Limits...
Nanotitanium dioxide toxicity in mouse lung is reduced in sanding dust from paint.

Saber AT, Jacobsen NR, Mortensen A, Szarek J, Jackson P, Madsen AM, Jensen KA, Koponen IK, Brunborg G, Gützkow KB, Vogel U, Wallin H - Part Fibre Toxicol (2012)

Bottom Line: We also compared the effects of the same paint with and without NanoTiO2.Pulmonary inflammation and DNA damage and hepatic histopathology were not changed in mice instilled with sanding dust from NanoTiO2 paint compared to paint without NanoTiO2.However, pure NanoTiO2 caused greater inflammation than NanoTiO2 embedded in the paint matrix.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: The National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Lersø Parkallé 105, Copenhagen, Denmark. ats@nrcwe.dk

ABSTRACT

Background: Little is known of how the toxicity of nanoparticles is affected by the incorporation in complex matrices. We compared the toxic effects of the titanium dioxide nanoparticle UV-Titan L181 (NanoTiO2), pure or embedded in a paint matrix. We also compared the effects of the same paint with and without NanoTiO2.

Methods: Mice received a single intratracheal instillation of 18, 54 and 162 μg of NanoTiO2 or 54, 162 and 486 μg of the sanding dust from paint with and without NanoTiO2. DNA damage in broncheoalveolar lavage cells and liver, lung inflammation and liver histology were evaluated 1, 3 and 28 days after intratracheal instillation. Printex 90 was included as positive control.

Results: There was no additive effect of adding NanoTiO2 to paints: Therefore the toxicity of NanoTiO2 was reduced by inclusion into a paint matrix. NanoTiO2 induced inflammation in mice with severity similar to Printex 90. The inflammatory response of NanoTiO2 and Printex 90 correlated with the instilled surface area. None of the materials, except of Printex 90, induced DNA damage in lung lining fluid cells. The highest dose of NanoTiO2 caused DNA damage in hepatic tissue 1 day after intratracheal instillation. Exposure of mice to the dust from paints with and without TiO2 was not associated with hepatic histopathological changes. Exposure to NanoTiO2 or to Printex 90 caused slight histopathological changes in the liver in some of the mice at different time points.

Conclusions: Pulmonary inflammation and DNA damage and hepatic histopathology were not changed in mice instilled with sanding dust from NanoTiO2 paint compared to paint without NanoTiO2. However, pure NanoTiO2 caused greater inflammation than NanoTiO2 embedded in the paint matrix.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

DNA strand breaks in hepatic tissue. DNA strand breaks in liver tissue from mice exposed to 0, 18, 54 or 162 μg of NanoTiO2 (A) or Printex 90 (B) or 0 or 486 μg of Indoor-R or Indoor-NanoTiO2 (C). The statistical analysis for Printex 90 has been described previously [19]. The increased level of DNA strand breaks of Indoor-R is considered an artifact due to 1) a low plate control and the normalization procedure and 2) the unusual kinetic of DNA damage over time. *, **, ***: Statistically significant compared to control mice at the 0.5, 0.01 and 0.001 level, respectively.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3298479&req=5

Figure 3: DNA strand breaks in hepatic tissue. DNA strand breaks in liver tissue from mice exposed to 0, 18, 54 or 162 μg of NanoTiO2 (A) or Printex 90 (B) or 0 or 486 μg of Indoor-R or Indoor-NanoTiO2 (C). The statistical analysis for Printex 90 has been described previously [19]. The increased level of DNA strand breaks of Indoor-R is considered an artifact due to 1) a low plate control and the normalization procedure and 2) the unusual kinetic of DNA damage over time. *, **, ***: Statistically significant compared to control mice at the 0.5, 0.01 and 0.001 level, respectively.

Mentions: DNA damage was determined in BAL cells (Figure 2) and liver tissue (Figure 3) by the Comet assay.


Nanotitanium dioxide toxicity in mouse lung is reduced in sanding dust from paint.

Saber AT, Jacobsen NR, Mortensen A, Szarek J, Jackson P, Madsen AM, Jensen KA, Koponen IK, Brunborg G, Gützkow KB, Vogel U, Wallin H - Part Fibre Toxicol (2012)

DNA strand breaks in hepatic tissue. DNA strand breaks in liver tissue from mice exposed to 0, 18, 54 or 162 μg of NanoTiO2 (A) or Printex 90 (B) or 0 or 486 μg of Indoor-R or Indoor-NanoTiO2 (C). The statistical analysis for Printex 90 has been described previously [19]. The increased level of DNA strand breaks of Indoor-R is considered an artifact due to 1) a low plate control and the normalization procedure and 2) the unusual kinetic of DNA damage over time. *, **, ***: Statistically significant compared to control mice at the 0.5, 0.01 and 0.001 level, respectively.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3298479&req=5

Figure 3: DNA strand breaks in hepatic tissue. DNA strand breaks in liver tissue from mice exposed to 0, 18, 54 or 162 μg of NanoTiO2 (A) or Printex 90 (B) or 0 or 486 μg of Indoor-R or Indoor-NanoTiO2 (C). The statistical analysis for Printex 90 has been described previously [19]. The increased level of DNA strand breaks of Indoor-R is considered an artifact due to 1) a low plate control and the normalization procedure and 2) the unusual kinetic of DNA damage over time. *, **, ***: Statistically significant compared to control mice at the 0.5, 0.01 and 0.001 level, respectively.
Mentions: DNA damage was determined in BAL cells (Figure 2) and liver tissue (Figure 3) by the Comet assay.

Bottom Line: We also compared the effects of the same paint with and without NanoTiO2.Pulmonary inflammation and DNA damage and hepatic histopathology were not changed in mice instilled with sanding dust from NanoTiO2 paint compared to paint without NanoTiO2.However, pure NanoTiO2 caused greater inflammation than NanoTiO2 embedded in the paint matrix.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: The National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Lersø Parkallé 105, Copenhagen, Denmark. ats@nrcwe.dk

ABSTRACT

Background: Little is known of how the toxicity of nanoparticles is affected by the incorporation in complex matrices. We compared the toxic effects of the titanium dioxide nanoparticle UV-Titan L181 (NanoTiO2), pure or embedded in a paint matrix. We also compared the effects of the same paint with and without NanoTiO2.

Methods: Mice received a single intratracheal instillation of 18, 54 and 162 μg of NanoTiO2 or 54, 162 and 486 μg of the sanding dust from paint with and without NanoTiO2. DNA damage in broncheoalveolar lavage cells and liver, lung inflammation and liver histology were evaluated 1, 3 and 28 days after intratracheal instillation. Printex 90 was included as positive control.

Results: There was no additive effect of adding NanoTiO2 to paints: Therefore the toxicity of NanoTiO2 was reduced by inclusion into a paint matrix. NanoTiO2 induced inflammation in mice with severity similar to Printex 90. The inflammatory response of NanoTiO2 and Printex 90 correlated with the instilled surface area. None of the materials, except of Printex 90, induced DNA damage in lung lining fluid cells. The highest dose of NanoTiO2 caused DNA damage in hepatic tissue 1 day after intratracheal instillation. Exposure of mice to the dust from paints with and without TiO2 was not associated with hepatic histopathological changes. Exposure to NanoTiO2 or to Printex 90 caused slight histopathological changes in the liver in some of the mice at different time points.

Conclusions: Pulmonary inflammation and DNA damage and hepatic histopathology were not changed in mice instilled with sanding dust from NanoTiO2 paint compared to paint without NanoTiO2. However, pure NanoTiO2 caused greater inflammation than NanoTiO2 embedded in the paint matrix.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus