Tag Archives: cytotoxicity

Environmental impacts and graphene

1 Reply

Researchers at the University of California at Riverside (UCR) have published the results of what they claim is the first study featuring the environmental impact from graphene use. From the April 29, 2014 news item on ScienceDaily,

In a first-of-its-kind study of how a material some think could transform the electronics industry moves in water, researchers at the University of California, Riverside Bourns College of Engineering found graphene oxide nanoparticles are very mobile in lakes or streams and therefore may well cause negative environmental impacts if released.

Graphene oxide nanoparticles are an oxidized form of graphene, a single layer of carbon atoms prized for its strength, conductivity and flexibility. Applications for graphene include everything from cell phones and tablet computers to biomedical devices and solar panels.

The use of graphene and other carbon-based nanomaterials, such as carbon nanotubes, are growing rapidly. At the same time, recent studies have suggested graphene oxide may be toxic to humans. [emphasis mine]

As production of these nanomaterials increase, it is important for regulators, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, to understand their potential environmental impacts, said Jacob D. Lanphere, a UC Riverside graduate student who co-authored a just-published paper about graphene oxide nanoparticles transport in ground and surface water environments.

I wish they had cited the studies suggesting graphene oxide (GO) may be toxic. After a quick search I found: Internalization and cytotoxicity of graphene oxide and carboxyl graphene nanoplatelets in the human hepatocellular carcinoma cell line Hep G2 by Tobias Lammel, Paul Boisseaux, Maria-Luisa Fernández-Cruz, and José M Navas (free access paper in Particle and Fibre Toxicology 2013, 10:27 http://www.particleandfibretoxicology.com/content/10/1/27). From what I can tell, this was a highly specialized investigation conducted in a laboratory. While the results seem concerning it’s difficult to draw conclusions from this study or others that may have been conducted.

Dexter Johnson in a May 1, 2014 post on his Nanoclast blog (on the IEEE [Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers] website) provides more relevant citations and some answers (Note: Links have been removed),

While the UC Riverside  did not look at the toxicity of GO in their study, researchers at the Hersam group from Northwestern University did report in a paper published in the journal Nano Letters (“Minimizing Oxidation and Stable Nanoscale Dispersion Improves the Biocompatibility of Graphene in the Lung”) that GO was the most toxic form of graphene-based materials that were tested in mice lungs. In other research published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials (“Investigation of acute effects of graphene oxide on wastewater microbial community: A case study”), investigators determined that the toxicity of GO was dose dependent and was toxic in the range of 50 to 300 mg/L. So, below 50 mg/L there appear to be no toxic effects to GO. To give you some context, arsenic is considered toxic at 0.01 mg/L.

Dexter also contrasts graphene oxide with graphene (from his May 1, 2014 post; Note: A link has been removed),

While GO is quite different from graphene in terms of its properties (GO is an insulator while graphene is a conductor), there are many applications that are similar for both GO and graphene. This is the result of GO’s functional groups allowing for different derivatives to be made on the surface of GO, which in turn allows for additional chemical modification. Some have suggested that GO would make a great material to be deposited on additional substrates for thin conductive films where the surface could be tuned for use in optical data storage, sensors, or even biomedical applications.

Getting back to the UCR research, an April 28, 2014 UCR news release (also on EurekAlert but dated April 29, 2014) describes it  in more detail,

Walker’s [Sharon L. Walker, an associate professor and the John Babbage Chair in Environmental Engineering at UC Riverside] lab is one of only a few in the country studying the environmental impact of graphene oxide. The research that led to the Environmental Engineering Science paper focused on understanding graphene oxide nanoparticles’ stability, or how well they hold together, and movement in groundwater versus surface water.

The researchers found significant differences.

In groundwater, which typically has a higher degree of hardness and a lower concentration of natural organic matter, the graphene oxide nanoparticles tended to become less stable and eventually settle out or be removed in subsurface environments.

In surface waters, where there is more organic material and less hardness, the nanoparticles remained stable and moved farther, especially in the subsurface layers of the water bodies.

The researchers also found that graphene oxide nanoparticles, despite being nearly flat, as opposed to spherical, like many other engineered nanoparticles, follow the same theories of stability and transport.

I don’t know what conclusions to draw from the information that the graphene nanoparticles remain stable and moved further in the water. Is a potential buildup of graphene nanoparticles considered a problem because it could end up in our water supply and we would be poisoned by these particles? Dexter provides an answer (from his May 1, 2014 post),

Ultimately, the question of danger of any material or chemical comes down to the simple equation: Hazard x Exposure=Risk. To determine what the real risk is of GO reaching concentrations equal to those that have been found to be toxic (50-300 mg/L) is the key question.

The results of this latest study don’t really answer that question, but only offer a tool by which to measure the level of exposure to groundwater if there was a sudden spill of GO at a manufacturing facility.

While I was focused on ingestion by humans, it seems this research was more focused on the natural environment and possible future poisoning by graphene oxide.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Stability and Transport of Graphene Oxide Nanoparticles in Groundwater and Surface Water by Jacob D. Lanphere, Brandon Rogers, Corey Luth, Carl H. Bolster, and Sharon L. Walker. Environmental Engineering Science. -Not available-, ahead of print. doi:10.1089/ees.2013.0392.

Online Ahead of Print: March 17, 2014

If available online, this is behind a paywall.

Nanoscale metal oxides and lung cells

Leave a reply

Bear in mind while reading further that all of this research has not taken place in any situation resembling real life conditions: researchers at the Missouri University of Science and Technology (Missouri S&T; located in the US) have found that metal oxides at the nanoscale can be highly toxic to human lung cells according to a Jan. 28, 2014 news item on Nanowerk (Note: A link has been removed),

Nanoparticles are used in all kinds of applications — electronics, medicine, cosmetics, even environmental clean-ups. More than 2,800 commercially available applications are now based on nanoparticles, and by 2017, the field is expected to bring in nearly $50 billion worldwide.

