exposure and further studies are required to evaluate their long-term exposure effects. In addition, Magdolenova et al. evaluated the effects of surface coatings over iron oxide nanoparticles such as oleate using human lymphoblastoid TK6 cells and primary human blood cells. The result revealed that the surface-coated iron oxide nanoparticles altered their behavior and cellular uptake, and helped them to exhibit dose-dependent cytotoxicity and genotoxicity via DNA damage. Similarly, Valdiglesias et al. examined the toxic mechanism of iron oxide nanoparticles by analyzing several works of literature and reported that factors such as surface coating, dose, size, exposure time, and type of cells are significant to induce cytotoxicity. Furthermore, they conveyed via in vivo studies that these magnetic nanoparticles possess the ability to get distributed to different organs and tissues, especially cross the blood-brain barrier in the brain, and lead to acute toxicity, immunotoxicity, reproductive toxicity, genotoxicity, and neurotoxicity.

4.6. Aluminium Oxide Nanoparticles

53Aluminum oxide or alumina nanoparticles are commonly used in biosensors, and certain biomedical applications. They are also used as antimicrobial agents, for bioimaging, and as anticancer nanomedicine. There are several reports available which showcased the toxicity of alumina nanoparticles towards various microbes and cancer cells. However, there are some literatures that report alumina nanoparticles as toxic to normal human cells. The trend in the research to evaluate the cytotoxicity of alumina nanoparticles has been increasing only in recent times. Pakrashi et al. revealed the cytotoxicity of alumina nanoparticles towards freshwater algal isolate at a low concentration of exposure. Radziun et al. assessed the cytotoxicity of alumina nanoparticles towards L929 murine fibroblasts and normal BJ human skin fibroblasts cells, which revealed that the alumina nanoparticles are nontoxic to these mammalian cells. Similarly, Yoon et al. investigated the cytotoxicity of alumina nanoparticles for concentrations of 25–200 µg/ml and an incubation time of 0–72 h using THP-1 floating cells and adherent cells such as A549, 293, and J774A.1. The results emphasized that cytotoxicity depends on the dose, time of exposure, agglomeration, sedimentation, and enhanced cellular uptake. Likewise, Lin et al. evaluated the cytotoxicity of 13 and 22 nm sized alumina nanoparticles using cultured human bronchoalveolar A549 carcinoma-derived cells and revealed that they are highly toxic than titanium dioxide and less toxic than cerium oxide nanoparticles via alteration in the cell membrane potential, surface chemistry, and exposure duration. In addition, Kim et al. demonstrated that the alumina nanoparticles induce genotoxicity towards BEAS-2B mammalian cell lines.

54Recently, More et al. investigated the cytotoxicity of surface-engineered mesoporous alumina nanoparticles synthesized by sol-gel method using cetyl trimethyl ammonium bromide (CTAB). The result showed that the nanoparticles are highly stable up to 24 h and are less toxic towards Chinese Hamster Ovary (CHO) cells. The reduced toxicity may be due to the enhanced protein adsorption ability, especially human plasma proteins. Moreover, Rajiv et al. evaluated the cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of cobalt, iron, silicon, and aluminum oxide nanoparticles towards human lymphocyte cell lines. The result revealed dose-dependent toxicity of all these metal oxides, where alumina nanoparticles exhibited the least oxidative stress–mediated DNA damage, compared to other metal oxide nanoparticles. Another study by Asztemborska evaluated and confirmed the toxicity of alumina nanoparticles towards plants via environmental transformation and bioaccumulation. In addition, it was reported that the low-dimensional alumina nanoparticles are highly toxic towards L 929 mouse fibroblast and Neuro-2a Mus musculus brain neuroblastoma cell lines via ROS production and oxidative stress.

5. Conclusion

55Nanoparticles have found wide biomedical application due to their physicochemical and behavioral uniqueness, although concerns over their toxic effects in the biological system are now drawing the attention of the global health community. This necessitates the importance of the study and the understanding of the effects based on the cellular and molecular mechanisms by which they cause these effects. Some identified toxic mechanisms are through the induction of ROS, cytotoxicity to cells, and genotoxic and neurotoxic effects. This toxic effect depends on the type of nanoparticles, the size, surface area, shape, aspect ratio, surface coating, crystallinity, dissolution, and agglomeration. For instance, it was reported that smaller nanoparticles tend to have greater acute toxicities in animal models. It was also found that the shape or crystallinity of a nanoparticle could influence its toxicity. At this point, it is important that the toxic effects of nanoparticles be considered when synthesizing nanoparticles. Their size, shape, and other key features should be varied in order to ascertain those that work best without causing adverse effects. The consideration of the toxic effects of nanoparticles will open a new page for the synthesis of safer and more effective nanoparticles.

References 250

1.
Farah F. H. Nanocarriers as delivery systems for therapeutics agents. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research. 2019;10:3487-3507.
Not in our library
2.
Zhu X., Vo C., Taylor M., Smith B. R. Non-spherical micro- and nanoparticles in nanomedicine. Materials Horizons. 2019;6(6):1094-1121.
Not in our library10.1039/c8mh01527a
3.
Chen P., Wang H., He M., Chen B., Yang B., Hu B. Size-dependent cytotoxicity study of ZnO nanoparticles in HepG2 cells. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2019;171:337-346.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.12.096
4.
Renero-Lecuna C., Iturrioz-Rodríguez N., González-Lavado E., et al. Effect of size, shape, and composition on the interaction of different nanomaterials with HeLa cells. Journal of Nanomaterials. 2019;2019:11.
Not in our library10.1155/2019/7518482
5.
Chaicherd S., Killingsworth M. C., Pissuwan D. Toxicity of gold nanoparticles in a commercial dietary supplement drink on connective tissue fibroblast cells. SN Applied Sciences. 2019;1(4):p. 336.
Not in our library10.1007/s42452-019-0354-2
6.
Jeevanandam J., Chan Y. S., Danquah M. K. Biosynthesis of metal and metal oxide nanoparticles. ChemBioEng Reviews. 2016;3(2):55-67.
Not in our library10.1002/cben.201500018
7.
Naz S., Gul A., Zia M. Toxicity of copper oxide nanoparticles: a review study. IET Nanobiotechnology. 2020;14(1):1-13.
Not in our library10.1049/iet-nbt.2019.0176
8.
Roy S., Sadhukhan R., Ghosh U., Das T. K. Interaction studies between biosynthesized silver nanoparticle with calf thymus DNA and cytotoxicity of silver nanoparticles. Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy. 2015;141:176-184.
Not in our library10.1016/j.saa.2015.01.041
9.
Johnston H. J., Hutchison G., Christensen F. M., Peters S., Hankin S., Stone V. A review of the in vivo and in vitro toxicity of silver and gold particulates: particle attributes and biological mechanisms responsible for the observed toxicity. Critical Reviews in Toxicology. 2010;40(4):328-346.
Not in our library10.3109/10408440903453074
10.
Nanotoxicology: An Emerging Discipline Evolving from Studies of Ultrafine Particles · 2005
No notice
11.
Cho Y.-M., Mizuta Y., Akagi J.-i., Toyoda T., Sone M., Ogawa K. Size-dependent acute toxicity of silver nanoparticles in mice. Journal of Toxicologic Pathology. 2018;31(1):73-80.
Not in our library10.1293/tox.2017-0043
12.
Du Z., Zhao D., Jing L., et al. Cardiovascular toxicity of different sizes amorphous silica nanoparticles in rats after intratracheal instillation. Cardiovascular Toxicology. 2013;13(3):194-207.
Not in our library10.1007/s12012-013-9198-y
13.
Particle size dependent deposition and pulmonary inflammation after short-term inhalation of silver nanoparticles · 2014
No notice
14.
Lopez-Chaves C., Soto-Alvaredo J., Montes-Bayon M., Bettmer J., Llopis J., Sanchez-Gonzalez C. Gold nanoparticles: distribution, bioaccumulation and toxicity. In vitro and in vivo studies. Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine. 2018;14(1):1-12.
Not in our library10.1016/j.nano.2017.08.011
15.
Fröhlich E., Roblegg E. Models for oral uptake of nanoparticles in consumer products. Toxicology. 2012;291(1–3):10-17.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tox.2011.11.004
16.
Jani P., Halbert G. W., Langridge J., Florence A. T. Nanoparticle uptake by the rat gastrointestinal mucosa: quantitation and particle size dependency. The Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology. 1990;42:821-826.
Not in our library10.1111/j.2042-7158.1990.tb07033.x
17.
Kim S., Ryu D.-Y. Silver nanoparticle-induced oxidative stress, genotoxicity and apoptosis in cultured cells and animal tissues. Journal of Applied Toxicology. 2013;33(2):78-89.
Not in our library10.1002/jat.2792
18.
