Toxicity of single walled carbon nanotubes to rainbow trout, (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Respiratory toxicity, organ pathologies, and other physiological effects

Smith, C. T.; Shaw, Benjamin J.; Handy, Richard D.

doi:10.1016/j.aquatox.2007.02.003

Cited by 534 publications

(404 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

380

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Increased ventilation rates have been observed in a fish study with single‐walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs); however, the mechanisms causing this effect were not documented in the study 48. Aggressive behavior was also seen in the study, which could be caused by respiratory distress, although without further evidence it cannot be excluded that these effects are caused by the adhesion of ENPs to the gills.…”

Section: Physical Effects Of Enps In Aquatic Toxicity Testsmentioning

confidence: 77%

“…In adult fish, ENPs have been shown to readily interact and adhere to gill surfaces 68, 69, 70, 71. Studies have found swelling and increased mucus production, which is a natural response to irritants at the gill sites 48. Although this is not acutely problematic, the chronic effects could be pronounced.…”

Section: Physical Effects Of Enps In Aquatic Toxicity Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Aquatic Ecotoxicity Testing of Nanoparticles—The Quest To Disclose Nanoparticle Effects

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The number of products on the market containing engineered nanoparticles (ENPs) has increased significantly, and concerns have been raised regarding their ecotoxicological effects. Environmental safety assessments as well as relevant and reliable ecotoxicological data are required for the safe and sustainable use of ENPs. Although the number of publications on the ecotoxicological effects and uptake of ENPs is rapidly expanding, the applicability of the reported data for hazard assessment is questionable. A major knowledge gap is whether nanoparticle effects occur when test organisms are exposed to ENPs in aquatic test systems. Filling this gap is not straightforward, because of the broad range of ENPs and the different behavior of ENPs compared to “ordinary” (dissolved) chemicals in the ecotoxicity test systems. The risk of generating false negatives, and false positives, in the currently used tests is high, and in most cases difficult to assess. This Review outlines some of the pitfalls in the aquatic toxicity testing of ENPs which may lead to misinterpretation of test results. Response types are also proposed to reveal potential nanoparticle effects in the aquatic test organisms.

show abstract

Section: Physical Effects Of Enps In Aquatic Toxicity Testsmentioning

confidence: 77%

Section: Physical Effects Of Enps In Aquatic Toxicity Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aquatic Ecotoxicity Testing of Nanoparticles—The Quest To Disclose Nanoparticle Effects

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consequently, plastic containers must be disposable. Experiences at the bench so far suggest that in the case of glass vessels, routine cleaning methods such as acid washing in dilute nitric acid or aqua regia [8] are adequate for preparing test vessels for most ENMs, including metallic nanoparticles (NPs) [13] and carbon-based materials such as single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNT) [14].…”

Section: Setting Up At the Benchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The problem is compounded by the behavior of mucous secretions from the animals (see Handy and Maunder [22] for a review on mucus). For example, in rainbow trout, SWCNT are attached rapidly to the mucus secretions of the fish [14], which then sink to the bottom of the tank, rapidly removing SWCNT from the test media along the way. A key point learned from these experiences is that the decision on exactly when, or if, to change the water should be driven by the characteristics of the test system and should not be some arbitrary decision (e.g., water changes every 24 h just because it is logistically convenient).…”

Section: Confirming Exposure; Maintaining Test Concentrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of dispersing agents and sonication methods [5] has identified, with the benefit of hindsight, some substances that are excellent at dispersing ENMs such as tetrahydrofuran, but such agents are often incompatible with whole organism biology [12]. Compromises have also been achieved in which dispersant concentrations have been selected carefully to minimize the toxicity of the solvent control on the animals, while maintaining a reasonable dispersion of the test materials (see Smith et al [14] for discussion on sodium dodecyl sulfate with SWCNT). Figure 2 provides some practical guidance to the experimenter on the use of dispersing agents.…”

Section: Dispersing Agents and Solvent Controlsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ecotoxicity test methods for engineered nanomaterials: Practical experiences and recommendations from the bench

Handy

Cornelis

Fernandes

et al. 2011

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

299

236

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Ecotoxicology research is using many methods for engineered nanomaterials (ENMs), but the collective experience from researchers has not been documented. This paper reports the practical issues for working with ENMs and suggests nano-specific modifications to protocols. The review considers generic practical issues, as well as specific issues for aquatic tests, marine grazers, soil organisms, and bioaccumulation studies. Current procedures for cleaning glassware are adequate, but electrodes are problematic. The maintenance of exposure concentration is challenging, but can be achieved with some ENMs. The need to characterize the media during experiments is identified, but rapid analytical methods are not available to do this. The use of sonication and natural/synthetic dispersants are discussed. Nano-specific biological endpoints may be developed for a tiered monitoring scheme to diagnose ENM exposure or effect. A case study of the algal growth test highlights many small deviations in current regulatory test protocols that are allowed (shaking, lighting, mixing methods), but these should be standardized for ENMs. Invertebrate (Daphnia) tests should account for mechanical toxicity of ENMs. Fish tests should consider semistatic exposure to minimize wastewater and animal husbandry. The inclusion of a benthic test is recommended for the base set of ecotoxicity tests with ENMs. The sensitivity of soil tests needs to be increased for ENMs and shortened for logistics reasons; improvements include using Caenorhabditis elegans, aquatic media, and metabolism endpoints in the plant growth tests. The existing bioaccumulation tests are conceptually flawed and require considerable modification, or a new test, to work for ENMs. Overall, most methodologies need some amendments, and recommendations are made to assist researchers. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2012;31:15-31. # 2011 SETAC

show abstract

Sources, Fate and Effects of Engineered Nanomaterials in the Aquatic Environment

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Toxicity of single walled carbon nanotubes to rainbow trout, (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Respiratory toxicity, organ pathologies, and other physiological effects

Cited by 534 publications

References 43 publications

Aquatic Ecotoxicity Testing of Nanoparticles—The Quest To Disclose Nanoparticle Effects

Aquatic Ecotoxicity Testing of Nanoparticles—The Quest To Disclose Nanoparticle Effects

Ecotoxicity test methods for engineered nanomaterials: Practical experiences and recommendations from the bench

Sources, Fate and Effects of Engineered Nanomaterials in the Aquatic Environment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About