Next Article in Journal
Mechanical Behavior of Ultrafine Gradient Grain Structures Produced via Ambient and Cryogenic Surface Mechanical Attrition Treatment in Iron
Next Article in Special Issue
Synergic Role of Self-Interstitials and Vacancies in Indium Melting
Previous Article in Journal
Mechanical and Structural Investigation of Porous Bulk Metallic Glasses
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Nanotoxicology of Metal Oxide Nanoparticles

by
Amedea B. Seabra
1,2,*,† and
Nelson Durán
2,3,4,†
1
Exact and Earth Sciences Department, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Rua São Nicolau, 210, Diadema, São Paulo 0991330, Brazil
2
Laboratory of Nanomaterials Synthesis and Biological Interactions (NanoBioss), Institute of Chemistry, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo 13083970, Brazil
3
Institute of Chemistry, Biological Chemistry Laboratory, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo 13083970, Brazil
4
Brazilian Nanotechnology National Laboratory (LNNano), CNPEM, Campinas, São Paulo 13083-970, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Metals 2015, 5(2), 934-975; https://doi.org/10.3390/met5020934
Submission received: 8 April 2015 / Revised: 18 May 2015 / Accepted: 26 May 2015 / Published: 3 June 2015

Abstract

:
This review discusses recent advances in the synthesis, characterization and toxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles obtained mainly through biogenic (green) processes. The in vitro and in vivo toxicities of these oxides are discussed including a consideration of the factors important for safe use of these nanomaterials. The toxicities of different metal oxide nanoparticles are compared. The importance of biogenic synthesized metal oxide nanoparticles has been increasing in recent years; however, more studies aimed at better characterizing the potent toxicity of these nanoparticles are still necessary for nanosafely considerations and environmental perspectives. In this context, this review aims to inspire new research in the design of green approaches to obtain metal oxide nanoparticles for biomedical and technological applications and to highlight the critical need to fully investigate the nanotoxicity of these particles.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Metal oxide nanoparticles have wide applications, primarily in the technology field, including their use as a semiconductor, electroluminescent or thermoelectric material, but they are also used in biomedical applications as drug delivery systems for treatment and diagnosis and in environmental decontamination applications [1,2]. The classical methods for obtaining metal oxide nanoparticles are based on chemical and physical techniques that employ hazardous and expensive chemicals with high energy input and a negative effect on the environment [1]. The production of metal oxide nanoparticles via biogenic synthesis has received increasing attention recently because it is a novel process for the development of engineered materials [3]. The biogenic synthesis of nanomaterials by different organisms offers a reliable, low-cost and environment friendly alternative approach compared with classical chemical and/or physical methods [3,4,5,6,7,8]. The biogenic synthesis of metallic nanoparticles leads to the formation of capped nanostructures with proteins/biomolecules from the organism during the biosynthesis. These capping agents prevent nanoparticle aggregation and likely play an important role in the stabilization of the nanosystem. The presence of capping agents may improve the biocompatibility of biogenic nanomaterials [3,4,5,6,7,8]. Figure 1 shows a schematic representation of the simplicity of biogenic synthesis of metal oxide nanoparticles along with the advantages and disadvantages of green processes.
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the biogenic synthesis of metal oxide nanoparticles and its advantages and disadvantages.
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the biogenic synthesis of metal oxide nanoparticles and its advantages and disadvantages.
Metals 05 00934 g001
As highlighted in Figure 1, biogenic methods to obtain metal oxide nanoparticles are performed at room conditions, in a simple and cost effective manner and with no contamination to the environment. However, the main disadvantages are the limitations related to the scaling up the syntheses processes. In addition, the reproducibility of the biogenic processes needs to be improved, and in most of the cases, the mechanisms of nanoparticle formation are not completely elucidated [3,4,5,6,7,8].
The increasing production and use of metal oxide nanoparticles in numerous applications leads to adverse effects on health [9]. Several studies have demonstrated nanoparticle toxicity and increased cytotoxic potential of these materials [10]. However, a better understanding of the biological mechanisms of cytotoxicity and/or genotoxicity is necessary [11]. Silver nanoparticles are the most studied metallic nanoparticles but their cytotoxicity and genotoxicity are not fully understood [10,12,13,14,15]. The toxicity of more complex nanostructures, such as graphene and carbon nanotubes, is also uncertain [16].
This review describes the biogenic synthesis of important metal oxide nanoparticles and their cytotoxicity in vivo and in vitro. The safety implications and environment effects of these nanoparticles are also discussed.

2. Biogenic Synthesis of Metal Oxide Nanoparticles

This section describes the biogenic routes (green approaches) to synthesize different metal oxide nanoparticles. These particles are important for technological, biomedical and environmental applications.

2.1. Bismuth Trioxide (Bi2O3) Nanocrystals

Bi2O3 nanocrystals are an optoelectronic material. This metal oxide has attracted a great deal of attention as a semiconductor that is sensitive to visible light and has superior photocatalytic activity for environmental purposes, such as water treatment [17]. The traditional methods used to obtain Bi2O3 require the addition of organic/toxic solvents and high temperatures [17,18]. Uddin et al. [19] reported the room temperature biosynthesis of monodisperse Bi2O3 nanoparticles (5–10 nm) by Fusarium oxysporum as an alternative to conventional chemical methods. An important advantage of this ecofriendly biosynthesis is the formation of Bi2O3 nanoparticles with a protein layer, in contrast to the delicate surface coating that is obtained by using the conventional chemical methods, which are not capable of providing thermal stability or avoiding the agglomeration of nanoparticles.

2.2. Cobalt Oxide (Co3O4) Nanocrystals

Co3O4 nanomaterials possess desirable optical, magnetic and electrochemical properties and have been used as a super capacitor in energy storage devices. The classical methods of synthesis are solvothermal and thermal decomposition and the use of templates [20,21,22]. These synthetic routes are costly, time-consuming and toxic.
The microbial synthesis of Co3O4 nanoparticles using the marine bacterium Brevibacterium casei, was described by Kumar et al. [23]. This was likely the first study in which the quantitative and qualitative analyses that were conducted during the biogenic synthesis indicated the sensitivity of the micromechanical properties of cells to the surrounding toxic environment. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) of the as-synthesized nanoparticles revealed the quasi-spherical morphology of the particles with an average size of 6 nm. The protein coating on the biogenic Co3O4 nanoparticles reduced agglomeration and conserved the identity of the isolated nanoparticles [23].

2.3. Copper Oxide (CuO, Cu2O) Nanoparticles

Copper and copper oxide nanoparticles are used in optical and electronics applications and are a promising antimicrobial agent [5,24]. Several researchers have described the biogenic synthesis of copper based nanoparticles for a variety of applications. Hasan et al. [25] demonstrated that Serratia sp. produces an intracellular mixture of metallic copper and different copper oxides. Copper oxide (Cu2O) nanoparticles (10–20 nm) were synthesized at room temperature using the baker’s yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae [26]. The proposed mechanism is based on the partial gaseous hydrogen pressure of the reduction potential of metallic ions, which indicates the dependence of membrane bound oxido-reductases [26].
Usha et al. [27] reported the synthesis of copper oxide by Streptomyces sp. for antimicrobial applications in textiles. Copper oxide nanoparticles (100–150 nm) were obtained in solution by the reduction of copper sulfate by the reductase enzymes of the microorganism. The authors demonstrated the antibacterial (against Escherichia coli (E. coli) and Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus)) and antifungal (against Aspergillus niger) efficacies of nanoparticle-coated fabrics. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) revealed nanoparticles embedded on the treated fabric textile. The durability of the finished fabric was evaluated [27]. Singh et al. [28] reported the biological synthesis (E. coli) of copper oxide nanoparticles with different sizes (10–40 nm, plus aggregates) and shapes (quasi-spherical). The results indicated the presence of a mixture of Cu2O and CuO phases. The proteins secreted by E. coli, with molecular weights ranging from 22 to 52 KDa, were attributed to reduced copper ions and stabilized the nanoparticle suspension [28].
Fungi can also synthesize metallic oxide nanoparticles. The biogenic synthesis of copper oxides was performed using Penicillium aurantiogriseum, P. citrinum and P. waksmanii isolated from soil [29]. The authors investigated the effects of experimental parameters (pH and salt concentration) on the size of biogenic nanoparticles. SEM indicated a spherical shape of the nanoparticles [29]. Another green synthesis of Cu2O used Tridax procumbens leaf extract [30]. The resulting Cu2O nanoparticles were coated with polyaniline by a chemical polymerization technique. Hexagonal and cubic nanoparticles with rough surfaces were observed by SEM. The antibacterial effect of the Cu2O nanoparticles was evaluated against E. coli. A 65% inhibition of bacterial growth was observed upon the incubation of E. coli with 20 µg/cm3 of nanoparticles. A 100% inhibition was found for Cu2O concentrations in the range of 50–60 µg/cm3 [30]. Sangeetha et al. [31] produced mono-dispersed, versatile and highly stable CuO nanoparticles from Aloe vera extract. This method is both ecofriendly and inexpensive, and it produced spherical CuO nanoparticles with a size range of 15–30 nm [31].

2.4. Iron Oxide (Fe2O3, Fe3O4) Magnetic Nanoparticles

Magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles show potential in several biomedical applications, including drug delivery, hyperthermia and nuclear magnetic resonance imaging [2,32,33]. In addition to the classical chemical methods of synthesis, there is an increasing interest in the use of biogenic techniques to obtain iron oxide nanoparticles [4].
In the presence of anionic iron complexes, and under aerobic conditions, Actinobacter spp. yielded two new proteins that synthesize magnetite nanoparticles. The biotransformation of ferri-/ferrocyanide complexes into magnetite was dependent on the proteins secreted by this bacterium [34]. Incubating Actinobacter spp. with a ferricyanide/ferrocyanide mixture for 24 or 48 h resulted in quasi-spherical magnetite nanoparticles (10–40 nm) and cubic nanoparticles (50–150 nm), respectively. The nanoparticles were stable in aqueous solutions for several weeks because of the biomolecules secreted by the bacterium and were superparamagnetic at room temperature [34]. The mycelia of acidophillic fungi, Verticillium sp. and Fusarium oxysporum, extracellularly form magnetite when they are exposed to an aqueous solution of K3[Fe(CN)6] and K4[Fe(CN)6] [35].
Shewanella strain HN-41, a dissimilatory iron-reducing bacterium, forms iron oxide, with formate, pyruvate or lactate as an electron donor, through the reduction of Fe(III)-oxyhydroxide, akaganeite (β-FeOOH) [36]. DNA-binding protein from the starved cells of the bacterium Listeria innocua, LiDps, and its triple-mutant lacking the catalytic ferroxidase centre LiDps-tm produced nanomagnets at the interface between molecular clusters and traditional magnetic nanoparticles in the presence of a ferroxidase center [37]. Yaaghoobi et al. [38] reported the biogenic production of magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (≤104 nm) from Acinetobacter radioresistens. The authors compared the toxicity of biogenic and commercial iron oxide nanoparticles on red blood cells by evaluating hemagglutination, hemolysis and morphological changes. Severe hemagglutination was observed for commercial nanoparticles in a concentration-dependent manner from a concentration of 50 µg/mL. Toxic effects and morphological changes in the peripheral blood cells were not observed from bacterial synthesized magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles [38]. Biogenic ferrihydrite (Fe2O3 nH2O) nanoparticles that were synthesized by the bacteria Klebsiella oxytoca demonstrated composites in which amorphous or crystalline nanomaterials were observed with organic molecules [39,40,41]. Dissimilatory Fe(III)-reducing bacteria, such as Geobacter metallireducens and Shewanella putrifaciens, produce magnetite (nanocrystals) as a by-product of their metabolism in a growth medium [42]. Byrne et al. [43] described the production of Fe3O4 nanoparticles by Geobacter sulphurreducens by modulating the total biomass used at the start of the synthesis. The authors observed that smaller particle sizes and narrower size distributions were achieved with higher concentrations of bacteria. This finding indicated that adjusting experimental parameters in the microbial synthesis of nanoparticles affects the physical, chemical and morphological properties of biogenic nanomaterials. Nanosized biogenic magnetite nanoparticles (10.0 ± 4.0 nm in diameter) were synthesized by the dissimilatory iron-reducing bacterium, Shewanella sp., for heterogeneous catalysis in ozonation [44]. Iron oxide nanoparticles were produced by tannins, a natural and non-toxic polyphenolic compound extracted from plants [45,46]. Herrera-Becerra et al. [45] described the biogenic synthesis of magnetic hematite (Fe2O3) nanoparticles with a size less than 10 nm and pH 10 using tannins. Phenolic compounds, acting as capping agents, improve stabilization of the colloidal suspension and avoid nanoparticle aggregation.