But this influx of nanotechnology is not without risks, say researchers at Missouri University of Science and Technology.

“There is an urgent need to investigate the potential impact of nanoparticles on health and the environment,” says Yue-Wern Huang, professor of biological sciences at Missouri S&T.

Huang and his colleagues have been systematically studying the effects of transition metal oxide nanoparticles on human lung cells (“Cytotoxicity in the age of nano: The role of fourth period transition metal oxide nanoparticle physicochemical properties”). These nanoparticles are used extensively in optical and recording devices, water purification systems, cosmetics and skin care products, and targeted drug delivery, among other applications.

The Jan. 27, 2014 Missouri S&T news release by Linda Fulps, which originated the news item, describes the research in more detail,

“In their typical coarse powder form, the toxicity of these substances is not dramatic,” says Huang. “But as nanoparticles with diameters of only 16-80 nanometers, the situation changes significantly.”

The researchers exposed both healthy and cancerous human lung cells to nanoparticles composed of titanium, chromium, manganese, iron, nickel, copper and zinc compounds — transition metal oxides that are on the fourth row of the periodic table. The researchers discovered that the nanoparticles’ toxicity to the cells, or cytotoxicity, increased as they moved right on the periodic table.

“About 80 percent of the cells died in the presence of nanoparticles of copper oxide and zinc oxide,” says Huang. “These nanoparticles penetrated the cells and destroyed their membranes. The toxic effects are related to the nanoparticles’ surface electrical charge and available docking sites.”

Huang says that certain nanoparticles released metal ions — called ion dissolution — which also played a significant role in cell death.

Huang is now working on new research that may help reduce nanoparticles’ toxicity and shed light on how nanoparticles interact with cells.

“We are coating toxic zinc oxide nanoparticles with non-toxic nanoparticles to see if zinc oxide’s toxicity can be reduced,” Huang says. “We hope this can mitigate toxicity without compromising zinc oxide’s intended applications. We’re also investigating whether nanoparticles inhibit cell division and influence cell cycle.”

Concerning results? Yes. But, before determining how alarmed you should be, there are a few questions you might want to ask while reading the news release and/or the research paper :

  1. How were these cells exposed to the metal nanoparticles? ‘Breathing’ or were they sitting in a solution?
  2. What was the concentration of metal nanoparticles? (even good things can be bad for you at high concentrations)

This isn’t an attempt to dismiss the findings but rather to point out how much painstaking research has to take place before conclusions of any kind can be drawn. It’s why scientists tend to quite careful in their comments.

In looking at this work, I was reminded of the research into ‘nanosunscreens’ and concerns about the metal oxide nanoparticles (zinc oxides and/or titanium dioxide) penetrating the skin barrier and building up to toxic levels in the body.  In an Oct. 4, 2012 posting about zinc oxide nanoparticles and penetrating the skin barrier, I mentioned this in the context of some then recent research at Bath University (UK),

I missed the fact that this study was an in vitro test, which is always less convincing than in vivo testing. In my Nov. 29, 2011 posting about some research into nano zinc oxide I mentioned in vitro vs. in vivo testing and Brian Gulson’s research,

I was able to access the study and while I’m not an expert by any means I did note that the study was ‘in vitro’, in this case, the cells were on slides when they were being studied. It’s impossible to draw hard and fast conclusions about what will happen in a body (human or otherwise) since there are other systems at work which are not present on a slide.

…

… here’s what Brian Gulson had to say about nano zinc oxide concentrations in his work and about a shortcoming in his study (from an Australian Broadcasting Corporation [ABC] Feb. 25, 2010 interview with Ashley Hall,

BRIAN GULSON: I guess the critical thing was that we didn’t find large amounts of it getting through the skin. The sunscreens contain 18 to 20 per cent zinc oxide usually and ours was about 20 per zinc. So that’s an awful lot of zinc you’re putting on the skin but we found tiny amounts in the blood of that tracer that we used.

ASHLEY HALL: So is it a significant amount?

BRIAN GULSON: No, no it’s really not.

ASHLEY HALL: But Brian Gulson is warning people who use a lot of sunscreen over an extended period that they could be at risk of having elevated levels of zinc.

BRIAN GULSON: Maybe with young children where you’re applying it seven days a week, it could be an issue but I’m more than happy to continue applying it to my grandchildren.

ASHLEY HALL: This study doesn’t shed any light on the question of whether the nano-particles themselves played a part in the zinc absorption.

BRIAN GULSON: That was the most critical thing. This isotope technique cannot tell whether or not it’s a zinc oxide nano-particle that got through skin or whether it’s just zinc that was dissolved up in contact with the skin and then forms zinc ions or so-called soluble ions. So that’s one major deficiency of our study.

Of course, I have a question about Gulson’s conclusion  that very little of the nano zinc oxide was penetrating the skin based on blood and urine samples taken over the course of the study. Is it possible that after penetrating the skin it was stored in the cells  instead of being eliminated?

Here’s a link to and a citation for Yue-Wern Huang and his team’s latest research,

Cytotoxicity in the age of nano: The role of fourth period transition metal oxide nanoparticle physicochemical properties by Charles C. Chusuei, Chi-Heng Wu, Shravan Mallavarapu, Fang Yao Stephen Hou, Chen-Ming Hsu, Jeffrey G. Winiarz, Robert S. Aronstam, Yue-Wern Huang. Chemico-Biological Interactions, Volume 206, Issue 2, 25 November 2013, Pages 319–326.

This paper is behind a paywall.