Biological effects of oxidized carbon nanomaterials (1D versus 2D) on Spodoptera frugiperda: Material dimensionality influences on the insect development, performance and nutritional physiology

Assessment of reproductive and developmental effects of graphene oxide on Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes)

“…Although our data are unable to establish a significant difference, available reports indicate that in other models such as Caenorhabditia elegans chronic exposure to GO was able to reduce fecundity, and size of the animals; however, acute exposure failed to do that (Rive et al, 2019). In Spodoptera frugiperda, the diet containing 1mg/g GO during larval rearing, reduced fecundity and fertility of the insects (Martins et al, 2019). In house cricket (Acheta domesticus) multigenerational exposure to GO reduced fecundity and induced cellular damage (Dziewiecka et al, 2018).…”

Graphene and Reproduction: A Love-Hate Relationship

“…Nevertheless, the comparison between these studies is not easy because these carbon nanotubes have been characterized only in terms of length, i.e., 100–1000 nm and 1–5 µm (depending on the concentration), respectively. Similarly, when MWCNTs in their pristine forms [ 46 ] or oxidized version [ 47 ] have been investigated, the Authors characterized the nanotubes according to different features, i.e., the outer diameter of 10–20 nm for MWCNTs and 10–50 nm for oxMWCNTs, length of 10–30 μm for MWCNTs and <5 μm for oxMWCNTs and ζ-potential of −24.7 ± 0.8 mV for MWCNTs and −34 ± 1.6 mV for oxMWCNTs. It is also known that the intensity ratio of D and G bands in Raman spectroscopy, I D /I G , index of occurred oxidation, is 1.55.…”

“…The majority of GO is synthesized by using the Hummer’s method [ 46 , 47 , 56 , 57 , 58 ] even though sometimes this information is omitted (overall in the case of commercial samples). However, the use of this synthetic methodology does not ensure a precise characterization of the final product that may differ in terms of exfoliation degree (single, SLGO, or few layered sheets, FLGO) [ 48 ], oxygen content (either in terms of C/O w / w , that may vary from 0.25 [ 59 ] to 0.39 [ 48 ] or as final oxygen weight with respect to the total weight, i.e., 20% [ 41 ] or >36% [ 60 ]), dimensions of the sheets (i.e., from 297 nm mean size [ 61 ] to 3–5 µm [ 41 , 47 ]), surface charge (i.e., from ζ -potential −14.13 ± 11.1 mV [ 60 ] to −56.7 ± 1.5 mV [ 46 ]). In a few studies GO sheets are named nano-GO (nanoGO or NGO) [ 62 , 63 ] or are distinguished in small GO (S-GO) and large GO (L-GO) [ 64 ] sheets when the protocol of preparation involves a further step of cutting into small pieces by sonication [ 64 ] or harsh oxidation conditions.…”

“…GO and oxMWCNT were also supplied with the diet of the generalist insect Spodoptera frugiperda (S. frugiperda) by Martins et al at different doses (10, 100, 1000 µg/g of food). Both monodimensional and bidimensional carbon nanomaterials affected the reproductive performance when they were used at the highest concentrations, which could entail ecologic and economic consequences for the agriculture sciences [ 47 ].…”

“…Research studies reporting GO as the investigated carbon nanomaterial are numerous and therefore its features are indispensable to properly evaluate and compare its effects and results. The majority of GO is synthesized by using the Hummer's method [46,47,[56][57][58] even though sometimes this information is omitted (overall in the case of commercial samples). However, the use of this synthetic methodology does not ensure a precise characterization of the final product that may differ in terms of exfoliation degree (single, SLGO, or few layered sheets, FLGO) [48], oxygen content (either in terms of C/O w/w, that may vary from 0.25 [59] to 0.39 [48] or as final oxygen weight with respect to the total weight, i.e., 20% [41] or >36% [60]), dimensions of the sheets (i.e., from 297 nm mean size [61] to 3-5 µm [41,47]), surface charge (i.e., from ζ -potential −14.13 ± 11.1 mV [60] to −56.7 ± 1.5 mV [46]).…”