2.5. Antimony Oxide (Sb2O3) Nanoparticles

As an inorganic semiconductor compound, antimony (III) oxide (Sb2O3) has several applications in technology and in chemical catalysis [47]. Jha et al. [48,49] reported the low-cost reproducible biosynthesis of Sb2O3 nanoparticles at room temperature in the presence of baker’s yeast (S. cerevisiae). Different characterization techniques revealed the formation of Sb2O3 nanoparticles in a face-centered cubic unit cell structure, with an average size of 3–12 nm [48].

2.6. Silica (SiO2) Nanoparticles

Silica nanoparticles are important nanomaterials in biomedical applications such as nanocarriers for drug delivery systems [50,51]. Silica nanoparticles are widely used in industry, biomedical engineering and cosmetics [52].
In the presence an aqueous solutions of K2SiF6 (pH 3.1), mycelia of Fusarium oxysporum led to the formation of silica nanoparticles that ranged in diameter from 5 to 15 nm with an average size of 9.8 ± 0.2 nm [53]. The authors demonstrated that the fungus Fusarium oxysporum secretes proteins that extracellularly hydrolyze SiF62−, yielding silica nanoparticles at room temperature [53]. Actinobacter sp. cells were harvested and washed with water under sterile conditions and resuspended in an aqueous solution of K2SiF6. They formed quasi-spherical silicon/silica (Si/SiO2) nanoparticles with an average size of 10 nm [54]. The cytotoxicity of the Si/SiO2 nanocomposites towards human skin cells was evaluated because silica nanoparticles are used in applications that require direct skin contact [54]. The results demonstrated that the particles are not toxic to human skin cells [54].

2.7. Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) Nanoparticles

TiO2 nanoparticles have important environmental, technological and biomedical applications [51,55]. Jha and Prasad [56] reported the reproducible room temperature biosynthesis of TiO2 nanoparticles (10–70 in size) by Lactobacillus sp. that were obtained from yogurt and probiotic tablets. In the presence of suitable carbon and nitrogen sources, lactobacillus or yeast cells interact with a TiO(OH)2 solution to produce TiO2 nanoparticles (8–35 nm) with few aggregates [57]. Lactobacilli have a negative electrokinetic potential, which is suitable for the attraction of cations, a step that is required for the biosynthesis of metallic nanoparticles.

2.8. Uraninite (UO2) Nanoparticles

Nanoparticles of UO2 are important for nuclear applications. The reduction of soluble uranium salts by microbial agents represents an important part of the geochemical cycle of this metal and highlights a mechanism for the bioremediation of uranium contamination [58,59]. Dissimilatory metal- and sulfate-reducing bacteria, such as Desulfovibrio desulfuricans, results in the precipitation of biogenic UO2 (bio-UO2) [58,59,60]. Biogenic uraninite was anaerobically produced by Shewanella oneidensis strain MR-1, at pH 6.3 [UO2(CO3)22] and 8.0 [UO2(CO3)34] [61]. Shewanella putrefaciens interacts with U(VI) reductases and biogenic U(IV) on the cell surface with uranium salt. Uraninite particles accumulate on extracellular polymeric substances [62]. The average particle size was 3 nm, as determined by high-resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM) and X-ray absorption spectroscopy. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis revealed that nanoparticles exhibit extracellular accumulation [62]. The synthesis of biogenic UO2 nanoparticles (5–10 nm) was mediated by S. putrefaciens cell suspensions growing aerobically, followed by the anaerobic addition of a uranyl-bearing solution [(UO2+2)-PIPES,NH4Cl–lactate–KHCO3–K2HPO4] [63].

2.9. Zinc Oxide (ZnO) Nanoparticles

Prasad and Jha [64] reported mild conditions for the biosynthesis of ZnO nanoparticles (5–15 nm) by the probiotic microbes Lactobacillus sporoge. The biogenic ZnO nanoparticles demonstrated the promising application of decontamination with corrosive and highly toxic hydrogen sulfide gas [64].

2.10. Zirconia (ZrO2) Nanoparticles

Zirconia nanoparticles are used as an electro-optic, piezoelectric and dieletric material because of their physicochemical features [65]. They are also an efficient catalyst [66]. Zirconia nanoparticles (average size of 8 nm) were biosynthesized at room temperature by challenging the fungus F. oxysporum with aqueous ZrF62 anions [66]. Cationic proteins (molecular weight 24 to 28 kDa) were reported to perform the extracellular hydrolysis of metal anions to ZrO2 nanoparticles [66].

2.11. Tin oxide (SnO2) Nanoparticles

SnO2 nanoparticles (average size of 3 nm) were successfully synthesized through a novel biogenic synthesis method using Saraca indica flower extract as a reducing agent [67]. Biogenic SnO2 nanoparticles demonstrated antibacterial activity against E. coli and antioxidant properties, as assayed by scavenging the free radical of 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl hydrate. These particles demonstrate promise in biomedical applications [67].

3. Nanotoxicity of Metal Oxide Nanoparticles

Although a wide range of biogenic metallic nanoparticles have been investigated, few papers have reported the toxicity of these nanoparticles. The literature discusses the synthesis and characterization of biogenically synthesized metal oxide nanoparticles. To develop applications using metal oxide nanoparticles that are synthesized either by biogenic or classical methods, a detailed investigation of the human and environmental toxicity of these nanoparticles is required. This section summarizes the toxicity of different metal oxide nanoparticles synthesized by biogenic and chemical/physical techniques. Because of the importance of metallic nanoparticles, the nanotoxicology of these materials should be further characterized.

3.1. Bismuth Trioxide (Bi2O3) Nanocrystals

Bismuth trioxide is not toxic to human tissue [68]. However, its chemical synthesis is complex and requires extreme conditions. Ionic bismuth is reduced by sodium borohydride and is then oxidized at high temperatures [3]. Biogenic synthesis is an ecofriendly methodology that is widely acceptable. No reports have described the toxicity of Bi2O3 nanoparticles, which indicates the necessity of investigating this area of nanotoxicology. Zhu et al. [69] described the preparation of hybrid nanogels composed of Bi2O3 quantum dots incorporated into a nanogel of poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA). The incubation of Bi2O3@PVA hybrid nanogels for 24 h with mouse melanoma B16F10 cells resulted in the incorporation of the metallic nanoparticles into the perinuclear and cytoplasm of the cells. No morphological damage was observed. A cytotoxicity evaluation demonstrated that more than 96% of the B16F10 cells survived in concentrations of up to 200 µg/mL of the hybrid nanogels [69]. These results indicate that this hybrid nanomaterial may be used in biomedical applications such as optical surgery, fluorescence detection and imaging diagnosis with minimal cytotoxic effects. The cytotoxicity of bare Bi2O3 nanoparticles alone was not evaluated.

3.2. Cobalt Oxide (Co3O4) Nanocrystals

Co3O4 nanoparticles, synthesized by thermal decomposition, exert oxidative stress on human lymphocytes, damage DNA, and cause inflammatory responses [70]. Oxidative stress is an important factor for toxicity and causes the induction of apoptosis. The authors assumed that Co2+ ions, when released from cobalt oxide nanoparticles, are the primary source of toxicity through the induction of TNF-α-caspase-8-p38-caspase-3 in immune cells [70]. Co3O4 nanoparticles induced cytotoxicity, morphological transformation, and genotoxicity in Balb3T3 cells [71,72]. Co-nanoparticles induce genotoxic effects in human peripheral leukocytes [73]. All of these effects were most likely because of cobalt ion dissolution from the nanoparticles. Bare Co3O4 nanoparticles are toxic towards primary human immune cells and affect human health. Surface modification (e.g., protein corona) may open the gateway for the use of Co3O4 nanoparticles in different areas [70].
The toxicity of Co3O4 nanoparticles were demonstrated in BEAS-2B cells, which are a model of airway epithelium of normal lung tissues [74]. Low soluble cobalt oxide nanoparticles were readily internalized by human lung cells through endocytosis via a clathrin-dependent pathway. Several techniques demonstrated that incorporated Co3O4 nanoparticles are partially solubilized within cell lysosomes because of the low pH. There, the toxic cobalt ions are released from the nanoparticles (Figure 2) [74]. The authors suggested that the cytotoxic effects of cell incubation with cobalt oxide nanoparticles can be attributed to the release of Co2+ within the lysosome and/or oxidative stress because of the direct effects of metallic cobalt nanoparticles [74]. The toxicity of Co3O4 nanoparticles and cobalt ions was assayed in human umbilical vein endothelial (ECV-305) and human liver carcinoma (HepG2) cell lines [75]. Although cobalt metal oxide nanoparticles led to time- and concentration-dependent cytotoxicity, free Co2+ ions were more toxic. The induction of reactive oxygen species (ROS) was observed from Co3O4 nanoparticles, rather than Co2+ ions. Cellular uptake experiments demonstrated that metallic nanoparticles were readily internalized in vesicles inside the cytoplasm [75].
A previous report suggested that commercial bare Co3O4 nanoparticles associated to ovalbumin, as a protein corona, stimulated low allergic antibody production and in vivo inflammation (at both the subcutaneous and intraperitoneal antigen administration sites). Lower in vitro toxicity was observed while stimulating both Th1 and Th2 in vivo antibody responses, which indicated that Co3O4 nanoparticles maybe used as a vaccine adjuvant [76]. This finding is important for biogenic Co3O4 nanoparticles because they are naturally capped with protein during the biogenic synthesis process. Studies that investigate the toxicity of biogenically synthesized cobalt oxide nanoparticles are necessary.
Figure 2. Schematic representation of the analytical methods and the quantification of cobalt internalized in cell compartments. IC25: inhibiting concentration 25%; Micro-PIXE: particle-induced X-ray emission; ICP-MS: inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Reproduced from reference 74 with permission of the BioMed Central Ltd.
Figure 2. Schematic representation of the analytical methods and the quantification of cobalt internalized in cell compartments. IC25: inhibiting concentration 25%; Micro-PIXE: particle-induced X-ray emission; ICP-MS: inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Reproduced from reference 74 with permission of the BioMed Central Ltd.
Metals 05 00934 g002

