Nanomaterial oxides are common formations of nanomaterials in the natural environment. Herein, the nanotoxicology of typical graphene oxide (GO) and carboxyl single-walled carbon nanotubes (C-SWCNT) was compared. The results showed that cell division of Chlorella vulgaris was promoted at 24 h and then inhibited at 96 h after nanomaterial exposure. At 96 h, GO and C-SWCNT inhibited the rates of cell division by 0.08-15% and 0.8-28.3%, respectively. Both GO and C-SWCNT covered the cell surface, but the uptake percentage of C-SWCNT was 2-fold higher than that of GO. C-SWCNT induced stronger plasmolysis and mitochondrial membrane potential loss and decreased the cell viability to a greater extent than GO. Moreover, C-SWCNT-exposed cells exhibited more starch grains and lysosome formation and higher reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels than GO-exposed cells. Metabolomics analysis revealed significant differences in the metabolic profiles among the control, C-SWCNT and GO groups. The metabolisms of alkanes, lysine, octadecadienoic acid and valine was associated with ROS and could be considered as new biomarkers of ROS. The nanotoxicological mechanisms involved the inhibition of fatty acid, amino acid and small molecule acid metabolisms. These findings provide new insights into the effects of GO and C-SWCNT on cellular responses.

The interactions between nanomaterials and cells are fundamental in biological responses to nanomaterials. However, the size-dependent synergistic effects of envelopment and internalization as well as the metabolic mechanisms of nanomaterials have remained unknown. The nanomaterials tested here were larger graphene oxide nanosheets (GONS) and small graphene oxide quantum dots (GOQD). GONS intensively entrapped single-celled Chlorella vulgaris, and envelopment by GONS reduced the cell permeability. In contrast, GOQD-induced remarkable shrinkage of the plasma membrane and then enhanced cell permeability through strong internalization effects such as plasmolysis, uptake of nanomaterials, an oxidative stress increase, and inhibition of cell division and chlorophyll biosynthesis. Metabolomics analysis showed that amino acid metabolism was sensitive to nanomaterial exposure. Shrinkage of the plasma membrane is proposed to be linked to increases in the isoleucine levels. The inhibition of cell division and chlorophyll a biosynthesis was associated with decreases in aspartic acid and serine, the precursors of chlorophyll a. The increases in mitochondrial membrane potential loss and oxidative stress were correlated with an increase in linolenic acid. The above metabolites can be used as indicators of the corresponding biological responses. These results enhance our systemic understanding of the size-dependent biological effects of nanomaterials.

Graphene oxide (GO) is a widely used carbonaceous nanomaterial. To date, the influence of natural organic matter (NOM) on GO toxicity in aquatic vertebrates has not been reported. During zebrafish embryogenesis, GO induced a significant hatching delay and cardiac edema. The intensive interactions of GO with the chorion induces damage to chorion protuberances, excessive generation of (•)OH, and changes in protein secondary structure. In contrast, humic acid (HA), a ubiquitous form of NOM, significantly relieved the above adverse effects. HA reduced the interactions between GO and the chorion and mitigated chorion damage by regulating the morphology, structures, and surface negative charges of GO. HA also altered the uptake and deposition of GO and decreased the aggregation of GO in embryonic yolk cells and deep layer cells. Furthermore, HA mitigated the mitochondrial damage and oxidative stress induced by GO. This work reveals a feasible antidotal mechanism for GO in the presence of NOM and avoids overestimating the risks of GO in the natural environment.

Nanocolloids are widespread in natural water systems, but their characterization and ecological risks are largely unknown. Herein, tangential flow ultrafiltration (TFU) was used to separate and concentrate nanocolloids from surface waters. Unexpectedly, nanocolloids were present in high concentrations ranging from 3.7 to 7.2 mg/L in the surface waters of the Harihe River in Tianjin City, China. Most of the nanocolloids were 10-40 nm in size, contained various trace metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and exhibited fluorescence properties. Envelopment effects and aggregation of Chlorella vulgaris in the presence of nanocolloids were observed. Nanocolloids entered cells and nanocolloid-exposed cells exhibited stronger plasmolysis, chloroplast damage and more starch grains than the control cells. Moreover, nanocolloids inhibited the cell growth, promoted reactive oxygen species (ROS), reduce the chlorophyll a content and increased the cell permeability. The genotoxicity of nanocolloids was also observed. The metabolomics analysis revealed a significant ( p < 0.05) downregulation of amino acids and upregulation of fatty acids contributing to ROS increase, chlorophyll a decrease and plasmolysis. The present work reveals that nanocolloids, which are different from specific, engineered nanoparticles (e.g., Ag nanoparticles), are present at high concentrations, exhibit an obvious toxicity in environments, and deserve more attention in the future.

Graphene family nanomaterials (GFNs), including graphene, graphene oxide (GO), reduced graphene oxide (rGO), and graphene quantum dots (GQDs), have manifold potential applications, leading to the possibility of their release into environments and the exposure to humans and other organisms. However, the genotoxicity of GFNs on DNA remains largely unknown. In this review, we highlight the interactions between DNA and GFNs and summarize the mechanisms of genotoxicity induced by GFNs. Generally, the genotoxicity can be sub-classified into direct genotoxicity and indirect genotoxicity. The direct genotoxicity (e.g., direct physical nucleus and DNA damage) and indirect genotoxicity mechanisms (e.g., physical destruction, oxidative stress, epigenetic toxicity, and DNA replication) of GFNs were summarized in the manuscript, respectively. Moreover, the influences factors, such as physicochemical properties, exposure dose, and time, on the genotoxicity of GFNs are also briefly discussed. Given the important role of genotoxicity in GFNs exposure risk assessment, future research should be conducted on the following: (1) developing reliable testing methods; (2) elucidating the response mechanisms associated with genotoxicity in depth; and (3) enriching the evaluation database regarding the type of GFNs, applied dosages, and exposure times.