Morsy E. A., Hussien A. M., Ibrahim M. A., Farroh K. Y., Hassanen E. I. Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of copper oxide nanoparticles in chickens. Biological Trace Element Research. 2021.
Not in our library10.1007/s12011-021-02595-4
19.
Bacchetta R., Santo N., Valenti I., Maggioni D., Longhi M., Tremolada P. Comparative toxicity of three differently shaped carbon nanomaterials on Daphnia magna: does a shape effect exist? Nanotoxicology. 2018;12(3):201-223.
Not in our library10.1080/17435390.2018.1430258
20.
Abramenko N. B., Demidova T. B., Abkhalimov E. V., Ershov B. G., Krysanov E. Y., Kustov L. M. Ecotoxicity of different-shaped silver nanoparticles: case of zebrafish embryos. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2018;347:89-94.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.12.060
21.
Carnovale C., Bryant G., Shukla R., Bansal V. Identifying trends in gold nanoparticle toxicity and uptake: size, shape, capping ligand, and biological corona. ACS Omega. 2019;4(1):242-256.
Not in our library10.1021/acsomega.8b03227
22.
Zhou H., Gong X., Lin H., et al. Gold nanoparticles impair autophagy flux through shape-dependent endocytosis and lysosomal dysfunction. Journal of Materials Chemistry B. 2018;6(48):8127-8136.
Not in our library10.1039/c8tb02390e
23.
Impact of gold nanoparticles shape on their cytotoxicity against human osteoblast and osteosarcoma in in vitro model. Evaluation of the safety of use and anti-cancer potential · 2019
No notice
24.
Gratton S. E. A., Ropp P. A., Pohlhaus P. D., et al. The effect of particle design on cellular internalization pathways. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2008;105(33):11613-11618.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0801763105
25.
Huang X., Li L., Liu T., et al. The shape effect of mesoporous silica nanoparticles on biodistribution, clearance, and biocompatibility in vivo. ACS Nano. 2011;5(7):5390-5399.
Not in our library10.1021/nn200365a
26.
Li W., Zhang X., Hao X., Jie J., Tian B., Zhang X. Shape design of high drug payload nanoparticles for more effective cancer therapy. Chemical Communications. 2013;49(93):10989-10991.
Not in our library10.1039/c3cc46718j
27.
Lippmann M. Effects of fiber characteristics on lung deposition, retention, and disease. Environmental Health Perspectives. 1990;88:311-317.
Not in our library10.1289/ehp.9088311
28.
Muller J., Huaux F., Moreau N., et al. Respiratory toxicity of multi-wall carbon nanotubes. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 2005;207(3):221-231.
Not in our library10.1016/j.taap.2005.01.008
29.
Li L., Liu T., Fu C., Tan L., Meng X., Liu H. Biodistribution, excretion, and toxicity of mesoporous silica nanoparticles after oral administration depend on their shape. Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine. 2015;11(8):1915-1924.
Not in our library10.1016/j.nano.2015.07.004
30.
Lai Y.-K., Wang Q., Huang J.-Y., et al. TiO2 nanotube platforms for smart drug delivery: a review. International Journal of Nanomedicine. 2016;11:4819-4834.
Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s108847
31.
Andersson P. O., Lejon C., Ekstrand-Hammarström B., et al. Polymorph- and size-dependent uptake and toxicity of TiO2 nanoparticles in living lung epithelial cells. Small. 2011;7(4):514-523.
Not in our library10.1002/smll.201001832
32.
Toxicity Assessment of Silica Coated Iron Oxide Nanoparticles and Biocompatibility Improvement by Surface Engineering · 2014
No notice
33.
Uptake, distribution, clearance, and toxicity of iron oxide nanoparticles with different sizes and coatings · 2018
No notice
34.
Misra S. K., Dybowska A., Berhanu D., Luoma S. N., Valsami-Jones E. The complexity of nanoparticle dissolution and its importance in nanotoxicological studies. Science of the Total Environment. 2012;438:225-232.
Not in our library10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.08.066
35.
Kumar C. S. S. R., Hormes J., Leuschner C. Nanofabrication towards Biomedical Applications: Techniques, Tools, Applications, and Impact. 2005.
Not in our library
36.
Bantz C., Koshkina O., Lang T., et al. The surface properties of nanoparticles determine the agglomeration state and the size of the particles under physiological conditions. Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology. 2014;5:1774-1786.
Not in our library10.3762/bjnano.5.188
37.
Wick P., Manser P., Limbach L., et al. The degree and kind of agglomeration affect carbon nanotube cytotoxicity. Toxicology Letters. 2007;168(2):121-131.
Not in our library10.1016/j.toxlet.2006.08.019
38.
Zook J. M., MacCuspie R. I., Locascio L. E., Halter M. D., Elliott J. T. Stable nanoparticle aggregates/agglomerates of different sizes and the effect of their size on hemolytic cytotoxicity. Nanotoxicology. 2010;5(4):517-530.
Not in our library10.3109/17435390.2010.536615
39.
Egbuna C., Ifemeje J. C. Oxidative stress and nutrition. Tropical Journal of Applied Natural Sciences. 2017;2(1):110-116.
Not in our library10.25240/tjans.2017.2.1.19
40.
Ifemeje J., Udedi S., Okechukwu A., et al. Determination of total protein, superoxide dismutase, catalase activity and lipid peroxidation in soil macro-fauna (earthworm) from Onitsha municipal open waste dump. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports. 2015;6(5):394-403.
Not in our library10.9734/jsrr/2015/12552
41.
Egbuna C., Kumar S., Ifemeje J., Kurhekar J., Egbuna C. Pharmacognosy, nanomedicine, and contemporary issues. Phytochemistry. 2019;131-146.
Not in our library
42.
Ifemeje J. C., Gbolakoro J. T., Gbolakoro J. T., Arazu V. N. Comparative study of antioxidant properties and free radical scavenging capacity of Annona muricata and citrus. Tropical Journal of Applied Natural Sciences. 2018;2(2):135-140.
Not in our library10.25240/tjans.2018.2.2.17
43.
Tee J. K., Ong C. N., Bay B. H., Ho H. K., Leong D. T. Oxidative stress by inorganic nanoparticles. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology. 2016;8(3):414-438.
Not in our library10.1002/wnan.1374
44.
Nel A., Xia T., Madler L., Li N. Toxic potential of materials at the nanolevel. Science. 2006;311(5761):622-627.
Not in our library10.1126/science.1114397
45.
Kheirallah D. A. M., El-Samad L. M., Abdel-Moneim A. M. DNA damage and ovarian ultrastructural lesions induced by nickel oxide nano-particles in Blaps polycresta (Coleoptera: tenebrionidae). Science of the Total Environment. 2021;753:p. 141743.
Not in our library10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141743
46.
Zinc Oxide—From Synthesis to Application: A Review · 2014
No notice
47.
Sharma V., Anderson D., Dhawan A. Zinc oxide nanoparticles induce oxidative DNA damage and ROS-triggered mitochondria mediated apoptosis in human liver cells (HepG2). Apoptosis. 2012;17(8):852-870.
Not in our library10.1007/s10495-012-0705-6
48.
ZnO nanoparticle-induced oxidative stress triggers apoptosis by activating JNK signaling pathway in cultured primary astrocytes · 2014
No notice
49.
Hou J., Liu H., Zhang S., et al. Mechanism of toxic effects of Nano-ZnO on cell cycle of zebrafish (Danio rerio). Chemosphere. 2019;229:206-213.
Not in our library10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.04.217
50.
Vangijzegem T., Stanicki D., Laurent S. Magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles for drug delivery: applications and characteristics. Expert Opinion on Drug Delivery. 2018;16(1):69-78.
Not in our library10.1080/17425247.2019.1554647
51.
Mahmoudi M., Shokrgozar M. A., Sardari S., et al. Irreversible changes in protein conformation due to interaction with superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles. Nanoscale. 2011;3:1127-1138.
Not in our library10.1039/c0nr00733a
52.
Laurent S., Saei A. A., Behzadi S., Panahifar A., Mahmoudi M. Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles for delivery of therapeutic agents: opportunities and challenges. Expert Opinion on Drug Delivery. 2014;11(9):1449-1470.
Not in our library10.1517/17425247.2014.924501
53.
Radhakrishnan V. S., Dwivedi S. P., Siddiqui M. H., Prasad T. In vitro studies on oxidative stress-independent, Ag nanoparticles-induced cell toxicity of Candida albicans, an opportunistic pathogen. International Journal of Nanomedicine. 2018;13:91-96.
Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s125010
54.
Kovvuru P., Mancilla P. E., Shirode A. B., Murray T. M., Begley T. J., Reliene R. Oral ingestion of silver nanoparticles induces genomic instability and DNA damage in multiple tissues. Nanotoxicology. 2015;9(2):162-171.
Not in our library10.3109/17435390.2014.902520
55.