3.3. Copper Oxide (CuO, Cu2O) Nanoparticles

The human lung epithelial cell line A549 was exposed to different nanomaterials including CuO [77]. Cytotoxicity was analyzed using trypan blue staining. DNA damage and oxidative lesions were determined using the comet assay, and the intracellular production of ROS was measured using the oxidation sensitive fluoroprobe 2',7'-dichlorofluorescin diacetate (DCFH-DA). CuO nanoparticles exerted a strong effect regarding cytotoxicity, DNA damage and ROS generation. The effects were not explained by soluble metal impurities [77]. CuO nanoparticles induced dose-dependent toxic effects at the biochemical, physiological and tissue levels in the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) [78].
Microorganisms have been used to predict the potential nanotoxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles because of their functions in biogeochemical cycling in nature [79]. The antibacterial activity of copper oxide nanoparticles was reported. Usha et al. [27] demonstrated the biosynthesis of copper oxide nanoparticles by a Streptomyces sp. that interacted efficiently against E. coli, S. aureus, and Aspergillus niger after 48 h of incubation. Gopalakrishnan et al. [30] also reviewed the antibacterial nature of biologically synthesized cuprous oxide by plants against E. coli.
Laha et al. [80] synthesized CuO nanoparticles (30 nm) by biophysical methods, and reported that CuO nanoparticles induced autophagy in a human breast cancer cell line (MCF7) in a time- and dose-dependent manner. Siddiqui et al. [81] reported that CuO nanoparticles (average size 22 nm) induced cytotoxicity in human hepatocellular carcinoma (HepG2) cells in a dose-dependent manner (2–50 mg/mL) and reported that tumor suppressor gene p53 and apoptotic gene caspase-3 were upregulated upon exposure to CuO nanoparticles. Figure 3A shows the field emission transmission electron microscopy (FETEM) image (inset with a higher magnification) of CuO nanoparticles. The nanoparticles are a spherical shape with smooth surfaces, and the inset of Figure 3A revealed the crystalline nature of the CuO nanoparticles. Figure 3B reports the viability of HepG2 cells, as assayed by (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) (MTT), incubated for 24 h with CuO nanoparticles at different concentrations up to 50 µg/mL. Cell viability was significantly reduced in a concentration-dependent manner (83%, 69%, 52%, 34% and 28%) when the cells were exposed to varying concentrations of CuO nanoparticles (2, 5, 10, 25 and 50 mg/mL) [81].
Figure 3. (A) Field emission transmission electron microscopy (FETEM) image (inset with higher magnification) of CuO nanoparticles. (B) Cytotoxicity of CuO nanoparticles in hepatocellular carcinoma cell line (HepG2) cells assayed by MTT. Incubation for 24 h at different nanoparticle concentrations. * Statistically significant difference compared with the controls (p < 0.05). Modified from reference 81 with permission of the PLoS One.
Figure 3. (A) Field emission transmission electron microscopy (FETEM) image (inset with higher magnification) of CuO nanoparticles. (B) Cytotoxicity of CuO nanoparticles in hepatocellular carcinoma cell line (HepG2) cells assayed by MTT. Incubation for 24 h at different nanoparticle concentrations. * Statistically significant difference compared with the controls (p < 0.05). Modified from reference 81 with permission of the PLoS One.
Metals 05 00934 g003
Sun et al. [82] exposed the A549, H1650 and CNE-2Z cell lines to chemically synthesized CuO nanoparticles and reported high toxicity on cell viability. The authors observed that the autophagic biomarker LC3-II significantly increased in A549 cells treated with CuO nanoparticles. The use of the autophagy inhibitors such as wortmannin and 3-methyladenin significantly improved cell survival [82]. These results indicate that the cytoxicity of CuO nanoparticles may involve the autophagic pathway in A549 cells. These results support the results reported by Laha et al. [80], in which CuO nanoparticles were incubated with cancer cells.
These papers refer to the cytotoxicity of chemically synthesized copper oxide nanoparticles. Biogenic copper oxide nanoparticles (100–150 nm) that were produced by Streptomyces sp. were applied to antimicrobial textiles. The cotton fabrics with copper nanoparticles displayed the maximum zone of mycostasis [27]. These results indicate the promising applications of copper oxide nanoparticles in clothing that reduces the transmission of infectious agents. The green synthesis of CuO nanoparticles from gum karya, a natural nontoxic hydrocolloid, demonstrated significant antibacterial actions against E. coli and S. aureus [83]. The smaller (4.8 ± 1.6 nm) CuO nanoparticles yielded a maximum zone of inhibition compared to the larger size (7.8 ± 2.3 nm) nanoparticles. The minimum bacterial concentrations for CuO nanoparticles, with an average size of 4.8 nm, were 125 ± 5.5 µg/mL for E. coli and 135 ± 8.8 µg/mL for S. aureus [83]. CuO nanoparticles (5–45 nm) produced using brown alga (Bifurcaria bifurcata) extract demonstrated antibacterial activity against Enterobacter aerogenes and Staphylococcus aureus [84]. Biogenic CuO nanoparticles (average size of 20 nm), which were obtained by using Phyllanthus amarus leaf extract, showed antibacterial activity on multidrug resistance bacteria such as both Gram-positive (B. subtilis and S. aureus) and Gram-negative (E. coli and P. aeruginosa) bacteria [85]. Copper oxide nanoparticles (48 ± 4), synthesized by using Tabernaemontana divaricate leaf extract, showed antimicrobial activity against urinary tract pathogens (the maximum inhibition was 50 µg/mL of nanoparticles against E. coli) [86].
These results demonstrated that chemically synthesized copper oxide nanoparticles are toxic to human cells. Some research has described the antibacterial actions of biogenically obtained copper oxide nanoparticles. The cytotoxicity of these biogenic nanoparticles in human cells should be evaluated.

3.4. Iron Oxide (Fe2O3, Fe3O4) Nanoparticles

Iron oxide nanoparticles, such as magnetite (Fe3O4) and hematite (Fe2O3), have many important biomedical and industrial applications [2,4]. Nanotoxicology has become increasingly important. The toxicity of iron oxide nanoparticles has been evaluated through in vitro assays, although in vivo assays are becoming important [87].
In vitro studies of magnetosomes (membrane-enclosed inorganic crystals consisting of either the magnetic mineral magnetite (Fe3O4) or greigite (Fe3S4)) from Magnetospirillum gryphiswaldense with mouse fibroblast cells revealed the non-toxicity of the nanoparticles [88]. A review by Lang and Schuler [89] highlighted the important in vitro applications of bacterial magnetic nanoparticles (e.g., magnetic separation and procedures for labeling and immobilization of various biomolecules), and their environmental importance. These results demonstrated the biotechnological and nanotechnological potentials of bacterial magnetic nanoparticles [89]. Most papers have described the in vitro and in vivo toxicity of chemically and/or physically synthesized iron oxide nanoparticles [32,87,90,91]. The toxicity of iron oxide nanoparticles can be attributed to the ROS induction of oxidative stress [92], and it is dependent on the particle surface, size distribution, zeta potential, and the chemical nature of the surface coating [32,87].
An interesting study compared the cytotoxicity of synthetic and biogenic magnetite on L929 cells [93]. Co-precipitation was used to obtain the traditional iron oxide nanoparticles, and the biogenic nanoparticles were synthesized by magnetosomes isolated from MSR-1. The average particle size of the chemically synthesized magnetite nanoparticles was from 7 to 18 nm, whereas a 10 to 60 nm size was observed for the magnetosomes. Both biogenic and chemically synthesized nanoparticles affected the metabolic activity of L929 cells in a concentration- and time-dependent manner (with a concentration range of 0.5–1.0 mg/mL and an incubation time of 24 to 72 h). However, cell viability of L929 exposed to synthetic iron oxide nanoparticles was 85%, whereas 90% was observed for biogenic magnetite; both exposures occurred at 1.0 mg/mL and with 72 h of incubation [93]. The authors assumed that the presence of a lipid membrane on the magnetosomes’ surface increased the biocompatibility of the nanomaterial in comparison with chemically synthesized nanoparticles [93].
The toxicities of commercial and bacterial (Acinetobacter radioresistens) magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles on peripheral blood cells were evaluated by monitoring hemagglutination, hemolysis and morphological changes [38]. The authors observed lysis at low nanoparticle concentrations and severe hemagglutination in samples treated with commercial nanoparticles (50 µg/mL). Biogenic synthesized iron oxide nanoparticles did not induce morphological changes in peripheral blood cells [38]. These results indicate that biogenic iron oxide nanoparticles are less toxic than chemically generated iron oxide nanoparticles. However, further investigation is required.

3.5. Antimony Oxide (Sb2O3) Nanoparticles

Antimony trioxide (Sb2O3) is primarily used as a flame retardant in rubber, paper, pigments, adhesives, and plastics, among other materials. Antimony trioxide treatment was associated with the increased apoptosis associated with the induction of ROS and differentiation markers [94]. Apoptosis is increased upon the depletion of glutathione levels, and an increase of ROS in cells [94]. Bregoli et al. [95] reported the toxicity of Sb2O3 nanoparticles (5 µg/mL) on the proliferation of human hematopoietic progenitor cells. Sb2O3 nanoparticles were not toxic towards seven human cell lines of hematopoietic origin, which indicated that cell lines and primary cells (human hematopoietic progenitor cells) respond differently [95]. No studies have examined the toxicity of biogenically synthesized Sb2O3.

