Implication of particle-by-particle characterization of nanoparti | 52621
Journal of Clinical Toxicology

Journal of Clinical Toxicology
Open Access

ISSN: 2161-0495

Implication of particle-by-particle characterization of nanoparticle dispersions for in vitro testing

4th Global Summit on Toxicology

August 24-26, 2015 Philadelphia, USA

Anoop K Pal

Posters-Accepted Abstracts: J Clin Toxicol

Abstract :

Over past decades, nano-bio research has essentially been focused on studying the underlying mechanisms of nano-bio
interactions, their potential nano-environment health and safety implications (Nanotoxicology) as well as utilizing this
knowledge for designing better therapeutics (Nanomedicine). In vitro assessment of nanoparticles (NP) and nano-formulations
is the most common testing platform for evaluating biological responses, which requires prior NP dispersion, stabilization, and
characterization in cell culture media. Dispersion inefficiencies and active aggregation of particles often result in polydisperse size
distributions. Accurate characterization of important properties of such polydisperse distributions (size distribution, effective density,
charge, mobility, aggregation kinetics, etc.) is critical for understanding differences in the effective dose delivered to cells as a function
of time and dispersion conditions, as well as for nano–bio interactions. Here, standardized dispersion and dosimetry platform was
used for preparing NP dispersions and estimating the delivered dose to cells based on dispersion characterization input from dynamic
light scattering (DLS) and tunable resistive pulse sensing (TRPS), for a set of 8 distinct nanomaterials. The TRPS technology offers
higher resolution and sensitivity compared to DLS and provides unique insights into NP size distribution and concentration, as well
as particle behavior and morphology in complex culture media. The overall relative in vitro toxicity ranking for 8 NP types changed
considerably, matching notably better the in vivo inflammation data (R2 = 0.97 versus 0.64). These findings further reinforce the need
to reanalyze and reinterpret in vitro data in the light of dispersion and dosimetry considerations (or lack thereof) and to adopt these
standardized protocols for future in vitro assessment studies.