Is aggregated synthetic amorphous silica toxicologically relevant?
Aggregates
Biological activity
In vitro toxicity
Nanomaterials
Synthetic amorphous silica
Journal
Particle and fibre toxicology
ISSN: 1743-8977
Titre abrégé: Part Fibre Toxicol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101236354
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 01 2020
03 01 2020
Historique:
received:
23
09
2019
accepted:
10
12
2019
entrez:
5
1
2020
pubmed:
5
1
2020
medline:
15
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The regulatory definition(s) of nanomaterials (NMs) frequently uses the term 'agglomerates and aggregates' (AA) despite the paucity of evidence that AA are significantly relevant from a nanotoxicological perspective. This knowledge gap greatly affects the safety assessment and regulation of NMs, such as synthetic amorphous silica (SAS). SAS is used in a large panel of industrial applications. They are primarily produced as nano-sized particles (1-100 nm in diameter) and considered safe as they form large aggregates (> 100 nm) during the production process. So far, it is indeed believed that large aggregates represent a weaker hazard compared to their nano counterpart. Thus, we assessed the impact of SAS aggregation on in vitro cytotoxicity/biological activity to address the toxicological relevance of aggregates of different sizes. We used a precipitated SAS dispersed by different methods, generating 4 ad-hoc suspensions with different aggregate size distributions. Their effect on cell metabolic activity, cell viability, epithelial barrier integrity, total glutathione content and, IL-8 and IL-6 secretion were investigated after 24 h exposure in human bronchial epithelial (HBE), colon epithelial (Caco2) and monocytic cells (THP-1). We observed that the de-aggregated suspension (DE-AGGR), predominantly composed of nano-sized aggregates, induced stronger effects in all the cell lines than the aggregated suspension (AGGR). We then compared DE-AGGR with 2 suspensions fractionated from AGGR: the precipitated fraction (PREC) and the supernatant fraction (SuperN). Very large aggregates in PREC were found to be the least cytotoxic/biologically active compared to other suspensions. SuperN, which contains aggregates larger in size (> 100 nm) than in DE-AGGR but smaller than PREC, exhibited similar activity as DE-AGGR. Overall, aggregation resulted in reduced toxicological activity of SAS. However, when comparing aggregates of different sizes, it appeared that aggregates > 100 nm were not necessarily less cytotoxic than their nano-sized counterparts. This study suggests that aggregates of SAS are toxicologically relevant for the definition of NMs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The regulatory definition(s) of nanomaterials (NMs) frequently uses the term 'agglomerates and aggregates' (AA) despite the paucity of evidence that AA are significantly relevant from a nanotoxicological perspective. This knowledge gap greatly affects the safety assessment and regulation of NMs, such as synthetic amorphous silica (SAS). SAS is used in a large panel of industrial applications. They are primarily produced as nano-sized particles (1-100 nm in diameter) and considered safe as they form large aggregates (> 100 nm) during the production process. So far, it is indeed believed that large aggregates represent a weaker hazard compared to their nano counterpart. Thus, we assessed the impact of SAS aggregation on in vitro cytotoxicity/biological activity to address the toxicological relevance of aggregates of different sizes.
RESULTS
We used a precipitated SAS dispersed by different methods, generating 4 ad-hoc suspensions with different aggregate size distributions. Their effect on cell metabolic activity, cell viability, epithelial barrier integrity, total glutathione content and, IL-8 and IL-6 secretion were investigated after 24 h exposure in human bronchial epithelial (HBE), colon epithelial (Caco2) and monocytic cells (THP-1). We observed that the de-aggregated suspension (DE-AGGR), predominantly composed of nano-sized aggregates, induced stronger effects in all the cell lines than the aggregated suspension (AGGR). We then compared DE-AGGR with 2 suspensions fractionated from AGGR: the precipitated fraction (PREC) and the supernatant fraction (SuperN). Very large aggregates in PREC were found to be the least cytotoxic/biologically active compared to other suspensions. SuperN, which contains aggregates larger in size (> 100 nm) than in DE-AGGR but smaller than PREC, exhibited similar activity as DE-AGGR.
CONCLUSION
Overall, aggregation resulted in reduced toxicological activity of SAS. However, when comparing aggregates of different sizes, it appeared that aggregates > 100 nm were not necessarily less cytotoxic than their nano-sized counterparts. This study suggests that aggregates of SAS are toxicologically relevant for the definition of NMs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31900181
doi: 10.1186/s12989-019-0331-3
pii: 10.1186/s12989-019-0331-3
pmc: PMC6942297
doi:
Substances chimiques
Suspensions
0
Silicon Dioxide
7631-86-9
Glutathione
GAN16C9B8O
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1Subventions
Organisme : European Research Council
ID : 814425
Pays : International
Références
Nanotoxicology. 2015 May;9(4):442-52
pubmed: 25033893
Mol Pharm. 2016 Jul 5;13(7):2164-71
pubmed: 26905216
Arch Toxicol. 2017 Sep;91(9):2967-3010
pubmed: 28573455
Environ Health Perspect. 2002 Aug;110(8):797-800
pubmed: 12153761
Sci Rep. 2017 Jun 19;7(1):3827
pubmed: 28630477
Anal Bioanal Chem. 2016 Jan;408(1):271-86
pubmed: 26507331
Nanotoxicology. 2013 May;7(3):274-93
pubmed: 22264143
Part Fibre Toxicol. 2010 Dec 03;7(1):39
pubmed: 21126379
Small. 2009 Apr;5(7):846-53
pubmed: 19288475
Nanomaterials (Basel). 2018 Dec 22;9(1):null
pubmed: 30583541
Toxicology. 2012 Apr 11;294(2-3):61-79
pubmed: 22349641
Cell Biol Int. 2015 Aug;39(8):881-90
pubmed: 25790433
Nanotoxicology. 2015;9(7):871-85
pubmed: 25672815
Part Fibre Toxicol. 2014 Feb 17;11:11
pubmed: 24529161
Nanomaterials (Basel). 2016 Feb 16;6(2):
pubmed: 28344290
J Nanobiotechnology. 2012 Jun 18;10:24
pubmed: 22709926
Toxicol Sci. 2016 Mar;150(1):40-53
pubmed: 26612840
Nat Protoc. 2017 Feb;12(2):355-371
pubmed: 28102836
Mutagenesis. 2017 Jan;32(1):181-191
pubmed: 28011750
Chem Res Toxicol. 2011 Feb 18;24(2):150-8
pubmed: 21171596
Drug Discov Today. 2012 Oct;17(19-20):1147-54
pubmed: 22772028
Arch Toxicol. 2016 Dec;90(12):2885-2916
pubmed: 27699444
Int J Nanomedicine. 2011;6:2821-35
pubmed: 22131828
Nanoscale Res Lett. 2013 Nov 21;8(1):496
pubmed: 24261419
Toxicol In Vitro. 2011 Oct;25(7):1343-52
pubmed: 21575712