3.6. Silica (SiO2) Nanoparticles

Several papers have described the toxicity of silica nanoparticles [50]. The nanotoxicity of amorphous SiO2 nanoparticles (10 nm) on human lung submucosal cells is associated with inflammation, release of ROS leading to apoptosis, and decreased cell survival [96]. The decreased viability of human airway epithelial cell line (Calu-3) exposed to SiO2 nanoparticles (concentrations up to 50 µg/mL) for 2 to 24 h was reported in a concentration- and time-dependent manner. The nanotoxic effect of SiO2 nanoparticles was significantly attenuated by the flavonoid fisetin or catalase treatments, which indicated the oxidative stress mechanism for the toxicity of silica nanoparticles. Figure 4 shows the percentage of Calu-3 viability upon treatment with 25 or 50 µg/mL of SiO2 nanoparticles. In Figure 4A, Calu-3 cells were incubated with SiO2 nanoparticles in the absence or presence of fisetin (10–80 µg/mL) for 24 h. Catalase also attenuated the decrease of cell viability caused by SiO2 nanoparticles (Figure 4B). The authors demonstrated that the toxic effects of SiO2 nanoparticles were because of the oxidative stress via ROS production [96].
The toxicity of commercially available SiO2 nanoparticles (10 and 300 nm) was investigated in the RAW 264.7 mouse macrophage cell line [97]. The authors observed that 10 nm SiO2 nanoparticles affected cell proliferation, morphology and cell cycle. A significant increase in TNF-α level was reported for RAW 264.7 cells exposed to SiO2 nanoparticles at a concentration of 0.01 g/L for 24 h. The 10 nm silica nanoparticles were internalized into the cells, whereas 300 nm silica nanoparticles were poorly internalized. Cells treated with smaller SiO2 nanoparticles greatly reduced phagocytosis, as monitored by the RAW 264.7 cells’ uptake of E. coli. The bioaccumulation of small SiO2 nanoparticles within macrophages may suppress bacterial uptake and impair antibacterial activity [97].
Figure 4. Cell viability of Calu-3 upon incubation with SiO2 nanoparticles. (A and B) Prior incubation of cells with fisetin (A) and catalase (B) prevented the cell death induced by SiO2-nanoparticles (25 and 50 μg/mL) on Calu-3. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, and *** p < 0.001, n = 3–4. Modified from reference 96 with permission of the American Chemical Society.
Figure 4. Cell viability of Calu-3 upon incubation with SiO2 nanoparticles. (A and B) Prior incubation of cells with fisetin (A) and catalase (B) prevented the cell death induced by SiO2-nanoparticles (25 and 50 μg/mL) on Calu-3. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, and *** p < 0.001, n = 3–4. Modified from reference 96 with permission of the American Chemical Society.
Metals 05 00934 g004
A recent in vivo study evaluated the toxic effects of suspensions of commercial silica nanoparticles (333 mg/kg/day, 10–15 nm) in Wister mice administered via oral gavage [98]. The authors reported significant changes in cholesterol, urea, total protein, LDL, HDL, aspartate aminotransferase activity and alkaline phosphatase activity. Histological evaluations revealed toxic effects on different tissues, such as lung, liver, testes and kidney [98]. Opposite results were reported by Kim et al. [99]. The in vivo toxicity of commercially obtained SiO2 nanoparticles (20 and 100 nm) and average zeta potential of −40 mV were administered orally by gavage in Sprague-Dawley rats for 14 days. The doses ranged from 500 to 2000 mg/kg. The results of a 90-day toxicity evaluation demonstrated no clinical or histopathological changes compared with the control group. Further studies are required to understand the in vivo toxicity of SiO2 nanoparticles.
In vitro studies reported the cytotoxicity of commercially available SiO2 nanoparticles on human mesenchymal stem cells for several concentrations (25–400 µg/mL) and incubation times (24–72 h) [100]. The metabolic stress of the cells was determined by alterations in the nuclear morphology, cytoplasm organization, and changes in gene expression [100].
Biogenically synthesized Si/SiO2 nanocomposites (Actinobacter sp.) did not display cytotoxic effects to human epithelial cells (A431 cell line), which indicates that these biogenic nanoparticles may be useful in biomedical applications [54]. A431 cells were incubated with different concentrations of biogenically synthesized Si/SiO2 nanocomposites (50 µmol/L to 10 mmol/L) for 3 h. Further studies with longer incubation times (at least 24 h) are necessary to better investigate the potent toxic effects of silica nanoparticles. The authors observed a toxic effect, measured as the percentage decrease of mitochondrial activity, for cells that were incubated with the higher concentrations of the Si/SiO2 nanocomposite. The percentages of mitochondrial activity were 14.74% and 37.5% for 10 mmol/L and 5.0 mmol/L of the silica-based nanomaterial. Mitochondrial activity was more than 68% for cells incubated with 1.0 to 50 mmol/L of Si/SiO2 nanocomposite. The concentration-dependent toxic effects of biogenic silica nanoparticles were also observed by the drastic changes in skin cell morphology that occurred upon treatment with 10 and 5.0 mmol/L of the nanomaterial [54].

3.7. Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) Nanoparticles

Titanium dioxide nanoparticles (TiO2) are one of the most widely used nanostructures in various areas. The study of the potential toxicity of this metal oxide nanoparticle has gained increasing attention [101]. Sheng et al. [102] showed demonstrated that 90 days of increased doses (2.5 to 10 mg/kg body weight) of intragastrically administered TiO2 nanoparticles resulted in spleen damage and immune dysfunction in mice. The authors also reported alterations in the expression of genes related to stress responses, cell proliferation, apoptosis, metabolic processes, and oxidative stress [102].
Regarding to biogenic nanoparticles, environmentally isolated Bacillus mycoides was used to synthesize anatase polymorphic TiO2 nanoparticles (40–60 nm) with spherical morphologies for efficient green solar cells [103]. The biogenic nanoparticles exhibited no toxicity on E. coli cultures [103]. An antibacterial effect against E. coli was reported for biogenically synthesized TiO2 nanoparticles (62–74 nm) with a spherical/oval shape obtained from the fungus Aspergillus flavus [104]. The minimum inhibitory concentration value was 40 µg/mL for E. coli treated with fungus-mediated synthesized TiO2 nanoparticles [104]. The antibacterial activity of biogenically synthesized TiO2 nanoparticles (28–54 nm) that were obtained from the bacteria Aeromonas hydrophila was reported for S. aureus and S. pyogenes [105]. Therefore, biogenically synthesized TiO2 nanoparticles can have contradictory antibacterial effects, depending on the biological reducing and capping agent that is employed during the biogenic synthesis processes. These results indicate that this phenomenon requires further investigation.
The biocompatibility of biogenically synthesized TiO2 nanoparticles was reported by Babitha et al. [106]. TiO2 nanoparticles were obtained by a metal-resistant bacterium isolated from coal fly ash effluent. The nanoparticles had an anatase phase, a spherical shape with a smooth surface and a size in the range of 15–80 nm. No hemolysis or cell death of NIH/3T3 cell lines were reported when the cells were incubated with up to 100 µg/mL of TiO2 nanoparticles, which indicated the biocompatibility of the biogenic nanoparticles. In vivo wound healing studies on Wister rats revealed that biogenic TiO2 nanoparticles accelerated the tissue repair process. Complete wound closure was demonstrated for rats that were treated with collagen films containing 25 µg/mL of biogenic TiO2 nanoparticles. Wound closure occurred after 18 days of treatment for the control group (rats treated with only collagen film) [106].

3.8. Uraninite (UO2) Nanoparticles

Uranium oxide and uranyl nitrate have different toxicities. Uranyl nitrate is soluble in water and moderately soluble in body fluids, and it is readily transported into the body organs or absorbed through the skin, which leads to bioaccumulation and toxicity. The kidney is the most damaged organ [107,108]. Uranium oxide is largely insoluble. Only small particles are deposited in the pulmonary region of the lung and retained for long periods, which leads to radiological consequences. Because UO2 can be soluble in aqueous HCl, some ingested UO2 nanoparticles could be absorbed in stomach, resulting in toxic effects [107,108]. Inhalation of aerosol containing uranium particles was slow in in vivo experiments with rats (half-life of 141.5 days) [109].
Monleau et al. [110] demonstrated that the DNA strand breaks in the lungs of rats that occurred after acute and chronic exposures to depleted uranium by inhalation were the consequence of oxidative stress and the induction of pro inflammatory IL8 and TNFα. These effects may be linked to the depleted uranium doses and independent of the solubility of uranium oxide [106]. The biotransformations of uranyl salts are an important way to avoid environment contamination, and the presence of protein capping on the surface of biogenically synthesized UO2 nanoparticles can avoid posterior metal solubilization [63]. Lee et al. [111] reported the biogenic synthesis of UO2 (uraninite) nanocrystals by the iron-reducing bacterium, Shewanella putrefaciens CN32, from uranium-rich solution. A recent review [112] discussed the importance of bioreduction processes in which bacteria enzymatically reduce aqueous U(VI) (toxic) to insoluble U(IV) (less toxic) coupled with the oxidation of an organic electron donor [112]. Therefore, microorganisms play a key role in the environmental decontamination of soluble U(VI) by its reduction to the poorly soluble mineral uraninite (UO2) [58,59,62,112].

3.9. Zinc Oxide (ZnO) Nanoparticles

Aspergillus terreus culture filtrate was used for the extracellular biosynthesis of zinc oxide nanoparticles (55–83 nm). The biogenic zinc oxide nanoparticles demonstrated antifungal activity against selected fungal species (A. niger, A. fumigatus and A. aculeatus) [113]. ZnO2 nanoparticles were employed as antimicrobial agents and were incorporated into materials such as textiles and personal care items [114]. Green synthesized zinc nanoparticles (size 16–108 nm), using leaves of Parthenium hysterophorous, demonstrated enzymatic and microbial activity [115]. The physiological parameters, which were related to the growth of Arachis hypogea L. pot culture, increased from 30 to 60 days of sowing compared with the control group. Therefore, biogenic ZnO nanoparticles with microbial activity may have applications in agriculture, where zinc is one of the essential micronutrients that need to be supplied to the crop [115].
The antibacterial properties of green-synthesized ZnO nanoparticles were demonstrated against Gram-negative (Salmonella paratyphi, Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae) and Gram-positive (Staphylococcus aureus) bacteria using zone inhibition methods [116]. The biogenic ZnO nanoparticles, which had an average size of 30 nm and quasi-spherical shape, were obtained from the leaf extract of Solanum nigrum [116].
Concerning to the toxicity of biogenic ZnO nanoparticles, recently, Darroudi et al. [117] reported the cytotoxic effect of ZnO nanopowder obtained from gelatin. The nanoparticles (1.5–100 µg/mL) were toxic when incubated with neuro2A cells (a fast-growing mouse neuroblastoma cell line) for 24 h. Cell viability was decreased in a dose-dependent manner when nanoparticles were administered at a concentration greater than 2 µg/mL [117]. In a similar study, Tabernaemontana divaricate leaf extract was employed to synthesize zinc oxide nanoparticles (average size 36 nm) [86]. The biogenic nanoparticles showed potent cytotoxic effects against MCF-7 breast cancer cell lines, with an IC50 value of 30.65 µg/mL after 24 h of treatment [86]. The IC50 value for biogenic ZnO nanoparticles was lower than that of biogenic copper oxides that were synthesized by the identical plant extract [118]. ZnO nanoparticles can have antimicrobial and anticancer activities. However, the toxicity of these nanoparticles towards human cell lines must be investigated.