Setyawati M. I., Yuan X., Xie J., Leong D. T. The influence of lysosomal stability of silver nanomaterials on their toxicity to human cells. Biomaterials. 2014;35(25):6707-6715.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.05.007
56.
Enea M., Pereira E., Peixoto de Almeida M., Araújo A. M., Bastos M. D. L., Carmo H. Gold nanoparticles induce oxidative stress and apoptosis in human kidney cells. Nanomaterials. 2020;10(5):p. 995.
Not in our library10.3390/nano10050995
57.
Mateo D., Morales P., Ávalos A., Haza A. I. Oxidative stress contributes to gold nanoparticle-induced cytotoxicity in human tumor cells. Toxicology Mechanisms and Methods. 2014;24(3):161-172.
Not in our library10.3109/15376516.2013.869783
58.
Ahamed M., Akhtar M. J., Khan M. A. M., Alrokayan S. A., Alhadlaq H. A. Oxidative stress mediated cytotoxicity and apoptosis response of bismuth oxide (Bi2O3) nanoparticles in human breast cancer (MCF-7) cells. Chemosphere. 2019;216:823-831.
Not in our library10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.10.214
59.
Singh D., Singh S., Sahu J., Srivastava S., Singh M. R. Ceramic nanoparticles: recompense, cellular uptake and toxicity concerns. Artificial Cells, Nanomedicine, and Biotechnology. 2014;44(1):401-409.
Not in our library10.3109/21691401.2014.955106
60.
Guo C., Xia Y., Niu P., et al. Silica nanoparticles induce oxidative stress, inflammation, and endothelial dysfunction in vitro via activation of the MAPK/Nrf2 pathway and nuclear factor-κB signaling. International Journal of Nanomedicine. 2015;10:1463-1477.
Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s76114
61.
Shvedova A. A., Pietroiusti A., Fadeel B., Kagan V. E. Mechanisms of carbon nanotube-induced toxicity: focus on oxidative stress. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 2012;261(2):121-133.
Not in our library10.1016/j.taap.2012.03.023
62.
Jiang J., Oberdörster G., Elder A., Gelein R., Mercer P., Biswas P. Does nanoparticle activity depend upon size and crystal phase? Nanotoxicology. 2009;2(1):33-42.
Not in our library10.1080/17435390701882478
63.
Lee J. H., Ju J. E., Kim B. I., et al. Rod-shaped iron oxide nanoparticles are more toxic than sphere-shaped nanoparticles to murine macrophage cells. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 2014;33(12):2759-2766.
Not in our library10.1002/etc.2735
64.
Forest V., Leclerc L., Hochepied J.-F., Trouvé A., Sarry G., Pourchez J. Impact of cerium oxide nanoparticles shape on their in vitro cellular toxicity. Toxicology in Vitro. 2017;38:136-141.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tiv.2016.09.022
65.
Kai W., Xiaojun X., Ximing P., Zhenqing H., Qiqing Z. Cytotoxic effects and the mechanism of three types of magnetic nanoparticles on human hepatoma BEL-7402 cells. Nanoscale Research Letters. 2011;6(1):p. 480.
Not in our library10.1186/1556-276x-6-480
66.
Baek M., Kim M. K., Cho H. J., et al. Factors influencing the cytotoxicity of zinc oxide nanoparticles: particle size and surface charge. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2011;304.
Not in our library10.1088/1742-6596/304/1/012044
67.
Chusuei C. C., Wu C.-H., Mallavarapu S., et al. Cytotoxicity in the age of nano: the role of fourth period transition metal oxide nanoparticle physicochemical properties. Chemico-Biological Interactions. 2013;206(2):319-326.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cbi.2013.09.020
68.
Thiagarajan G., Greish K., Ghandehari H. Charge affects the oral toxicity of poly(amidoamine) dendrimers. European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics. 2013;84(2):330-334.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ejpb.2013.01.019
69.
Chen H.-T., Neerman M. F., Parrish A. R., Simanek E. E. Cytotoxicity, hemolysis, and acute in vivo toxicity of dendrimers based on melamine, candidate vehicles for drug delivery. Journal of the American Chemical Society. 2004;126(32):10044-10048.
Not in our library10.1021/ja048548j
70.
Pandita D., Poonia N., Kumar S., Lather V., Madaan K. Dendrimers in drug delivery and targeting: drug-dendrimer interactions and toxicity issues. Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences. 2014;6(3):139-150.
Not in our library10.4103/0975-7406.130965
71.
Lee J.-H., Cha K. E., Kim M. S., et al. Nanosized polyamidoamine (PAMAM) dendrimer-induced apoptosis mediated by mitochondrial dysfunction. Toxicology Letters. 2009;190(2):202-207.
Not in our library10.1016/j.toxlet.2009.07.018
72.
The Toxicity of Nanoparticles Depends on Multiple Molecular and Physicochemical Mechanisms · 2017
No notice
73.
Kass G. E., Orrenius S. Calcium signaling and cytotoxicity. Environmental Health Perspectives. 1999;107(1):25-35.
Not in our library10.1289/ehp.99107s125
74.
Wang H.-J., Growcock A. C., Tang T.-H., O’Hara J., Huang Y.-W., Aronstam R. S. Zinc oxide nanoparticle disruption of store-operated calcium entry in a muscarinic receptor signaling pathway. Toxicology in Vitro. 2010;24(7):1953-1961.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tiv.2010.08.005
75.
Lai X., Wei Y., Zhao H., et al. The effect of Fe2O3 and ZnO nanoparticles on cytotoxicity and glucose metabolism in lung epithelial cells. Journal of Applied Toxicology. 2015;35(6):651-664.
Not in our library10.1002/jat.3128
76.
Li L., Ma N., Zhou H., et al. Zinc oxide nanoparticles-induced epigenetic change and G2/M arrest are associated with apoptosis in human epidermal keratinocytes. International Journal of Nanomedicine. 2016;11:3859-3874.
Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s107021
77.
Wu J., Sun J., Xue Y. Involvement of JNK and P53 activation in G2/M cell cycle arrest and apoptosis induced by titanium dioxide nanoparticles in neuron cells. Toxicology Letters. 2010;199(3):269-276.
Not in our library10.1016/j.toxlet.2010.09.009
78.
Wang Y., Cui H., Zhou J., et al. Cytotoxicity, DNA damage, and apoptosis induced by titanium dioxide nanoparticles in human non-small cell lung cancer A549 cells. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2014;22(7):5519-5530.
Not in our library10.1007/s11356-014-3717-7
79.
Periasamy V. S., Athinarayanan J., Alshatwi A. A. Aluminum oxide nanoparticles alter cell cycle progression through CCND1 and EGR1gene expression in human mesenchymal stem cells. Biotechnology and Applied Biochemistry. 2016;63(3):320-327.
Not in our library10.1002/bab.1368
80.
Interaction of nanoparticles with proteins: relation to bio-reactivity of the nanoparticle · 2013
No notice
81.
Chang Y.-N., Zhang M., Xia L., Zhang J., Xing G. The toxic effects and mechanisms of CuO and ZnO nanoparticles. Materials. 2012;5(12):2850-2871.
Not in our library10.3390/ma5122850
82.
Vermeulen K., Van Bockstaele D. R., Berneman Z. N. The cell cycle: a review of regulation, deregulation and therapeutic targets in cancer. Cell Proliferation. 2003;36(3):131-149.
Not in our library10.1046/j.1365-2184.2003.00266.x
83.
Capasso L., Camatini M., Gualtieri M. Nickel oxide nanoparticles induce inflammation and genotoxic effect in lung epithelial cells. Toxicology Letters. 2014;226(1):28-34.
Not in our library10.1016/j.toxlet.2014.01.040
84.
Luo C., Li Y., Yang L., et al. Activation of Erk and p53 regulates copper oxide nanoparticle-induced cytotoxicity in keratinocytes and fibroblasts. International Journal of Nanomedicine. 2014;9:4763-4772.
Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s67688
85.
Gao X., Wang Y., Peng S., et al. Comparative toxicities of bismuth oxybromide and titanium dioxide exposure on human skin keratinocyte cells. Chemosphere. 2015;135:83-93.
Not in our library10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.03.075
86.
Hanagata N., Zhuang F., Connolly S., Li J., Ogawa N., Xu M. Molecular responses of human lung epithelial cells to the toxicity of copper oxide nanoparticles inferred from whole genome expression analysis. ACS Nano. 2011;5(12):9326-9338.
Not in our library10.1021/nn202966t
87.
Auffan M., Rose J., Bottero J.-Y., Lowry G. V., Jolivet J.-P., Wiesner M. R. Towards a definition of inorganic nanoparticles from an environmental, health and safety perspective. Nature Nanotechnology. 2009;4(10):634-641.
Not in our library10.1038/nnano.2009.242
88.
Benameur L., Wei L., Botta A., Bhushan B. Genotoxicity of nanoparticles. Encyclopedia of Nanotechnology. 2012;952-962.
