Nanomaterials in the environment aquatic ecotoxicity tests of some nanomaterials

Nanoparticles of TiO2, ZrO2, AL2O3, CeO2, fullerene (C60), single-walled carbon nanotubes, and polymethylmethacrylate were tested for ecotoxic effects using one or more ecotoxicity endpoints: Microtox (bacteria), pulse-amplitude modulation (algae), Chydotox (crustaceans), and Biolog (soil enzymes). No appreciable effects were observed at nominal concentrations of up to 100 mg/L. Dilution of nanoparticle suspensions, either in ultrapure (Milli-Q) water or in natural (pond) water, led to formation of larger particles, which settled easily. (Nano)particles in water were characterized by means of atomic force microscopy, energy-dispersive x-ray analysis, inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry, flow cytometry, and spectrophotometry. It is concluded that the absence of ecotoxicity is the result of low concentrations of free nanoparticles in the tests, and it is suggested that colloid (in)stability is of primary importance in explaining ecotoxic effects of nanoparticles in the natural environment.

[1]  Pratim Biswas,et al.  Assessing the risks of manufactured nanomaterials. , 2006, Environmental science & technology.

[2]  Jae-Hong Kim,et al.  Natural organic matter stabilizes carbon nanotubes in the aqueous phase. , 2007, Environmental science & technology.

[3]  Ling Yang,et al.  Particle surface characteristics may play an important role in phytotoxicity of alumina nanoparticles. , 2005, Toxicology letters.

[4]  Dionysios D. Dionysiou.  Environmental Applications and Implications of Nanotechnology and Nanomaterials , 2004 .

[5]  E. Oberdörster.  Manufactured Nanomaterials (Fullerenes, C60) Induce Oxidative Stress in the Brain of Juvenile Largemouth Bass , 2004, Environmental health perspectives.

[6]  G. Yuan.  Environmental Nanomaterials: Occurrence, Syntheses, Characterization, Health Effect, and Potential Applications , 2004, Journal of environmental science and health. Part A, Toxic/hazardous substances & environmental engineering.

[7]  P. Hoet,et al.  Nanoparticles – known and unknown health risks , 2004, Journal of nanobiotechnology.

[8]  Christopher E Mackay,et al.  Stochastic probability modeling to predict the environmental stability of nanoparticles in aqueous suspension. , 2006, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[9]  K. Tsujii,et al.  Stable Dispersions of Fullerenes, C60 and C70, in Water. Preparation and Characterization , 2001 .

[10]  V. Colvin.  The potential environmental impact of engineered nanomaterials , 2003, Nature Biotechnology.

[11]  Rebecca Klaper,et al.  Daphnia magna mortality when exposed to titanium dioxide and fullerene (C60) nanoparticles , 2006, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[12]  M. Wiesner,et al.  Comparison of electrokinetic properties of colloidal fullerenes (n-C60) formed using two procedures. , 2005, Environmental science & technology.

[13]  Maria C Powell,et al.  Nanomaterial health effects--part 1: background and current knowledge. , 2006, WMJ : official publication of the State Medical Society of Wisconsin.

[14]  Kerstin Hund-Rinke,et al.  Ecotoxic Effect of Photocatalytic Active Nanoparticles (TiO2) on Algae and Daphnids (8 pp) , 2006, Environmental science and pollution research international.

[15]  Roy M. Harrison,et al.  Sources and concentration of nanoparticles (<10 nm diameter) in the urban atmosphere , 2001 .

[16]  Maria C Powell,et al.  Nanomaterial health effects--Part 2: Uncertainties and recommendations for the future. , 2006, WMJ : official publication of the State Medical Society of Wisconsin.

[17]  Thomas Kuhlbusch,et al.  Particle and Fibre Toxicology BioMed Central Review The potential risks of nanomaterials: a review carried out for ECETOC , 2006 .