3.10. Zirconia (ZrO2) Nanoparticles

Zirconium oxide nanoparticles have been used in several skin care products such as cosmetics, deodorants and topical ointments, and they have showed significant toxicity [119]. One important application of ZrO2 is in composites for dental technology [120]. Li et al. [121] investigated the effect and biocompatibility of 20 wt% ZrO2 nanoparticles (50–75 nm) of white Portland cement [121]. The presence of ZrO2 nanoparticles enhanced the degree of hydration by 26% and displayed a positive effect on the in vitro biocompatibility of MG63 osteosarcoma cells [121]. Therefore, ZrO2 nanoparticles are considered an important material for cement dental restoratives by increasing the hydration rate without cytotoxic effects. However, further investigation is necessary to establish the influence of ZrO2 nanoparticles in other dentistry applications. ZrO2 nanoparticles are also important in orthopedic implants. The carcinogenicity and chronic toxicity of ZrO2 containing yttrium oxide was evaluated by implanting solid rods into the thigh muscle of C57BL/6N mice for 24 months. No evidence of toxic effects was observed [119,122]. ZrO2, acting on the bacterial strains of E. coli, S. aureus and fungal strain of A. niger, exhibited activity against only the E. coli [123]. There is no report that describes the toxicity of biogenically synthesized ZrO2 nanoparticles.

3.11. Tin Oxide (SnO2) Nanoparticles

Biogenic tin oxide nanoparticles (spherical in shape with a size range of 2–4 nm) were synthesized from the Saraca indica flower [67]. SnO2 nanoparticles exhibited antibacterial activity against the Gram-negative bacteria E. coli. The mechanism for the antibacterial activity of SnO2 nanoparticles may be the efficient reaction of the metal oxide nanoparticles with the cell wall, which leads to the inactivation of the bacteria. The antioxidant activity of SnO2 nanoparticles was demonstrated by scavenging the free radical of 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl hydrate. Biogenic SnO2 nanoparticles are a promising antibacterial agent and an antioxidant for pharmaceutical applications [67].
Biogenic SnO2 nanoparticles (spherical in shape with an average size of 20 nm) were obtained from the aqueous extract of the agricultural waste dried peel of a sugar apple (Annona squamosa) [124]. The cytotoxicity of biogenic SnO2 nanoparticles was evaluated against a hepatocellular carcinoma cell line (HepG2). SnO2 nanoparticles inhibited the cell proliferation in a dose- and time-dependent manner. The IC50 value was 148 µg/mL. Increased concentrations of SnO2 nanoparticles altered the cell morphology [124]. The genotoxicity of SnO2 nanoparticles and immobilized amylase SnO2 nanoparticles were investigated [125]. The authors reported that 90% of enzyme activity was retained upon amylase immobilization on SnO2 nanoparticles, and no DNA damage was observed in lymphocytes for SnO2 and amylase-SnO2 nanoparticles [125]. These results indicate the biocompatibility of SnO2 nanoparticles.

4. Relative Toxicity of Metal Oxide Nanoparticles

Several studies have compared the toxicity of different metal oxide nanoparticles, but not biogenically synthesized nanoparticles. CuO, followed by ZnO, is reported to be the most toxic nanoparticle TiO2 is the least toxic nanoparticle.
Cho et al. [126] compared the in vivo acute lung inflammogenicity and in vitro cytoxicity of CuO, SiO2, ZnO, and Co3O4 nanoparticles. CuO and ZnO were the most toxic nanoparticles in both in vitro and in vivo assays. Figure 5 shows the cytotoxicity of A549 cells after exposure to different nanoparticles for 24 h. Cell death was measured by trypan blue staining or lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels [126].
Figure 5. Cytotoxicity of several metal oxide nanoparticles on A549 cells after 24 h of nanoparticle treatment. Cytotoxicity was assayed by trypan blue exclusion for ZnO and CuO nanoparticles. Other particles were assayed by lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). The surface area doses were 30, 100, and 300 cm2/mL for all nanoparticles, with exception of CuO and ZnO nanoparticles, which were 3, 10, and 30 cm2/mL. Values are mean ± SD from a minimum of four independent experiments. Significance versus vehicle control (VEH): * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001. CB = Carbon back. Reproduced from reference 126 with permission of the BioMed Central Ltd.
Figure 5. Cytotoxicity of several metal oxide nanoparticles on A549 cells after 24 h of nanoparticle treatment. Cytotoxicity was assayed by trypan blue exclusion for ZnO and CuO nanoparticles. Other particles were assayed by lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). The surface area doses were 30, 100, and 300 cm2/mL for all nanoparticles, with exception of CuO and ZnO nanoparticles, which were 3, 10, and 30 cm2/mL. Values are mean ± SD from a minimum of four independent experiments. Significance versus vehicle control (VEH): * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001. CB = Carbon back. Reproduced from reference 126 with permission of the BioMed Central Ltd.
Metals 05 00934 g005
Different cell lines, including A549, were incubated with metal oxide nanoparticles. CuO was the most toxic, ferric oxide and TiO2 nanoparticles exhibited slight toxicity and SiO2 nanoparticles resulted in mild toxicity [82]. Cell death induced by CuO nanoparticles was assigned to the autophagic pathway (cellular auto-digestion), mitochondria damage and oxidative stress [82]. The in vivo toxicity of ZrO2 and SiO2 nanoparticles was monitored upon oral administration to rats for 28 days in a dose of 1000 mg of the nanoparticles/kg body weight/day [127]. ZrO2 and SiO2 nanoparticles did not cause significant systemic or local effects.
Concerning to microbial toxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles, Baek et al. [128] investigated the toxicity of CuO, ZnO and Sb2O3 nanoparticles on S. aureus, E. coli and Bacillus subcillus. CuO nanoparticles were the most toxic because this material significantly reduced the colony forming units, followed by ZnO and Sb2O3 nanoparticles. The higher toxicity of CuO was demonstrated by Dasai et al. [129]. The authors compared the toxicity of different metal oxide nanoparticles to E. coli, both in the dark and under irradiation, in terms of the oxidative stress, amount of reduced glutathione, release of metal ions and lipid peroxidation. Under dark condition, the ranking of toxicity was ZnO > CuO > Co3O4 > TiO2. Under light irradiation, the toxicity was ZnO > CuO > TiO2 > Co3O4. In both cases, ZnO was the most toxic, followed by CuO. The production of ROS was negligible in the dark and enhanced under light irradiation [129]. ZnO and CuO were reported to be the most toxic nanoparticles.
Recently, the ecotoxicity and cytotoxicity of several metal oxide nanoparticles were investigated using in vitro assays [130]. The proposed hazard ranking of the nanoparticles was CuO > ZnO >Sb2O3. The authors reported strong oxidative stress from the CuO nanoparticles [130]. Ko et al. [131] compared the toxic effects of different metal oxide nanoparticles on seed germination, gene mutation and bioluminescence activity of the Lactuca seed. The hazard ranking on seed germination was CuO > ZnO > Co3O4, Fe2O3, TiO2. Under bioluminescence, the ranking was ZnO > CuO > Co3O4 > Fe2O3 > TiO2 [131].