Not in our library
89.
Sebastiano D. B., Karlsson H. Nanomaterials and Genotoxicity—A Literature Review. 2016.
Not in our library
90.
Kisin E. R., Murray A. R., Keane M. J., et al. Single-walled carbon nanotubes: geno- and cytotoxic effects in lung fibroblast V79 cells. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A. 2007;70(24):2071-2079.
Not in our library10.1080/15287390701601251
91.
Adiguzel A. O., Adiguzel S. K., Mazmanci B., Tunçer M., Mazmanci M. A. Silver nanoparticle biosynthesis from newly isolated streptomyces genus from soil. Materials Research Express. 2018;5(4).
Not in our library10.1088/2053-1591/aab861
92.
Pandiarajan J., Balaji S. Genotoxic effect of silver nanoparticles in silk worm Bombyx mori. Austin Journal of Biotechnology & Bioengineeringis. 2018;5:p. 1096.
Not in our library
93.
Ishwarya R., Vaseeharan B., Shanthi S., et al. Green synthesized silver nanoparticles: toxicity against Poecilia reticulata fishes and Ceriodaphnia cornuta crustaceans. Journal of Cluster Science. 2017;28(1):519-527.
Not in our library10.1007/s10876-016-1126-4
94.
Krishnaraj C., Harper S. L., Yun S.-I. In Vivo toxicological assessment of biologically synthesized silver nanoparticles in adult Zebrafish (Danio rerio). Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2016;301:480-491.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.09.022
95.
Lv Q., Zhang B., Xing X., et al. Biosynthesis of copper nanoparticles using Shewanella loihica PV-4 with antibacterial activity: novel approach and mechanisms investigation. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2018;347:141-149.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.12.070
96.
Panda K. K., Golari D., Venugopal A., et al. Green synthesized zinc oxide (ZnO) nanoparticles induce oxidative stress and DNA damage in lathyrus sativus L. Root bioassay system. Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland). 2017;6(2).
Not in our library10.3390/antiox6020035
97.
Saha N., Dutta Gupta S. Low-dose toxicity of biogenic silver nanoparticles fabricated by Swertia chirata on root tips and flower buds of Allium cepa. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2017;330:18-28.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.01.021
98.
Abdelsalam N. R., Abdel-Megeed A., Ali H. M., Salem M. Z. M., Al-Hayali M. F. A., Elshikh M. S. Genotoxicity effects of silver nanoparticles on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) root tip cells. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2018;155:76-85.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.02.069
99.
Thiruvengadam M., Gurunathan S., Chung I.-M. Physiological, metabolic, and transcriptional effects of biologically-synthesized silver nanoparticles in turnip (Brassica rapa ssp. rapa L.). Protoplasma. 2015;252(4):1031-1046.
Not in our library10.1007/s00709-014-0738-5
100.
Shvedova A. A., Kisin E., Murray A. R., et al. Inhalation vs. aspiration of single-walled carbon nanotubes in C57BL/6 mice: inflammation, fibrosis, oxidative stress, and mutagenesis. American Journal of Physiology-Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology. 2008;295(4):L552-L565.
Not in our library10.1152/ajplung.90287.2008
101.
Zhu L., Chang D. W., Dai L., Hong Y. DNA damage induced by multiwalled carbon nanotubes in mouse embryonic stem cells. Nano Letters. 2007;7(12):3592-3597.
Not in our library10.1021/nl071303v
102.
Landsiedel R., Kapp M. D., Schulz M., Wiench K., Oesch F. Genotoxicity investigations on nanomaterials: methods, preparation and characterization of test material, potential artifacts and limitations-many questions, some answers. Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research. 2009;681(2-3):241-258.
Not in our library10.1016/j.mrrev.2008.10.002
103.
Muller J., Decordier I., Hoet P. H., et al. Clastogenic and aneugenic effects of multi-wall carbon nanotubes in epithelial cells. Carcinogenesis. 2008;29(2):427-433.
Not in our library10.1093/carcin/bgm243
104.
Ema M., Masumori S., Kobayashi N., et al. In vivocomet assay of multi-walled carbon nanotubes using lung cells of rats intratracheally instilled. Journal of Applied Toxicology. 2013;33(10):1053-1060.
Not in our library10.1002/jat.2810
105.
Pothmann D., Simar S., Schuler D., et al. Lung inflammation and lack of genotoxicity in the comet and micronucleus assays of industrial multiwalled carbon nanotubes Graphistrength C100 after a 90-day nose-only inhalation exposure of rats. Particle and Fibre Toxicology. 2015;12(1):p. 21.
Not in our library10.1186/s12989-015-0096-2
106.
Patlolla A. K., Hussain S. M., Schlager J. J., Patlolla S., Tchounwou P. B. Comparative study of the clastogenicity of functionalized and nonfunctionalized multiwalled carbon nanotubes in bone marrow cells of Swiss-Webster mice. Environmental Toxicology. 2010;25(6):608-621.
Not in our library10.1002/tox.20621
107.
Patlolla A. K., Patra P. K., Flountan M., Tchounwou P. B. Cytogenetic evaluation of functionalized single-walled carbon nanotube in mice bone marrow cells. Environmental Toxicology. 2016;31(9):1091-1102.
Not in our library10.1002/tox.22118
108.
Wijnhoven S. W. P., Peijnenburg W. J. G. M., Herberts C. A., et al. Nano-silver—a review of available data and knowledge gaps in human and environmental risk assessment. Nanotoxicology. 2009;3(2):109-138.
Not in our library10.1080/17435390902725914
109.
Souza T. A. J., Franchi L. P., Rosa L. R., da Veiga M. A. M. S., Takahashi C. S. Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of silver nanoparticles of different sizes in CHO-K1 and CHO-XRS5 cell lines. Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis. 2016;795:70-83.
Not in our library10.1016/j.mrgentox.2015.11.002
110.
Jiang X., Foldbjerg R., Miclaus T., et al. Multi-platform genotoxicity analysis of silver nanoparticles in the model cell line CHO-K1. Toxicology Letters. 2013;222(1):55-63.
Not in our library10.1016/j.toxlet.2013.07.011
111.
AshaRani P. V., Low Kah Mun G., Hande M. P., Valiyaveettil S. Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of silver nanoparticles in human cells. ACS Nano. 2008;3(2):279-290.
Not in our library10.1021/nn800596w
112.
Joksić G., Stašić J., Filipović J., Šobot A. V., Trtica M. Size of silver nanoparticles determines proliferation ability of human circulating lymphocytes in vitro. Toxicology Letters. 2016;247:29-34.
Not in our library10.1016/j.toxlet.2016.02.007
113.
Huk A., Izak-Nau E., Reidy B., et al. Is the toxic potential of nanosilver dependent on its size? Particle and Fibre Toxicology. 2014;11(1):p. 65.
Not in our library10.1186/s12989-014-0065-1
114.
Di Bucchianico S., Fabbrizi M. R., Cirillo S., et al. Aneuploidogenic effects and DNA oxidation induced in vitro by differently sized gold nanoparticles. International Journal of Nanomedicine. 2014;9:2191-2204.
Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s58397
115.
Fraga S., Faria H., Soares M. E., et al. Influence of the surface coating on the cytotoxicity, genotoxicity and uptake of gold nanoparticles in human HepG2 cells. Journal of Applied Toxicology. 2013;33(10):1111-1119.
Not in our library10.1002/jat.2865
116.
Li J. J., Lo S.-L., Ng C.-T., et al. Genomic instability of gold nanoparticle treated human lung fibroblast cells. Biomaterials. 2011;32(23):5515-5523.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.04.023
117.
Di Bucchianico S., Migliore L., Marsili P., Vergari C., Giammanco F., Giorgetti E. Cyto- and genotoxicity assessment of gold nanoparticles obtained by laser ablation in A549 lung adenocarcinoma cells. Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2015;17(5):p. 213.
Not in our library10.1007/s11051-015-3023-4
118.
Cardoso E., Rezin G. T., Zanoni E. T., et al. Acute and chronic administration of gold nanoparticles cause DNA damage in the cerebral cortex of adult rats. Mutation Research/Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis. 2014;766-767:25-30.
Not in our library10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2014.05.009
119.
Matsushita S. I., Miwa T., Tryk D. A., Fujishima A. New mesostructured porous TiO2 Surface prepared using a two-dimensional array-based template of silica particles. Langmuir. 1998;14(22):6441-6447.
Not in our library10.1021/la981106z
120.
Wang H., Feng J., Liu G., Chen B., Jiang Y., Xie Q. In vitro and in vivo anti-tumor efficacy of 10-hydroxycamptothecin polymorphic nanoparticle dispersions: shape- and polymorph-dependent cytotoxicity and delivery of 10-hydroxycamptothecin to cancer cells. Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine. 2016;12(4):881-891.
