Determining nanoform similarity via assessment of surface reactivity by abiotic and in vitro assays.

Nanomaterials have outstanding and unprecedented advantageous material properties but may also cause adverse effects in humans upon exposure. Testing nanomaterials for genotoxic properties is challenging because traditional testing methods were designed for small, soluble molecules and may not be easily applicable without modifications. This review critically examines available genotoxicity tests for use with nanomaterials, including DNA damage tests such as the comet assay, gene mutation tests such as the mouse lymphoma and hprt assay, and chromosome mutation tests such as the micronucleus test and the chromosome aberration test. It presents arguments for the relative usefulness of various tests, such as preferring the micronucleus test over the chromosome aberration test for scoring chromosome mutations and preferring mammalian cell gene mutation tests because the Ames test has limited utility. Finally, it points out the open questions and further needs in adapting genotoxicity tests for nanomaterials, such as validation, reference nanomaterials, and the selection of top test concentrations, as well as the relevance and applicability of test systems and the need to define testing strategies. This article is categorized under: Toxicology and Regulatory Issues in Nanomedicine > Toxicology of Nanomaterials Toxicology and Regulatory Issues in Nanomedicine > Regulatory and Policy Issues in Nanomedicine.

Genotoxicity testing of nanomaterials.

Understanding the bioaccumulation of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) is essential for making regulatory decisions on potential environmental risks. Research in the field of ENM bioaccumulation has increased in recent years, but the compilation and statistical analysis of the available experimental data have not been updated. We therefore performed a meta‐analysis of the existing literature on the bioaccumulation of eight types of nondissolvable ENMs (titanium dioxide [TiO2], aluminum oxide [Al2O3], gold [Au], fullerene [C60], carbon nanotubes, iron oxide [FeOx], graphene, and polystyrene) in nonmammalian freshwater aquatic organisms across three trophic levels including phytoplankton, zooplankton, and fish. Three typical endpoints were used to assess the bioaccumulation potential: the bioconcentration factor (BCF), the bioaccumulation factor (BAF), and the biomagnification factor (BMF). Our results suggest that zooplankton has greater mean logarithmic BCF and BAF values than phytoplankton (3.31 vs. 1.42) and fish (2.04). The ENMs are biomagnified in zooplankton, with a mean BMF of 17.4, whereas trophic transfer from primary consumers (zooplankton) to secondary consumers (fish) was not observed (mean BMF of 0.13). No clear dependency was identified between the physicochemical characteristics of ENMs (e.g., primary particle size, zeta potential, or shape) and bioaccumulation, except for coated versus uncoated particles accumulated in phytoplankton. Carbonaceous ENMs were found to be more bioaccumulated than the other ENMs we considered, except for TiO2. A meta‐analysis of bioaccumulation data can (1) deepen the understanding of bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and biomagnification of ENMs, (2) be used to support grouping strategies as a basis for a safer‐by‐design approach for ENMs, (3) be integrated into comprehensive hazard and risk assessments, (4) promote the standardization of testing guidelines, and (5) enhance future kinetic bioaccumulation modeling. Environ Toxicol Chem 2022;41:1202–1214. © 2022 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.

Meta‐analysis of Bioaccumulation Data for Nondissolvable Engineered Nanomaterials in Freshwater Aquatic Organisms

Hazard identification of nanomaterials: In silico unraveling of descriptors for cytotoxicity and genotoxicity

In analogy to the periodic system that groups elements by their similarity in structure and chemical properties, the hazard of chemicals can be assessed in groups of similar structures and similar toxicological properties. Here we review case studies of grouping strategies that supported the assessment of hazard, exposure, and risk to human health. By the EU-REACh and the US-TSCA New Chemicals Program, structural similarity is commonly used as the basis for grouping, but that criterion is not always adequate and sufficient. Based on the lessons learned, we derive ten principles for grouping, including: transparency of the purpose, criteria and boundaries of the group; adequacy of methods used to justify the group; inclusion or exclusion of substances in the group by toxicological properties. These principles apply to initial grouping to prioritize further actions as well as to definitive grouping to generate data for risk assessment. Both can expedite effective risk management.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/anie.202210651

Lessons Learned from the Grouping of Chemicals to Assess Risks to Human Health.

How can we justify grouping of nanoforms for hazard assessment? Concepts and tools to quantify similarity

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Mario Pink

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

How can we justify grouping of nanoforms for hazard assessment? Concepts and tools to quantify similarity