5. Final Remarks

The applications of metal oxide nanoparticles have recently increased. These nanoparticles have been considered for diverse applications in biotechnology, catalysis, environmental bioremediation, optics, electronics, and cell energy and in the medical and pharmaceutic sciences (as a drug delivery system in the treatment and diagnosis of several diseases) [132,133]. The traditional chemical and physical methods used to synthesize metal oxide nanoparticles are expensive, time- and energy-consuming, tedious, toxic, and harmful to humans and the environment. The biogenic synthesis of metal oxide nanoparticles has emerged as an attractive alternative. Table 1 summarizes and compares the most important aspects of traditional versus green routes to synthesize metal oxide nanoparticles. The advantage and disadvantage of each route is highlighted, with the corresponding reference. Biogenic synthesis is straightforward and environmentally friendly [3,4,5,12,13,14]. Metal oxide nanoparticles can be obtained from different organisms such as plant extract, fungi, bacteria, algae, and actinomycetes [132]. This work reports the recent development in the use of green methods to obtain different types of metal oxide nanoparticles that can be used in a wide range of applications.
As shown in Table 1, traditional methods of synthesis require both strong and weak chemical reducing agents, and protective agents (sodium borohydride, sodium citrate and alcohols), which are mostly toxic, flammable, cannot be easily disposed off due to environmental issues. Moreover, traditional synthesis methods are carried out at elevated temperatures which generate a large amount of heat, and in some cases under inert atmosphere. Some traditional routes employed sophisticated instruments for experimentation. Although traditional methods yield nanoparticles with controlled size and dispersion (Table 1), these methods are considered not feasible. Hence, researchers are moving towards the biological synthesis for environmentally friendly synthesis of nanoparticles. As pointed out in Table 1, the main advantages of green methods to obtain the metal oxide nanoparticles are the simplicity, low cost, and no toxicity to the environment/humans. Moreover, different microflora such as bacteria, fungi, yeasts and plants have been successfully exploited as “nanofactories” for the synthesis of metal oxide nanoparticles. However, the main challenges related to green process to be overcome are: (i) limitations related to the scaling up the syntheses processes; (ii) the reproducibility of the biogenic processes needs to be improved; (iii) the mechanisms of nanoparticle formation are not completely elucidated; (iv) the control over nanoparticle size and distribution needs to be enhanced.
To use metal oxide nanoparticles (either synthesized by traditional or green methods), it is necessary to investigate their potential toxicity. The effect of metal oxide nanoparticles on humans and the environment is a topic that has received increasing interest and debate [129,130,131]. The reviewed literature indicates that the potential toxicities of these nanomaterials have not been completely addressed. Most research focuses on the toxicity of chemical or physical synthesized metal oxide nanoparticles. There are few reports that characterize the nanotoxicity of biogenic metal oxide nanoparticles. Based on published papers, the clearly determination of the similarities and differences, in terms of toxicity, of metal oxide nanoparticle obtained by traditional methods and by biogenic routes can be considered complex. This complexity is due to the different routes of nanoparticles synthesis, their different size, presence or absence of capping molecules, diverse kinds of toxicity evaluation tests, and lack of deeper studies of nanotoxicity of biogenic nanoparticles. Therefore, the potential toxic effects of biogenically obtained nanoparticles should be investigated further. The key points that must be addressed include the following: (i) In terms of the nanotoxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles, is there a difference between nanoparticles synthesized by traditional and by biogenic methods? (ii) What is the uptake of these nanoparticles by both humans and the environment? (iii) What is the mechanism of nanoparticle toxicity?
The literature suggests that nanotoxicity is related to (i) the possible release of (toxic) ions from metallic nanoparticles and (ii) the oxidative stress caused by the intrinsic characteristic of the nanoparticle (morphology, surface charge, size and chemical surface composition) [131]. Further studies are required to understand these mechanisms.
Finally, the toxicity of nanoparticles can differ depending on the experimental method employed [131]. Nanoparticles themselves can interfere with many tests, and it is often necessary to adapt the protocol to obtain reliable results [134,135]. A standardization of toxicity protocols, long-term study of nanoparticle toxicity and the fate of these nanomaterials in human tissue and in the environment need to be further investigated.
Table 1. Comparison among main traditional versus green methods to synthesize metal oxide nanoparticles.
Table 1. Comparison among main traditional versus green methods to synthesize metal oxide nanoparticles.
Traditional Methods of Synthesis
NanoparticleRouteAdvantageDisadvantageRef
Bi2O3 Hydrothermal process in assistance with the post-heat treatment routeControl of temperature impacts resulting productsOrganic/toxic solvents and high temperatures[17]
Bi2O3@PVA nanogels Bi2O3 quantum dots in the interior of a nanogel of poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA)The nanogels can adapt to a surrounding fluids physiological temperatureRequire inert atmosphere and irradiation with 60Co γ-ray source[69]
Green Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
Bi2O3 Plant pathogenic fungus—Fusarium oxysporum Room temperature, nanoparticles are stable in waterNecessity to investigate the fungus proteins on the surface of Bi2O3[19]
Traditional Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
Co3O4 Solvothermal routeTemplate-free approachHigh temperature[20]
Co3O4 Thermal decomposition of molecular precursors derived from salicylic acid and cobalt (II) acetate or chlorideTemplate-free approachHigh temperature[21]
Co3O4 Nanoplates Solid-state crystal re-construction route by conversion of hexagonal β-Co(OH)2 nanoplatesTemplate-free approachTime consuming, high temperature[22]
Co3O4 Thermal decompositionControl over size and shapeToxicity to human cells and DNA damage[70]
Green Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
Co3O4 Marine bacterium Brevibacterium caseiThe protein coating on nanoparticles reduced agglomeration Challenges to be faced: better control over size and crystallinity [23 ]
Traditional Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
CuO, Cu2O Thermal decompositionControl over nanoparticle size and distributionCostly in energy consumption[136]
CuO ElectrospinningLarge scale production CuOTime consumption[137]
Green Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
Cu2O Baker’s yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiaeRoom temperature no organic solventChallenges to be faced: better control over size and scaling up[26]
CuO, Cu2O Streptomyces sp. (Actinomycete biomass)Environmentally friendly approachDifficulties to obtain monodisperse nanoparticles and scaling up[27]
CuO, Cu2O Escherichia coli at aerobic conditionNeutral pH and room temperatureNecessity to investigate the bacterial proteins on the surface of nanoparticles[28]
CuO, Cu2O Penicillium aurantiogriseum, Penicillium citrinum and Penicillium waksmanii isolated from soilEnvironmentally friendly approachLow rate of synthesis, difficulties to obtain monodisperse nanoparticles. Microbial cultivation need to be improved[29]
Cu2O Tridax procumbens leaf extractSimple, cost effectiveChallenges to be faced: better control over size and scaling up[30]
CuO Aloe vera extractSimple, cost effectiveChallenges to be faced: better control over size and scaling up[31]
CuO, Cu2O White-rot fungus Stereum hirsutumSimple method, under neutral or basic conditionsScaling up and fungus cultivation [138]
Traditional Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
Fe3O4 Co-precipitationRelatively simplePolydispersity Fe3O4[33]
Fe3O4 Thermal decomposition of iron (III) acetylacetonate (Fe(acac)3)Control of nanoparticle size and dispersibilityHigh temperature and inert atmosphere[139]
Green Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
Fe3O4 Bacterium Actinobacter sppAerobic conditionsLimited scaling up, reaction time 24-48 h[34]
Fe3O4 Mycelia of acidophillic fungi, Verticillium sp. and Fusarium oxysporumExtracellular synthesisLimited scaling up, fungi cultivation[35]
Fe2O3, Fe3O4 Tannins from plantsNatural, nontoxic, and biodegradable polyphenolic compoundsLimited scaling up [45]
Traditional Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
Sb2O3 γ-ray radiation-oxidation routeControl over size and distributionExpensive, special equipment[140]
Sb2O3 Hydrothermal synthesisControl over size and distributionExternal pressure, high temperatures[141]
Green Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
Sb2O3 Baker’s yeast (S. cerevisiae)Low-cost, room temperaturePresence of nanoparticle aggregates[48,49 ]
Traditional Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
SiO2 Micelle-templated protocol by varying the silica source (tetra alkoxysilane with different alkoxy group) and the type and amounts of co-surfactant alcohols Possibility to scaling up Relatively wide particle size distribution, presence of contaminants[142]
SiO2 Surfactant template method source of silica tetra alkoxysilanes, and by varying the amounts of co-surfactant alcoholsProduction of monodispersed spherical morphologies of nanoparticlesTime and energy consuming[143]
Green Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
SiO2 Fungus Fusarium oxysporumFacile room temperatureNecessity to investigated the fungus secreted proteins involved in the synthesis [53]
SiO2 Bacterium Actinobacter spParticles were not cytotoxicity to human skin cellsRelatively time consuming reaction[54]
Traditional Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
TiO2 Hydrothermal growth using diethylamine as a passivating agentMonodisperse nanoparticles with no phase transformation during the synthesisTime and energy consuming[144]
TiO2 Sol-gel method under different pH conditionsControl over nanoparticle sizeToxic solvents, time and energy consuming[145]
Green Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
TiO2 Lactobacillus sp. (from yogurt and probiotic tablets) or Sachharomyces cerevisae (baker’s yeast)Simple, room temperature and cost effective Presence of few aggregates, difficult to scaling up [56,57]
Traditional Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
UO2 Radiolytic growth process in aqueous solutions through electron beam irradiationControl over size distributionExpensive, special equipment[146]