Not in our library10.1016/j.nano.2015.12.373
121.
Zhang H., Wang C., Chen B., Wang X. Daunorubicin-TiO2 nanocomposites as a smart pH-responsive drug delivery system. International Journal of Nanomedicine. 2012;7:235-242.
Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s27722
122.
Evidence that ultrafine titanium dioxide induces micronuclei and apoptosis in Syrian hamster embryo fibroblasts. · 2002
No notice
123.
Osman I. F., Baumgartner A., Cemeli E., Fletcher J. N., Anderson D. Genotoxicity and cytotoxicity of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide in HEp-2 cells. Nanomedicine. 2010;5(8):1193-1203.
Not in our library10.2217/nnm.10.52
124.
Kang S. J., Kim B. M., Lee Y. J., Chung H. W. Titanium dioxide nanoparticles trigger p53-mediated damage response in peripheral blood lymphocytes. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis. 2008;49(5):399-405.
Not in our library10.1002/em.20399
125.
Trouiller B., Reliene R., Westbrook A., Solaimani P., Schiestl R. H. Titanium dioxide nanoparticles induce DNA damage and genetic instability in vivo in mice. Cancer Research. 2009;69(22):8784-8789.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-09-2496
126.
Grigg J., Tellabati A., Rhead S., et al. DNA damage of macrophages at an air-tissue interface induced by metal nanoparticles. Nanotoxicology. 2009;3(4):348-354.
Not in our library10.3109/17435390903276917
127.
Kückelhaus S. Magnetoliposome evaluation using cytometry and micronucleus test. European Cells and Materials. 2002;3:154-155.
Not in our library
128.
Sadeghiani N., Barbosa L. S., Silva L. P., Azevedo R. B., Morais P. C., Lacava Z. G. M. Genotoxicity and inflammatory investigation in mice treated with magnetite nanoparticles surface coated with polyaspartic acid. Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials. 2005;289:466-468.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jmmm.2004.11.131
129.
Gerloff K., Albrecht C., Boots A. W., Förster I., Schins R. P. F. Cytotoxicity and oxidative DNA damage by nanoparticles in human intestinal Caco-2 cells. Nanotoxicology. 2009;3(4):355-364.
Not in our library10.3109/17435390903276933
130.
Wang J. J., Sanderson B. J. S., Wang H. Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of ultrafine crystalline SiO2 particulate in cultured human lymphoblastoid cells. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis. 2007;48(2):151-157.
Not in our library10.1002/em.20287
131.
Sayes C. M., Reed K. L., Glover K. P., et al. Changing the dose metric for inhalation toxicity studies: short-term study in rats with engineered aerosolized amorphous silica nanoparticles. Inhalation Toxicology. 2009;22(4):348-354.
Not in our library10.3109/08958370903359992
132.
Zeng Y., Kurokawa Y., Win-Shwe T.-T., et al. Effects of PAMAM dendrimers with various surface functional groups and multiple generations on cytotoxicity and neuronal differentiation using human neural progenitor cells. The Journal of Toxicological Sciences. 2016;41(3):351-370.
Not in our library10.2131/jts.41.351
133.
Costa L. G., Pellacani C., Guizzetti M., Gupta R. C. In vitro and alternative approaches to developmental neurotoxicity. Reproductive and Developmental Toxicology. 2017;241-253.
Not in our library10.1016/b978-0-12-804239-7.00014-7
134.
Teleanu D., Chircov C., Grumezescu A., Teleanu R. Neurotoxicity of nanomaterials: an up-to-date overview. Nanomaterials. 2019;9(1):p. 96.
Not in our library10.3390/nano9010096
135.
Nanoparticles and Neurotoxicity · 2011
No notice
136.
Shi D., Mi G., Webster T. J., Jiang X., Gao H. The synthesis, application, and related neurotoxicity of carbon nanotubes. Neurotoxicity of Nanomaterials and Nanomedicine. 2017;259-284.
Not in our library10.1016/b978-0-12-804598-5.00011-8
137.
Gholamine B., Karimi I., Salimi A., Mazdarani P., Becker L. A. Neurobehavioral toxicity of carbon nanotubes in mice. Toxicology and Industrial Health. 2016;33(4):340-350.
Not in our library10.1177/0748233716644381
138.
Rahman M. F., Wang J., Patterson T. A., et al. Expression of genes related to oxidative stress in the mouse brain after exposure to silver-25 nanoparticles. Toxicology Letters. 2009;187(1):15-21.
Not in our library10.1016/j.toxlet.2009.01.020
139.
Song B., Zhang Y., Liu J., Feng X., Zhou T., Shao L. Unraveling the neurotoxicity of titanium dioxide nanoparticles: focusing on molecular mechanisms. Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology. 2016;7:645-654.
Not in our library10.3762/bjnano.7.57
140.
Nanosize Titanium Dioxide Stimulates Reactive Oxygen Species in Brain Microglia and Damages Neurons in Vitro · 2007
No notice
141.
Hou J., Wang L., Wang C., et al. Toxicity and mechanisms of action of titanium dioxide nanoparticles in living organisms. Journal of Environmental Sciences. 2019;75:40-53.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jes.2018.06.010
142.
Valdiglesias V., Fernández-Bertólez N., Kiliç G., et al. Are iron oxide nanoparticles safe? Current knowledge and future perspectives. Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology. 2016;38:53-63.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jtemb.2016.03.017
143.
Iron oxide nanoparticles may damage to the neural tissue through iron accumulation, oxidative stress, and protein aggregation · 2017
No notice
144.
Pisanic T. R., Blackwell J. D., Shubayev V. I., Fiñones R. R., Jin S. Nanotoxicity of iron oxide nanoparticle internalization in growing neurons. Biomaterials. 2007;28(16):2572-2581.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.01.043
145.
Kircher M. F., Mahmood U., King R. S., Weissleder R., Josephson L. A multimodal nanoparticle for preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and intraoperative optical brain tumor delineation. Cancer Research. 2003;63:8122-8125.
Not in our library
146.
You R., Ho Y.-S., Hung C. H.-L., et al. Silica nanoparticles induce neurodegeneration-like changes in behavior, neuropathology, and affect synapse through MAPK activation. Particle and Fibre Toxicology. 2018;15(1):p. 28.
Not in our library10.1186/s12989-018-0263-3
147.
Zhou M., Xie L., Fang C.-J., et al. Implications for blood-brain-barrier permeability, in vitro oxidative stress and neurotoxicity potential induced by mesoporous silica nanoparticles: effects of surface modification. RSC Advances. 2016;6(4):2800-2809.
Not in our library10.1039/c5ra17517h
148.
Singh N., Joshi A., Toor A. P., Verma G., Andronescu E., Grumezescu A. M. Drug delivery: advancements and challenges. Nanostructures for Drug Delivery. 2017;865-886.
Not in our library10.1016/b978-0-323-46143-6.00027-0
149.
Hussain S., Yuan Z. Y., Hu Y. L., Gao J. Q. Brain localization and neurotoxicity evaluation of polysorbate 80-modified chitosan nanoparticles in rats. PLoS One. 2015;10.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0131133
150.
Zeng Y., Kurokawa Y., Zeng Q., et al. Effects of polyamidoamine dendrimers on a 3-D neurosphere system using human neural progenitor cells. Toxicological Sciences. 2016;152(1):128-144.
Not in our library10.1093/toxsci/kfw068
151.
Calienni M. N., Feas D. A., Igartúa D. E., Chiaramoni N. S., Alonso S. D. V., Prieto M. J. Nanotoxicological and teratogenic effects: a linkage between dendrimer surface charge and zebrafish developmental stages. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 2017;337:1-11.
Not in our library10.1016/j.taap.2017.10.003
152.
Rai M., Ingle A. P., Bansod S., Kon K., Rai M., Kon K. Tackling the problem of tuberculosis by nanotechnology. Nanotechnology in Diagnosis, Treatment and Prophylaxis of Infectious Diseases. 2015;133-149.
Not in our library10.1016/b978-0-12-801317-5.00009-8
153.
Debinski W., Huo T., Barth R. F., et al. Preparation, biodistribution and neurotoxicity of liposomal cisplatin following convection enhanced delivery in normal and F98 glioma bearing rats. PLoS One. 2012;7.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0048752
154.
Khalili Fard J., Jafari S., Eghbal M. A. A review of molecular mechanisms involved in toxicity of nanoparticles. Advanced Pharmaceutical Bulletin. 2015;5(4):447-454.
Not in our library10.15171/apb.2015.061
155.
Choi K., Riviere J. E., Monteiro-Riviere N. A. Protein corona modulation of hepatocyte uptake and molecular mechanisms of gold nanoparticle toxicity. Nanotoxicology. 2016;11(1):64-75.
Not in our library10.1080/17435390.2016.1264638
156.
Role of Physicochemical Properties in Nanoparticle Toxicity · 2015
No notice
157.
