2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.taap.2012.06.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cytotoxic effects in 3T3-L1 mouse and WI-38 human fibroblasts following 72hour and 7day exposures to commercial silica nanoparticles

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 54 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…17 The emulsion droplets contained positively charged alumina coated silica nanoparticles or lysozyme in water, while the outer phase was a solution of a sulfonated styrene copolymer in toluene. 19,20 The low but finite solubility of s-SEBS in the water phase allows s-SEBS chains to diffuse across the oil-water interface into the aqueous droplet interior where its sulfonate moieties become charged. 18 The silica nanoparticles have a nominal diameter of 21 nm and an isoelectric point of B8.7.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…17 The emulsion droplets contained positively charged alumina coated silica nanoparticles or lysozyme in water, while the outer phase was a solution of a sulfonated styrene copolymer in toluene. 19,20 The low but finite solubility of s-SEBS in the water phase allows s-SEBS chains to diffuse across the oil-water interface into the aqueous droplet interior where its sulfonate moieties become charged. 18 The silica nanoparticles have a nominal diameter of 21 nm and an isoelectric point of B8.7.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, in human endothelial cells small amorphous silica nanospheres of 14–16 nm causes pronounced cytotoxicity in cell survival assays while larger nanoparticles (60 nm, 104 nm and 335 nm) showed significantly less toxicity (Napierska et al, 2009). Results have also suggested some toxicity in cell types such as fibroblasts, pre-adipocytes, endothelial, and melanoma cells dependent on size and surface properties (Huang et al, 2011; Napierska et al, 2009; Stepnik et al, 2012). However, in agreement with our results, 40–80nm silica particles showed no toxicity in HUVEC cells (30,000 NPs/cell) (Bauer et al, 2011) and mesoporous silica nanoparticles were reported to retain over 80% viability in A375 melanoma cells exposed to at a 1000 μg/ml dose (Huang et al, 2010).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…General observations from the literature indicate that amorphous silica is less toxic than crystalline silica (Jaganathan and Godin 2012), and mesoporous silica NPs are less toxic than colloidal silica NPs (Lee et al 2011). It has also been shown that surface modification of silica NPs can alter the effects of such particles on cell proliferation or oxidative stress (Tsutsumi and Yoshioka 2011; Stępnik et al 2012). It should be noted that Fisichella et al (2009) had observed that mesoporous silica nanoparticles can interfere with MTT assays in other cell types, resulting in overestimations of cytotoxicity.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%