UO2 Hydrothermal synthesis method using hydrazine as a reducing agentFree of surfactant or template or organic aminesTime and energy consuming[147]
Green Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
UO2 Dissimilatory metal- and sulfate-reducing bacteria Desulfovibrio desulfuricansSimple, room temperature and cost effectiveMicroorganism growth [58,59,60]
Traditional Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
ZnO Combustion process, in which Zn(CH3COO)2 precursors migrated with the aid of alcoholic fuel to the top of a burning lampwick and the chemical reactions occurred at the solvent-air interface of the ignited lampwickRelatively cost effectiveZnO exhibited a nonuniform size and shape [148]
ZnO Solvothermal synthesisZnO with good monodispersion in waterOrganic toxic solvents [149]
ZnO Sol–gel processing technique based on hydrolysis of zinc acetate in methanol followed by supercritical drying in ethanol Control over size and shapeOrganic toxic solvents[150]
Green Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
ZnO Probiotic microbes Lactobacillus sporogeMild conditions and low-costDifficulties to scaling up[64]
Traditional Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
ZrO2 Sol–gel methodNanoparticles with high chemical and structural homogeneityThermal treatment[151]
ZrO2 Thermal decomposition of the Zr(IV) complex as in presence of methanol and monoethylene glycol Control over ZrO2 size and distributionOrganic/toxic solvents, high temperatures[152]
ZrO2 Thermal decomposition by zirconium oleate complex in a high boiling organic solventProduction of oleophilic ZrO2 as nanofluilds Organic/toxic solvents, high temperatures[153]
Green Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
ZrO2 Fungus Fusarium oxysporumExtracellular hydrolysis, cost effectFungus cultivation and scaling up limitations [66]
Traditional Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
SnO2 Chemical precipitation using glycine which acts as a complexing agent and the surfactant sodium dodecyl sulfate as a stabilizing agentControl over SnO2 sizeNecessity to use surfactant and high temperature (up to 600 °C)[154]
SnO2 Solvothermal synthesis of SnO followed by its oxidation to SnO2Control over size and dispersionMultiple steps, organic/toxic solvents[155]
SnO2 Reverse microemulsion method using different water to surfactant ratioThe size of the SnO2 can be tcontrolled by variation of water-to-surfactant ratioMultiple steps, high temperature and necessity to sequential calcinations to remove the surfactant[156]
Green Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
SnO2 Saraca indica flower extract as a reducing agentSimple, low costScaling up[67]
T Traditional Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
Bi2O3 Hydrothermal process in assistance with the post-heat treatment routeControl of temperature impacts resulting productsOrganic/toxic solvents and high temperatures[17]
Bi2O3@PVA nanogels Bi2O3 quantum dots in the interior of a nanogel of poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA)The nanogels can adapt to a surrounding fluids physiological temperatureRequire inert atmosphere and irradiation with 60Co γ-ray source[69]
Green Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
Bi2O3 Plant pathogenic fungus—Fusarium oxysporum Room temperature, nanoparticles are stable in waterNecessity to investigate the fungus proteins on the surface of Bi2O3[19]
Traditional Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
Co3O4 Solvothermal routeTemplate-free approachHigh temperature[20]
Co3O4 Thermal decomposition of molecular precursors derived from salicylic acid and cobalt (II) acetate or chlorideTemplate-free approachHigh temperature[21]
Co3O4 Nanoplates Solid-state crystal re-construction route by conversion of hexagonal β-Co(OH)2 nanoplatesTemplate-free approachTime consuming, high temperature[22]
Co3O4 Thermal decompositionControl over size and shapeToxicity to human cells and DNA damage[70]
Green Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
Co3O4 Marine bacterium Brevibacterium caseiThe protein coating on nanoparticles reduced agglomeration Challenges to be faced: better control over size and crystallinity [23]
Traditional Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
CuO, Cu2O Thermal decompositionControl over nanoparticle size and distributionCostly in energy consumption[136]
CuO ElectrospinningLarge scale production CuOTime consumption[137]
Green Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
Cu2O Baker’s yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiaeRoom temperature no organic solventChallenges to be faced: better control over size and scaling up[26]
CuO, Cu2O Streptomyces sp. (Actinomycete biomass)Environmentally friendly approachDifficulties to obtain monodisperse nanoparticles and scaling up[27]
CuO, Cu2O Escherichia coli at aerobic conditionNeutral pH and room temperatureNecessity to investigate the bacterial proteins on the surface of nanoparticles[28]
CuO, Cu2O Penicillium aurantiogriseum, Penicillium citrinum and Penicillium waksmanii isolated from soilEnvironmentally friendly approachLow rate of synthesis, difficulties to obtain monodisperse nanoparticles. Microbial cultivation need to be improved[29]
Cu2O Tridax procumbens leaf extractSimple, cost effectiveChallenges to be faced: better control over size and scaling up[30]
CuO Aloe vera extractSimple, cost effectiveChallenges to be faced: better control over size and scaling up[31]
CuO, Cu2O White-rot fungus Stereum hirsutumSimple method, under neutral or basic conditionsScaling up and fungus cultivation [138]
Traditional Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
Fe3O4 Co-precipitationRelatively simplePolydispersity Fe3O4[33]
Fe3O4 Thermal decomposition of iron (III) acetylacetonate (Fe(acac)3)Control of nanoparticle size and dispersibilityHigh temperature and inert atmosphere[139]
Green Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
Fe3O4 Bacterium Actinobacter spp.Aerobic conditionsLimited scaling up, reaction time 24-48 h[34]
Fe3O4 Mycelia of acidophillic fungi, Verticillium sp. and Fusarium oxysporumExtracellular synthesisLimited scaling up, fungi cultivation[35]
Fe2O3, Fe3O4 Tannins from plantsNatural, nontoxic, and biodegradable polyphenolic compoundsLimited scaling up [45]
Traditional Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
Sb2O3 γ-ray radiation-oxidation routeControl over size and distributionExpensive, special equipment[140]
Sb2O3 Hydrothermal synthesisControl over size and distributionExternal pressure, high temperatures[141]
Green Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
Sb2O3 Baker’s yeast (S. cerevisiae)Low-cost, room temperaturePresence of nanoparticle aggregates[48,49]
Traditional Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
SiO2 Micelle-templated protocol by varying the silica source (tetra alkoxysilane with different alkoxy group) and the type and amounts of co-surfactant alcohols Possibility to scaling up Relatively wide particle size distribution, presence of contaminants[142]
SiO2 Surfactant template method source of silica tetra alkoxysilanes, and by varying the amounts of co-surfactant alcoholsProduction of monodispersed spherical morphologies of nanoparticlesTime and energy consuming[143]
Green Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
SiO2 Fungus Fusarium oxysporumFacile room temperatureNecessity to investigated the fungus secreted proteins involved in the synthesis [53]
SiO2 Bacterium Actinobacter sp.Particles were not cytotoxicity to human skin cellsRelatively time consuming reaction[54]
Traditional Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
TiO2 Hydrothermal growth using diethylamine as a passivating agentMonodisperse nanoparticles with no phase transformation during the synthesisTime and energy consuming[144]
TiO2 Sol-gel method under different pH conditionsControl over nanoparticle sizeToxic solvents, time and energy consuming[145]
Green Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
TiO2 Lactobacillus sp. (from yogurt and probiotic tablets) or Sachharomyces cerevisae (baker’s yeast)Simple, room temperature and cost effective Presence of few aggregates, difficult to scaling up [56,57]
Traditional Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
UO2 Radiolytic growth process in aqueous solutions through electron beam irradiationControl over size distributionExpensive, special equipment[146]
UO2 Hydrothermal synthesis method using hydrazine as a reducing agentFree of surfactant or template or organic aminesTime and energy consuming[147]
Green Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
UO2 Dissimilatory metal- and sulfate-reducing bacteria Desulfovibrio desulfuricansSimple, room temperature and cost effectiveMicroorganism growth [58,59,60]
Traditional Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
ZnO Combustion process, in which Zn(CH3COO)2 precursors migrated with the aid of alcoholic fuel to the top of a burning lampwick and the chemical reactions occurred at the solvent-air interface of the ignited lampwickRelatively cost effectiveZnO exhibited a nonuniform size and shape [148]
ZnO Solvothermal synthesisZnO with good monodispersion in waterOrganic toxic solvents [149]
ZnO Sol–gel processing technique based on hydrolysis of zinc acetate in methanol followed by supercritical drying in ethanol Control over size and shapeOrganic toxic solvents[150]
Green Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
ZnO Probiotic microbes Lactobacillus sporogeMild conditions and low-costDifficulties to scaling up[64]
Traditional Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
ZrO2 Sol–gel methodNanoparticles with high chemical and structural homogeneityThermal treatment[151]
ZrO2 Thermal decomposition of the Zr(IV) complex as in presence of methanol and monoethylene glycol Control over ZrO2 size and distributionOrganic/toxic solvents, high temperatures[152]
ZrO2 Thermal decomposition by zirconium oleate complex in a high boiling organic solventProduction of oleophilicZrO2 as nanofluilds Organic/toxic solvents, high temperatures[153]
Green Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
ZrO2 Fungus Fusarium oxysporumExtracellular hydrolysis, cost effectFungus cultivation and scaling up limitations [66]
Traditional Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
SnO2 Chemical precipitation using glycine which acts as a complexing agent and the surfactant sodium dodecyl sulfate as a stabilizing agentControl over SnO2 sizeNecessity to use surfactant and high temperature (up to 600 °C)[154]
SnO2 Solvothermal synthesis of SnO followed by its oxidation to SnO2Control over size and dispersionMultiple steps, organic/toxic solvents[155]
SnO2 Reverse microemulsion method using different water to surfactant ratioThe size of the SnO2 can be controlled by variation of water-to-surfactant ratioMultiple steps, high temperature and necessity to sequential calcinations to remove the surfactant[156]
Green Methods of Synthesis
Nanoparticle Route Advantage Disadvantage Ref
SnO2 Saraca indica flower extract as a reducing agentSimple, low costScaling up[67]