Shrivastava R., Kushwaha P., Bhutia Y. C., Flora S. Oxidative stress following exposure to silver and gold nanoparticles in mice. Toxicology and Industrial Health. 2014;32(8):1391-1404.
Not in our library10.1177/0748233714562623
158.
Wang Y., Xia R., Hu H., Peng T. Biosynthesis, characterization and cytotoxicity of gold nanoparticles and their loading with N-acetylcarnosine for cataract treatment. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology. 2018;187:180-183.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2018.08.014
159.
Rajeshwari A., Suresh S., Chandrasekaran N., Mukherjee A. Toxicity evaluation of gold nanoparticles using an Allium cepa bioassay. RSC Advances. 2016;6(29):24000-24009.
Not in our library10.1039/c6ra04712b
160.
Bobo D., Robinson K. J., Islam J., Thurecht K. J., Corrie S. R. Nanoparticle-based medicines: a review of FDA-approved materials and clinical trials to date. Pharmaceutical Research. 2016;33(10):2373-2387.
Not in our library10.1007/s11095-016-1958-5
161.
Priyadarshini E., Pradhan N. Gold nanoparticles as efficient sensors in colorimetric detection of toxic metal ions: a review. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical. 2017;238:888-902.
Not in our library10.1016/j.snb.2016.06.081
162.
Senut M.-C., Zhang Y., Liu F., Sen A., Ruden D. M., Mao G. Size-dependent toxicity of gold nanoparticles on human embryonic stem cells and their neural derivatives. Small. 2016;12(5):631-646.
Not in our library10.1002/smll.201502346
163.
Mukherjee S., Sau S., Madhuri D., et al. Green synthesis and characterization of monodispersed gold nanoparticles: toxicity study, delivery of doxorubicin and its bio-distribution in mouse model. Journal of Biomedical Nanotechnology. 2016;12(1):165-181.
Not in our library10.1166/jbn.2016.2141
164.
Jo M.-R., Bae S.-H., Go M.-R., Kim H.-J., Hwang Y.-G., Choi S.-J. Toxicity and biokinetics of colloidal gold nanoparticles. Nanomaterials. 2015;5(2):835-850.
Not in our library10.3390/nano5020835
165.
Fratoddi I., Venditti I., Cametti C., Russo M. V. The puzzle of toxicity of gold nanoparticles: the case-study of HeLa cells. Toxicology Research. 2015;4(4):796-800.
Not in our library10.1039/c4tx00168k
166.
Brundo M. V., Pecoraro R., Marino F., et al. Toxicity evaluation of new engineered nanomaterials in Zebrafish. Frontiers in Physiology. 2016;7:p. 130.
Not in our library10.3389/fphys.2016.00130
167.
Semmler-Behnke M., Lipka J., Wenk A., et al. Size dependent translocation and fetal accumulation of gold nanoparticles from maternal blood in the rat. Particle and Fibre Toxicology. 2014;11(1):p. 33.
Not in our library10.1186/s12989-014-0033-9
168.
Silver Nanoparticles: Synthesis, Characterization, Properties, Applications, and Therapeutic Approaches · 2016
No notice
169.
Durán N., Durán M., de Jesus M. B., Seabra A. B., Fávaro W. J., Nakazato G. Silver nanoparticles: a new view on mechanistic aspects on antimicrobial activity. Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine. 2016;12(3):789-799.
Not in our library10.1016/j.nano.2015.11.016
170.
Durán N., Nakazato G., Seabra A. B. Antimicrobial activity of biogenic silver nanoparticles, and silver chloride nanoparticles: an overview and comments. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2016;100(15):6555-6570.
Not in our library10.1007/s00253-016-7657-7
171.
Venugopal K., Ahmad H., Manikandan E., et al. The impact of anticancer activity upon Beta vulgaris extract mediated biosynthesized silver nanoparticles (ag-NPs) against human breast (MCF-7), lung (A549) and pharynx (Hep-2) cancer cell lines. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology. 2017;173:99-107.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2017.05.031
172.
Buttacavoli M., Albanese N. N., Di Cara G., et al. Anticancer activity of biogenerated silver nanoparticles: an integrated proteomic investigation. Oncotarget. 2018;9(11):9685-9705.
Not in our library10.18632/oncotarget.23859
173.
Bethu M. S., Domdi V. R., Tartte V., Janapala V. R. Potential anticancer activity of biogenic silver nanoparticles using leaf extract of Rhynchosia suaveolens: an insight into the mechanism. Artificial Cells, Nanomedicine, and Biotechnology. 2018;46(1):104-114.
Not in our library10.1080/21691401.2017.1414824
174.
Kim S., Choi J. E., Choi J., et al. Oxidative stress-dependent toxicity of silver nanoparticles in human hepatoma cells. Toxicology in Vitro. 2009;23(6):1076-1084.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tiv.2009.06.001
175.
Kim Y. J., Choi H. S., Song M. K., Youk D. Y., Kim J. H., Ryu J. C. Genotoxicity of aluminum oxide (Al2O3) nanoparticle in mammalian cell lines. Molecular and Cellular Toxicology. 2009;5:172-178.
Not in our library
176.
Ahamed M., AlSalhi M. S., Siddiqui M. K. J. Silver nanoparticle applications and human health. Clinica Chimica Acta. 2010;411(23-24):1841-1848.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cca.2010.08.016
177.
Ahamed M., Siddiqui M. A., Akhtar M. J., Ahmad I., Pant A. B., Alhadlaq H. A. Genotoxic potential of copper oxide nanoparticles in human lung epithelial cells. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications. 2010;396(2):578-583.
Not in our library10.1016/j.bbrc.2010.04.156
178.
de Lima R., Seabra A. B., Durán N. Silver nanoparticles: a brief review of cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of chemically and biogenically synthesized nanoparticles. Journal of Applied Toxicology. 2012;32(11):867-879.
Not in our library10.1002/jat.2780
179.
Gaillet S., Rouanet J.-M. Silver nanoparticles: their potential toxic effects after oral exposure and underlying mechanisms—a review. Food and Chemical Toxicology. 2015;77:58-63.
Not in our library10.1016/j.fct.2014.12.019
180.
Kennedy D. C., Qian H., Gies V., Yang L. Human serum albumin stabilizes aqueous silver nanoparticle suspensions and inhibits particle uptake by cells. Environmental Science: Nano. 2018;5(4):863-867.
Not in our library10.1039/c8en00087e
181.
All that is silver is not toxic: silver ion and particle kinetics reveals the role of silver ion aging and dosimetry on the toxicity of silver nanoparticles · 2018
Not checked
182.
McCormack A. L., Thiruchelvam M., Manning-Bog A. B., et al. Environmental risk factors and Parkinson’s disease: selective degeneration of nigral dopaminergic neurons caused by the herbicide paraquat. Neurobiology of Disease. 2002;10(2):119-127.
Not in our library10.1006/nbdi.2002.0507
183.
Eggermann T., Schönherr N., Meyer E., et al. Epigenetic mutations in 11p15 in Silver-Russell syndrome are restricted to the telomeric imprinting domain. Journal of Medical Genetics. 2006;43:615-616.
Not in our library10.1136/jmg.2005.038687
184.
Testa G., Staurenghi E., Giannelli S., et al. A silver lining for 24-hydroxycholesterol in Alzheimer’s disease: the involvement of the neuroprotective enzyme sirtuin 1. Redox Biology. 2018;17:423-431.
Not in our library10.1016/j.redox.2018.05.009
185.
Ren G., Hu D., Cheng E. W. C., Vargas-Reus M. A., Reip P., Allaker R. P. Characterisation of copper oxide nanoparticles for antimicrobial applications. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents. 2009;33(6):587-590.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2008.12.004
186.
Ahamed M., Alhadlaq H. A., Khan M. A. M., Karuppiah P., Al-Dhabi N. A. Synthesis, characterization, and antimicrobial activity of copper oxide nanoparticles. Journal of Nanomaterials. 2014;2014:4.
Not in our library10.1155/2014/637858
187.
Sankar R., Maheswari R., Karthik S., Shivashangari K. S., Ravikumar V. Anticancer activity of Ficus religiosa engineered copper oxide nanoparticles. Materials Science and Engineering: C. 2014;44:234-239.
Not in our library10.1016/j.msec.2014.08.030
188.
Perlman O., Weitz I. S., Azhari H. Copper oxide nanoparticles as contrast agents for MRI and ultrasound dual-modality imaging. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2015;60(15):5767-5783.
Not in our library10.1088/0031-9155/60/15/5767
189.
Černík M., Thekkae Padil V. V. Green synthesis of copper oxide nanoparticles using gum karaya as a biotemplate and their antibacterial application. International Journal of Nanomedicine. 2013;8:889-898.
Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s40599
190.
