Search

Nanotechnology involves technology, science, and engineering in dimensions less than 100 nm. A virtually infinite number of potential nanoscale products can be produced from many different molecules and their combinations. The exponentially increasing number of nanoscale products will solve critical needs in engineering, science, and medicine. However, the virtually infinite number of potential nanotechnology products is a challenge for toxicologic pathologists. Because of their size, nanoparticulates can have therapeutic and toxic effects distinct from micron-sized particulates of the same composition. In the nanoscale, distinct intercellular and intracellular translocation pathways may provide a different distribution than that obtained by micron-sized particulates. Nanoparticulates interact with subcellular structures including microtubules, actin filaments, centrosomes, and chromatin; interactions that may be facilitated in the nanoscale. Features that distinguish nanoparticulates from fine particulates include increased surface area per unit mass and quantum effects. In addition, some nanotechnology products, including the fullerenes, have a novel and reactive surface. Augmented microscopic procedures including enhanced dark-field imaging, immunofluorescence, field-emission scanning electron microscopy, transmission electron microscopy, and confocal microscopy are useful when evaluating nanoparticulate toxicologic pathology. Thus, the pathology assessment is facilitated by understanding the unique features at the nanoscale and the tools that can assist in evaluating nanotoxicology studies.

Incomplete understanding of the contributions of dispersants and engineered nanoparticles/materials (ENM) agglomeration state to biological outcomes presents an obstacle for toxicological studies. Although reactive oxygen species (ROS) production is often regarded as the primary indicator of ENM bioactivity and toxicity, it remains unclear whether ENM produce ROS or whether ROS is an outcome of ENM-induced cell injury. Phagolysosomal disruption and cathepsin B release also promote bioactivity through inflammasome activation. Therefore, specific particle parameters, i.e. preexposure dispersion status and particle surface area, of two ENM (NiO and CeO2) were used to evaluate the role of ROS generation and cathepsin B release during ENM-induced toxicity. Male C57BL/6J mice were exposed to 0, 20, 40, or 80 μg of poorly or well-dispersed NiO-NP or CeO2-NP in four types of dispersion media. At 1- and 7-day postexposure, lung lavage fluid was collected to assess inflammation, cytotoxicity, and inflammasome activation. Results showed that preexposure dispersion status correlated with postexposure pulmonary bioactivity. The differences in bioactivity of NiO-NP and CeO2-NP are likely due to NiO-NP facilitating the release of cathepsin B and in turn inflammasome activation generating proinflammatory cytokines. Further, both metal oxides acted as free radical scavengers. Depending on the pH, CeO2-NP acted as a free radical scavenger in an acidic environment (an environment mimicking the lysosome) while the NiO-NP acted as a scavenger in a physiological pH (an environment that mimics the cytosol of the cell). Therefore, results from this study suggest that ENM-induced ROS is not likely a mechanism of inflammasome activation. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]