Devipriya D., Roopan S. M. Cissus quadrangularis mediated ecofriendly synthesis of copper oxide nanoparticles and its antifungal studies against Aspergillus niger, Aspergillus flavus. Materials Science and Engineering: C. 2017;80:38-44.
Not in our library10.1016/j.msec.2017.05.130
191.
Ingle A. P., Duran N., Rai M. Bioactivity, mechanism of action, and cytotoxicity of copper-based nanoparticles: a review. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2013;98(3):1001-1009.
Not in our library10.1007/s00253-013-5422-8
192.
Fahmy B., Cormier S. A. Copper oxide nanoparticles induce oxidative stress and cytotoxicity in airway epithelial cells. Toxicology in Vitro. 2009;23(7):1365-1371.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tiv.2009.08.005
193.
Karlsson H. L., Cronholm P., Gustafsson J., Möller L. Copper oxide nanoparticles are highly toxic: a comparison between metal oxide nanoparticles and carbon nanotubes. Chemical Research in Toxicology. 2008;21(9):1726-1732.
Not in our library10.1021/tx800064j
194.
Studer A. M., Limbach L. K., Van Duc L., et al. Nanoparticle cytotoxicity depends on intracellular solubility: comparison of stabilized copper metal and degradable copper oxide nanoparticles. Toxicology Letters. 2010;197(3):169-174.
Not in our library10.1016/j.toxlet.2010.05.012
195.
Alarifi S., Ali D., Verma A., Alakhtani S., Ali B. A. Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of copper oxide nanoparticles in human skin keratinocytes cells. International Journal of Toxicology. 2013;32(4):296-307.
Not in our library10.1177/1091581813487563
196.
Sun J., Wang S., Zhao D., Hun F. H., Weng L., Liu H. Cytotoxicity, permeability, and inflammation of metal oxide nanoparticles in human cardiac microvascular endothelial cells. Cell Biology and Toxicology. 2011;27(5):333-342.
Not in our library10.1007/s10565-011-9191-9
197.
Cohen D., Soroka Y., Ma’or Z., et al. Evaluation of topically applied copper(II) oxide nanoparticle cytotoxicity in human skin organ culture. Toxicology in Vitro. 2013;27(1):292-298.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tiv.2012.08.026
198.
Atha D. H., Wang H., Petersen E. J., et al. Copper oxide nanoparticle mediated DNA damage in terrestrial plant models. Environmental Science & Technology. 2012;46(3):1819-1827.
Not in our library10.1021/es202660k
199.
Wongrakpanich A., Mudunkotuwa I. A., Geary S. M., et al. Size-dependent cytotoxicity of copper oxide nanoparticles in lung epithelial cells. Environmental Science: Nano. 2016;3(2):365-374.
Not in our library10.1039/c5en00271k
200.
Akhtar M. J., Kumar S., Alhadlaq H. A., Alrokayan S. A., Abu-Salah K. M., Ahamed M. Dose-dependent genotoxicity of copper oxide nanoparticles stimulated by reactive oxygen species in human lung epithelial cells. Toxicology and Industrial Health. 2013;32(5):809-821.
Not in our library10.1177/0748233713511512
201.
Srikanth K., Pereira E., Duarte A. C., Rao J. V. Evaluation of cytotoxicity, morphological alterations and oxidative stress in Chinook salmon cells exposed to copper oxide nanoparticles. Protoplasma. 2015;253(3):873-884.
Not in our library10.1007/s00709-015-0849-7
202.
Ude V. C., Brown D. M., Viale L., Kanase N., Stone V., Johnston H. J. Impact of copper oxide nanomaterials on differentiated and undifferentiated Caco-2 intestinal epithelial cells; assessment of cytotoxicity, barrier integrity, cytokine production and nanomaterial penetration. Particle and Fibre Toxicology. 2017;14(1):p. 31.
Not in our library10.1186/s12989-017-0211-7
203.
Li Y., Sun Y., Zhang G., He Z., Wang Y., Cui J. Effects of copper oxide nanoparticles on developing zebrafish embryos and larvae. International Journal of Nanomedicine. 2016;11:905-918.
Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s100350
204.
Bulcke F., Dringen R. Handling of copper and copper oxide nanoparticles by astrocytes. Neurochemical Research. 2015;41(1-2):33-43.
Not in our library10.1007/s11064-015-1688-9
205.
Bulcke F., Dringen R., Scheiber I. F., Aschner M., Costa L. G. Neurotoxicity of copper. Neurotoxicity of Metals. 2017;313-343.
Not in our library10.1007/978-3-319-60189-2_16
206.
Rasmussen J. W., Martinez E., Louka P., Wingett D. G. Zinc oxide nanoparticles for selective destruction of tumor cells and potential for drug delivery applications. Expert Opinion on Drug Delivery. 2010;7(9):1063-1077.
Not in our library10.1517/17425247.2010.502560
207.
Azam A., Ahmed O., Oves H., Khan A., Memic A. Antimicrobial activity of metal oxide nanoparticles against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria: a comparative study. International Journal of Nanomedicine. 2012;7:6003-6009.
Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s35347
208.
Espitia P. J. P., Soares N. D. F. F., Coimbra J. S. d. R., de Andrade N. J., Cruz R. S., Medeiros E. A. A. Zinc oxide nanoparticles: synthesis, antimicrobial activity and food packaging applications. Food and Bioprocess Technology. 2012;5(5):1447-1464.
Not in our library10.1007/s11947-012-0797-6
209.
Rajendra R., Balakumar C., Ahammed H. A. M., Jayakumar S., Vaideki K., Rajesh E. Use of zinc oxide nano particles for production of antimicrobial textiles. International Journal of Engineering, Science and Technology. 2010;2:202-208.
Not in our library10.4314/ijest.v2i1.59113
210.
AbdElhady M. M. Preparation and characterization of chitosan/zinc oxide nanoparticles for imparting antimicrobial and UV protection to cotton fabric. International Journal of Carbohydrate Chemistry. 2012;2012:6.
Not in our library10.1155/2012/840591
211.
Bellotti N., Romagnoli R., Quintero C., Domínguez-Wong C., Ruiz F., Deyá C. Nanoparticles as antifungal additives for indoor water borne paints. Progress in Organic Coatings. 2015;86:33-40.
Not in our library10.1016/j.porgcoat.2015.03.006
212.
von Roemeling C., Jiang W., Chan C. K., Weissman I. L., Kim B. Y. S. Breaking down the barriers to precision cancer nanomedicine. Trends in Biotechnology. 2017;35(2):159-171.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tibtech.2016.07.006
213.
Hong H., Shi J., Yang Y., et al. Cancer-targeted optical imaging with fluorescent zinc oxide nanowires. Nano Letters. 2011;11(9):3744-3750.
Not in our library10.1021/nl201782m
214.
Huang Y.-W., Wu C.-H., Aronstam R. S. Toxicity of transition metal oxide nanoparticles: recent insights from in vitro studies. Materials. 2010;3(10):4842-4859.
Not in our library10.3390/ma3104842
215.
Kao Y.-Y., Chen Y.-C., Cheng T.-J., Chiung Y.-M., Liu P.-S. Zinc oxide nanoparticles interfere with zinc ion homeostasis to cause cytotoxicity. Toxicological Sciences. 2012;125(2):462-472.
Not in our library10.1093/toxsci/kfr319
216.
Heng B. C., Zhao X., Tan E. C., et al. Evaluation of the cytotoxic and inflammatory potential of differentially shaped zinc oxide nanoparticles. Archives of Toxicology. 2011;85(12):1517-1528.
Not in our library10.1007/s00204-011-0722-1
217.
Valdiglesias V., Costa C., Kiliç G., et al. Neuronal cytotoxicity and genotoxicity induced by zinc oxide nanoparticles. Environment International. 2013;55:92-100.
Not in our library10.1016/j.envint.2013.02.013
218.
Guo D., Bi H., Liu B., Wu Q., Wang D., Cui Y. Reactive oxygen species-induced cytotoxic effects of zinc oxide nanoparticles in rat retinal ganglion cells. Toxicology in Vitro. 2013;27(2):731-738.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tiv.2012.12.001
219.
Sharma V., Shukla R. K., Saxena N., Parmar D., Das M., Dhawan A. DNA damaging potential of zinc oxide nanoparticles in human epidermal cells. Toxicology Letters. 2009;185(3):211-218.
Not in our library10.1016/j.toxlet.2009.01.008
220.
Hackenberg S., Scherzed A., Technau A., et al. Cytotoxic, genotoxic and pro-inflammatory effects of zinc oxide nanoparticles in human nasal mucosa cells in vitro. Toxicology in Vitro. 2011;25(3):657-663.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tiv.2011.01.003
221.
Roy R., Tripathi A., Das M., Dwivedi P. Cytotoxicity and uptake of zinc oxide nanoparticles leading to enhanced inflammatory cytokines levels in murine macrophages: comparison with bulk zinc oxide. Journal of Biomedical Nanotechnology. 2011;7(1):110-111.
Not in our library10.1166/jbn.2011.1226
222.
Heng B. C., Zhao X., Xiong S., Woei Ng K., Yin-Chiang Boey F., Say-Chye Loo J. Toxicity of zinc oxide (ZnO) nanoparticles on human bronchial epithelial cells (BEAS-2B) is accentuated by oxidative stress. Food and Chemical Toxicology. 2010;48(6):1762-1766.
Not in our library10.1016/j.fct.2010.04.023
223.
Ng C. T., Yong L. Q., Hande M. P., et al. Zinc oxide nanoparticles exhibit cytotoxicity and genotoxicity through oxidative stress responses in human lung fibroblasts and Drosophila melanogaster. International Journal of Nanomedicine. 2017;12:1621-1637.
Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s124403
224.
Pati R., Das I., Mehta R. K., Sahu R., Sonawane A. Zinc-oxide nanoparticles exhibit genotoxic, clastogenic, cytotoxic and actin depolymerization effects by inducing oxidative stress responses in macrophages and adult mice. Toxicological Sciences. 2016;150(2):454-472.
Not in our library10.1093/toxsci/kfw010
225.
Abdelmonem A. M., Pelaz B., Kantner K., Bigall N. C., del Pino P., Parak W. J. Charge and agglomeration dependent in vitro uptake and cytotoxicity of zinc oxide nanoparticles. Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry. 2015;153:334-338.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jinorgbio.2015.08.029
226.
Gupta A. K., Naregalkar R. R., Vaidya V. D., Gupta M. Recent advances on surface engineering of magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles and their biomedical applications. Nanomedicine. 2007;2(1):23-39.
Not in our library10.2217/17435889.2.1.23
227.
Laurent S., Dutz S., Häfeli U. O., Mahmoudi M. Magnetic fluid hyperthermia: focus on superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles. Advances in Colloid and Interface Science. 2011;166(1-2):8-23.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cis.2011.04.003
228.
Tran N., Mir A., Mallik D., Sinha A., Nayar S. Bactericidal effect of iron oxide nanoparticles on Staphylococcus aureus. International Journal of Nanomedicine. 2010;5:p. 277.
Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s9220
229.
Nangmenyi G., Li X., Mehrabi S., Mintz E., Economy J. Silver-modified iron oxide nanoparticle impregnated fiberglass for disinfection of bacteria and viruses in water. Materials Letters. 2011;65:1191-1193.
Not in our library10.1016/j.matlet.2011.01.042
230.
Anghel I., Grumezescu A., Holban A., Ficai A., Anghel A., Chifiriuc M. Biohybrid nanostructured iron oxide nanoparticles and Satureja hortensis to prevent fungal biofilm development. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2013;14:18110-18123.
Not in our library10.3390/ijms140918110
231.
Lei C., Zhang L., Yang K., Zhu L., Lin D. Toxicity of iron-based nanoparticles to green algae: effects of particle size, crystal phase, oxidation state and environmental aging. Environmental Pollution. 2016;218:505-512.
Not in our library10.1016/j.envpol.2016.07.030
232.
Trang V. T., Tam L. T., Van Quy N., et al. Functional iron oxide–silver hetero-nanocomposites: controlled synthesis and antibacterial activity. Journal of Electronic Materials. 2017;46:3381-3389.
Not in our library10.1007/s11664-017-5314-2
233.
Singh N., Jenkins G. J. S., Asadi R., Doak S. H. Potential toxicity of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPION). Nano Reviews. 2010;1:p. 5358.
Not in our library10.3402/nano.v1i0.5358
234.
Soenen S. J. H., Himmelreich U., Nuytten N., De Cuyper M. Cytotoxic effects of iron oxide nanoparticles and implications for safety in cell labelling. Biomaterials. 2011;32:195-205.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.08.075
235.
Petri-Fink A., Steitz B., Finka A., Salaklang J., Hofmann H. Effect of cell media on polymer coated superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs): colloidal stability, cytotoxicity, and cellular uptake studies. European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics. 2008;68:129-137.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ejpb.2007.02.024
236.
Valdiglesias V., Kiliç G., Costa C., et al. Effects of iron oxide nanoparticles: cytotoxicity, genotoxicity, developmental toxicity, and neurotoxicity. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis. 2015;56:125-148.
Not in our library10.1002/em.21909
237.
Magdolenova Z., Drlickova M., Henjum K., et al. Coating-dependent induction of cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of iron oxide nanoparticles. Nanotoxicology. 2013;9:44-56.
Not in our library10.3109/17435390.2013.847505
238.
Sobhani A., Manjavacas A., Cao Y., et al. Pronounced linewidth narrowing of an aluminum nanoparticle Plasmon resonance by interaction with an aluminum metallic film. Nano Letters. 2015;15:6946-6951.
Not in our library10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b02883
239.
Aramesh M., Tran P. A., Ostrikov K., Prawer S. Conformal nanocarbon coating of alumina nanocrystals for biosensing and bioimaging. Carbon. 2017;122:422-427.
Not in our library10.1016/j.carbon.2017.06.101
240.
Mukherjee A., Mohammed-Sadiq I., Prathna T. C., Chandrasekaran N., Méndez-Vilas A. Antimicrobial activity of aluminium oxide nanoparticles for potential clinical applications. Science against Microbial Pathogens: Communicating Current Research and Technological Advances. 2011;245-251.
Not in our library
241.
Rajan Y. C., Inbaraj B. S., Chen B. H. Synthesis and characterization of poly(γ-glutamic acid)-based alumina nanoparticles with their protein adsorption efficiency and cytotoxicity towards human prostate cancer cells. RSC Advances. 2015;5:15126-15139.
Not in our library10.1039/c4ra10445e
242.
Pakrashi S., Dalai S., Prathna P. T. C., et al. Cytotoxicity of aluminium oxide nanoparticles towards fresh water algal isolate at low exposure concentrations. Aquatic Toxicology. 2013;132-133:34-45.
Not in our library10.1016/j.aquatox.2013.01.018
243.
Radziun E., Dudkiewicz Wilczyńska J., Książek I., et al. Assessment of the cytotoxicity of aluminium oxide nanoparticles on selected mammalian cells. Toxicology in Vitro. 2011;25:1694-1700.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tiv.2011.07.010
244.
Yoon D., Woo D., Kim J. H., et al. Agglomeration, sedimentation, and cellular toxicity of alumina nanoparticles in cell culture medium. Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2010;13:2543-2551.
Not in our library10.1007/s11051-010-0147-4
245.
Lin W., Stayton I., Huang Y.-W., Zhou X.-D., Ma Y. Cytotoxicity and cell membrane depolarization induced by aluminum oxide nanoparticles in human lung epithelial cells A549. Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry. 2008;90:983-996.
Not in our library10.1080/02772240701802559
246.
Kim Y. S., Kim J. S., Cho H. S., et al. Twenty-eight-day oral toxicity, genotoxicity, and gender-related tissue distribution of silver nanoparticles in Sprague-Dawley rats. Inhalation Toxicology. 2008;20:575-583.
Not in our library10.1080/08958370701874663
247.
More M. P., Ganguly P. R., Pandey A. P., et al. Development of surface engineered mesoporous alumina nanoparticles: drug release aspects and cytotoxicity assessment. IET Nanobiotechnology. 2017;11:661-668.
Not in our library10.1049/iet-nbt.2016.0225
248.
Gibbons J. P., Monopoli M. P., Lundqvist M., et al. Human plasma protein adsorption onto alumina nanoparticles relevant to orthopedic wear. Journal of Applied Biomaterials & Functional Materials. 2015;13:145-155.
Not in our library10.5301/jabfm.5000219
249.
Rajiv S., Jerobin J., Saranya V., et al. Comparative cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of cobalt (II, III) oxide, iron (III) oxide, silicon dioxide, and aluminum oxide nanoparticles on human lymphocytes in vitro. Human & Experimental Toxicology. 2015;35:170-183.
Not in our library10.1177/0960327115579208
250.
Asztemborska M., Faisal M., Saquib Q., Alatar A., Al-Khedhairy A. Alumina nanoparticles and plants: environmental transformation, bioaccumulation, and phytotoxicity. Phytotoxicity of Nanoparticles. 2018;335-345.
Not in our library10.1007/978-3-319-76708-6_14

Cited by papers we hold 4

Regulatory pathways and guidelines for nanotechnology-enabled health products: a comparative review of EU and US frameworks · 2025
No notice
Nanotechnology’s frontier in combatting infectious and inflammatory diseases: prevention and treatment · 2024
No notice
A Comprehensive Review of Nanoparticles: From Classification to Application and Toxicity · 2024
No notice
Recent advances in extracellular vesicles for therapeutic cargo delivery · 2024
No notice

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.