Acknowledgments

Support from FAPESP, CNPq, INOMAT (MCTI/CNPq), NanoBioss (MCTI), and the Brazilian Network on Nanotoxicology. The authors would like to acknowledge the Nature Publishing Group Language Editing for revising the English language usage of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Corr, S.A. Metal oxide nanoparticles. Nanoscience 2013, 1, 180–234. [Google Scholar]
  2. Haddad, P.S.; Seabra, A.B. Biomedical applications of magnetic nanoparticles. In Iron Oxides: Structure, Properties and Applications; Martinez, A.I., Ed.; Nova Science Publishers, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2012; Volume 1, pp. 165–188. [Google Scholar]
  3. Durán, N.; Seabra, A.B. Metallic oxide nanoparticles: State of the art in biogenic syntheses and their mechanisms. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2012, 95, 275–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Seabra, A.B.; Haddad, P.S.; Duran, N. Biogenic synthesis of nanostructured iron compounds: Applications and perspectives. IET Nanobiotechnol. 2013, 7, 90–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Rubilar, O.; Rai, M.; Tortella, G.; Diez, M.C.; Seabra, A.B.; Durán, N. Biogenic nanoparticles: Copper, copper oxides, copper sulfides, complex copper nanostructures and their applications. Biotechnol. Lett. 2013, 35, 1365–1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Rai, M.; Kon, K.; Ingle, A.; Durán, N.; Galdiero, S.; Galdiero, M. Broad-spectrum Bioactivities of Silver Nanoparticles: The emerging trends and future prospects. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2014, 98, 1951–1961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Rai, M.; Birla, S.; Gupta, I.; Ingle, A.; Gade, A.; Abd-Elsalam, K.; Marcato, P.D.; Durán, N. Diversity in synthesis and bioactivity of inorganic nanoparticles: Progress and pitfalls. Nanotechnol. Rev. 2014, 3, 281–309. [Google Scholar]
  8. Ingale, A.G.; Chaudhari, A.N. Biogenic synthesis of nanoparticles and potential applications: An eco-friendly approach. J. Nanomed. Nanotechol. 2013, 4, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Galdiero, S.; Falanga, A.; Vitiello, M.; Cantisani, M.; Marra, V.; Galdiero, M. Silver nanoparticles as potential antiviral agents. Molecules 2011, 16, 8894–8918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Durán, N.; Guterres, S.S.; Alves, O.L. Nanotoxicology: Materials, Methodologies, and Assessments; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; p. 412. [Google Scholar]
  11. Ingle, I.P.; Durán, N.; Rai, M. Bioactivity, mechanism of action and cytotoxicity of copper-based nanoparticles: A review. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2014, 98, 1001–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. De Lima, R.; Seabra, A.B.; Durán, N. Silver nanoparticles: A brief review of cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of chemically and biogenically synthesized nanoparticles. J. Appl. Toxicol. 2012, 32, 867–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Lima, R.; Feitosa, L.O.; Ballottin, D.; Marcato, P.D.; Tasic, L.; Durán, N. Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of biogenic silver nanoparticles. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2013, 429, 012020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Schrofel, A.; Kratosova, G.; Safarik, I.; Safarikova, M.; Raska, I.; Shor, L.M. Applications of biosynthesized metallic nanoparticles—A review. Acta Biomater. 2014, 10, 4023–4042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Tran, Q.H.; Nguyen, V.Q.; Le, A.-T. Silver nanoparticles: Synthesis, properties, toxicology, applications and perspectives. Adv. Nat. Sci. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2013, 4, 033001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Seabra, A.B.; Paula, A.J.; de Lima, R.; Alves, O.L.; Durán, N. Nanotoxicity of graphene and graphene oxide. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2014, 27, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Hou, J.; Yang, C.; Wang, Z.; Zhou, W.; Jiao, S.; Zhu, H. In situ synthesis of α-β phase heterojuntion on Bi2O3 nanowires with execptional visible-light photocatalytic performance. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 2013, 142–143, 504–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Li, Y.; Wu, S.; Huang, L.; Xu, H.; Zhang, R.; Qu, M.; Gao, Q.; Li, H. g-C3N4 modified Bi2O3 composites with enhanced visible-light photocatalytic activity. J. Phys. Chem. Solids 2015, 76, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Uddin, I.; Adhynthaya, S.; Syed, A.; Selvaraj, K.; Ahmad, A.; Poddar, P. Structure and microbial synthesis of sub-10 nm Bi2O3 nanocrystals. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2008, 8, 3909–3913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Cao, Y.; Yuan, F.; Yao, M.; Bang, J.H.; Lee, J.-H. A new synthetic route to hollow Co3O4 octahedra for supercapacitor applications. Cryst. Eng. Comm. 2014, 16, 826–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hosny, N.M. Single crystalline Co3O4: Synthesis and optical properties. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2014, 144, 247–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Su, D.; Xie, X.; Munroe, P.; Dou, S.; Wang, G. Mesoporous hexagonal Co3O4 for high performance lithium ion batteries. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Kumar, U.; Shete, A.; Harle, A.S.; Kasyutich, O.; Schwarzacher, W.; Pundle, A.; Poddar, P. Extracellular bacterial synthesis of proteinfunctionalized ferromagnetic Co3O4 nanocrystals and imaging of self-organization of bacterial cells under stress after exposure to metal ions. Chem. Mater. 2008, 20, 1484–1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kanhed, P.; Birla, S.; Gaikwad, S.; Gade, A.; Seabra, A.B.; Rubilar, O.; Duran, N.; Rai, M. In vitro antifungal efficacy of copper nanoparticles against selected crop phatogenic fungi. Mater. Lett. 2014, 115, 13–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hasan, S.S.; Singh, S.; Parikh, R.Y.; Dharne, M.S.; Patole, M.S.; Prasad, B.L.V.; Shouche, Y.S. Bacterial synthesis of copper/copper oxide nanoparticles. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2008, 8, 3191–3196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Prasad, K.; Jha, A.K.; Prasad, K.; Kulkarni, A.R. Can microbes mediate nano-transformation? Indian J. Phys. 2010, 84, 1355–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Usha, R.; Prabu, E.; Palaniswamy, M.; Venil, C.K.; Rajendran, K.R. Synthesis of metal oxide nano particles by Streptomyces sp. for development of antimicrobial textiles. Global J. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2010, 5, 153–160. [Google Scholar]
  28. Singh, A.V.; Patil, R.; Anand, A.; Milani, P.; Gade, W.N. Biological synthesis of copper oxide nano particles using Escherichia coli. Curr. Nanosci. 2010, 6, 365–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Honary, S.; Barabadi, H.; Gharaeifathabad, E.; Naghibi, F. Green synthesis of copper oxide nanoparticles using Penicillium aurantiogriseum, Penicillium citrinum and Penicillium waksmanii. Digest J. Nanomat. Biostruct. 2012, 7, 999–1005. [Google Scholar]
  30. Gopalakrishnan, K.; Ramesh, C.; Ragunathan, V.; Thamilselvan, M. Antibacterial activity of Cu2O nanoparticles on E. coli synthesized from Tridax procumbens leaf extract and surface coating with polyaniline. Digest J. Nanomat. Biostruct. 2012, 7, 833–839. [Google Scholar]
  31. Sangeetha, G.; Rajeshwari, S.; Rajendran, V. Aloe barbadensis Miller mediated green synthesis of mono-disperse copper oxide nanoparticles: Optical properties. Spectrochim. Acta Part A 2012, 97, 1140–1144. [Google Scholar]
  32. Seabra, A.B.; Pasquoto, T.; Ferrarini, A.C.F.; Cruz, M.; Haddad, P.S.; de Lima, R. Preparation, characterization, cytotoxicity and genotoxicity evaluations of thiolated- and S-nitrosated superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles: Implications for cancer treatment. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2014, 27, 1207–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Molina, M.M.; Seabra, A.B.; de Oliveira, M.G.; Itri, R.; Haddad, P.S. Nitric oxide donor superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles. Mat. Sci. Eng. C 2013, 33, 746–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Bharde, A.; Wani, A.; Shouche, Y.; Prasad, B.L.V.; Sastry, M. Bacterial aerobic synthesis of nanocrystalline magnetite. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005, 127, 9326–9327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Bharde, A.; Rautaray, D.; Bansal, V.; Ahmad, A.; Sarkar, I.; Yusuf, S.M.; Sanyal, M.; Sastry, M. Extracellular biosynthesis of magnetite using fungi. Small 2006, 2, 135–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Lee, J.-H.; Roh, Y.; Kim, K.W.; Hur, H.-G. Organic acid-dependent iron mineral formation by a newly isolated iron reducing bacterium, Shewanella sp. HN-41. Geomicrobiol. J. 2007, 24, 31–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ceci, P.; Chiancone, E.; Kasyutich, O.; Bellapadrona, G.; Castelli, L.; Fittipaldi, M.; Gatteschi, D.; Innocenti, C.; Sangregorio, C. Synthesis of iron oxide nanoparticles in Listeria innocua Dps (DNA-binding protein from starved cells): A study with the wild-type protein and a catalytic centre mutante. Chem. Eur. J. 2010, 16, 709–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Yaaghoobi, M.; Emtiazi, G.; Roghanian, R. A novel approach for aerobic construction of iron oxide nanoparticles by Acinetobacter radioresistens and their effects on red blood cells. Curr. Nanosci. 2012, 8, 286–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Raikher, Y.L.; Stepanov, V.I.; Stolyar, S.V.; Ladygina, V.P.; Balaev, D.A.; Ishchenko, L.A.; Balasoiu, M. Magnetic properties of biomineral nanoparticles produced by bacteria Klebsiella oxytoca. Phys. Solid State 2010, 52, 298–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Stolyar, S.V.; Bayukov, O.A.; Gurevich, Y.L.; Denisova, E.A.; Iskhakov, R.S.; Ladygina, V.P.; Puzyr, A.P.; Pustoshilov, P.P.; Bitekhtina, M.A. Iron-containing nanoparticles from microbial metabolismo. Inorg. Mater. 2006, 42, 763–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Balasoiu, M.; Stolyar, S.V.; Iskhakov, R.S.; Ishchenko, L.A.; Raikher, Y.L.; Kuklin, A.I.; Orelovich, O.L.; Kovalev, Y.S.; Kurkin, T.S.; Arzumanian, G.M. Hierarchical structure investigations of biogenic ferrihydrite samples. Rom. J. Phys. 2010, 55, 782–789. [Google Scholar]
  42. Bazylinski, D.A.; Frankel, R.B.; Konhauser, K.O. Modes of biomineralization of magnetite by microbes. Geomicrobiol. J. 2007, 24, 456–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Byrne, J.M.; Telling, N.D.; Coker, V.S.; Pattrick, R.A.D.; van der Lann, G.; Arenholz, E.; Tuna, F.; Lloyd, J.R. Control of nanoparticle size, reactivity and magnetic properties during the bioproduction of magnetite by Geobacter sulfurreducens. Nanotechnology 2011, 22, 455709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Jung, H.; Kim, J.W.; Choi, H.; Lee, J.-H.; Hur, H.-G. Synthesis of nanosized biogenic magnetite and comparison of its catalytic activity in ozonation. Appl. Catal. B 2008, 83, 208–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Herrera-Becerra, R.; Rius, J.L.; Zorrilla, C. Tannin biosynthesis of iron oxide nanoparticles. Appl. Phys. A 2010, 100, 453–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Andjelkovic, M.; van Camp, J.; de Meulenaer, B.; Depaemelaere, G.; Socaciu, C.; Verloo, M.; Verhe, R. Iron–chelation properties of phenolic acids bearing catechol and galloyl groups. Food Chem. 2006, 98, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Vukovic, M.; Brankovic, Z.; Poleti, D.; Recnik, A.; Brankovic, G. Novel simple methods for the synthesis of single-phase valentinite Sb2O3. J. Sol-Gel Sci. Technol. 2014, 72, 527–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Jha, A.K.; Prasad, K.; Prasad, K. Biosynthesis of Sb2O3 nanoparticles: A low-cost green approach. Biotechnol. J. 2009, 4, 1582–1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Jha, A.K.; Prasad, K.; Prasad, K. A green low-cost biosynthesis of Sb2O3 nanoparticles. Biochem. Eng. J. 2009, 43, 303–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zhu, Y.Y.; Liao, L.M. Applications of nanoparticles for anticancer drug delivery: A review. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2015, 7, 4753–4773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Seabra, A.B.; Duran, N. Nitric oxide-releasing vehicles for biomedical applications. J. Mat. Chem. 2010, 20, 1664–1637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Keller, A.A.; McFerran, S.; Lazareva, A.; Suh, S. Global life cycle releases of engineered nanomaterials. J. Nanopart Res. 2013, 15, 1692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bansal, V.; Rautaray, D.; Bharde, A.; Ahire, K.; Sanyal, A.; Ahmad, A.; Sastry, M. Fungus-mediated biosynthesis of silica and titania particles. J. Mater. Chem. 2005, 15, 2583–2589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Singh, S.; Bhatta, U.M.; Satyam, P.V.; Dhawan, A.; Sastry, M.; Prasad, B.L.V. Bacterial synthesis of silicon/silica nanocomposites. J. Mater. Chem. 2008, 18, 2601–2606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Goh, P.S.; Ng, B.C.; Lau, W.J.; Ismail, A.F. Inorganic nanomaterials in polymeric ultrafiltration membranes for water treatment. Sep. Purif. Rev. 2015, 44, 216–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Jha, A.K.; Prasad, K. Biosynthesis of metal and oxide nanoparticles using Lactobacilli from yoghurt and probiotic spore tablets. Biotechnol. J. 2010, 5, 285–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Jha, A.K.; Prasad, K.; Kulkarni, A.R. Synthesis of TiO2 nanoparticles using microorganisms. Colloids Surf. B Biointerf. 2009, 71, 226–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Lovley, D.R.; Phillips, E.J.P. Bioremediation of uranium contamination with enzymatic uranium reduction. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1992, 26, 2228–2234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Lovley, D.; Phillips, E.J.P. Reduction of uranium by Desulfovibrio desulfuricans. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1992, 58, 850–856. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  60. Tebo, B.M.; Obraztsova, A.Y. Sulfate-reducing bacterium grows with Cr(VI), U(VI), Mn(IV), and Fe(III) as electron acceptors. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 1998, 16, 193–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ulrich, K.U.; Ilton, E.S.; Veeramani, H.; Sharp, J.O.; Bernier-Latmani, R.; Schofield, E.J.; Bargar, J.R.; Giammar, D.E. Comparative dissolution kinetics of biogenic and chemogenic uraninite under oxidizing conditions in the presence of carbonate. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2009, 73, 6065–6083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Burgos, W.D.; McDonough, J.T.; Senko, J.M.; Zhang, G.X.; Dohnalkova, A.C.; Kelly, S.D.; Gorby, Y.; Kemner, K.M. Characterization of uraninite nanoparticles produced by Shewanella oneidensis MR-1. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2008, 72, 4901–4915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Singer, D.M.; Farges, F.; Brown, G.E., Jr. Biogenic nanoparticulate UO2: Synthesis, characterization, and factors affecting surfase reactivity. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2009, 73, 3593–3611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Prasad, K.; Jha, A.K. ZnO nanoparticles: synthesis and adsorption study. Natural Sci. 2009, 1, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Somiya, S.; Yamamoto, N.; Yanagina, H. Science and Tecnology of Zirconia III (Advances in Ceramics); American Ceraminc Society: Westerville, OH, USA, 1988; Volumes 24A and 24B. [Google Scholar]
  66. Bansal, V.; Rautaray, D.; Ahmad, A.; Sastry, M. Biosynthesis of zirconia nanoparticles using the fungus Fusarium oxysporum. J. Mater. Chem. 2004, 14, 3303–3305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Vidhu, V.K.; Philip, D. Biogenic synthesis of SnO2 nanoparticles: Evaluation of antibacterial and antioxidant activities. Spectrochim. Acta Part A Mol. Biomol. Spec. 2015, 134, 372–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Bismuth Trioxide Toxicology. Available online: http://digitalfire.com/4sight/hazards/ceramic_hazard_bismuth_trioxide_toxicology_352.html (accessed on 28 May 2015).
  69. Zhu, H.; Li, Y.; Qiu, R.; Shi, L.; Wu, W.; Zhou, S. Responsive fluorescent Bi2O3@PVA hybrid nanogels for temperature-sensing, dual-modal imaging, and drug delivery. Biomaterials 2012, 33, 3058–3069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Chattopadhyay, S.; Dash, S.K.; Tripathy, S.; Das, B.; Mandal, D.; Pramanik, P.; Roy, S. Toxicity of cobalt oxide nanoparticles to normal cells; an in vitro and in vivo study. Chem.-Biol. Inter. 2015, 226, 58–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Papis, E.; Gornati, R.; Prati, M.; Ponti, J.; Sabbioni, E.; Bernardini, G. Gene expression in nanotoxicology research: Analysis by differential display in BALB3T3 fibroblasts exposed to cobalt particles and ions. Toxicol. Lett. 2007, 107, 185–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Ponti, J.; Sabbioni, E.; Munaro, B.; Broggi, F.; Marmorato, P.; Franchini, F.; Colognato, R.; Rossi, F. Genotoxicity and morphological transformation induced by cobalt nanoparticles and cobalt chloride: An in vitro study in Balb/3T3 mouse fibroblasts. Mutagenesis 2009, 24, 438–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Colognato, R.; Bonelli, A.; Ponti, J.; Farina, M.; Bergamaschi, E.; Sabbioni, E.; Migliore, L. Comparative genotoxicity of cobalt nanoparticles and ions on human peripheral leukocytes in vitro. Mutagenesis 2008, 23, 377–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Ortega, R.; Bresson, C.; Darolles, C.; Gautiers, C.; Roudeau, S.; Perrin, L.; Janin, M.; Floriani, M.; Aloin, C.; Carmona, A.; et al. Low-solubility particles and a Trojan-horse type mechanism of toxicity: The case of cobalt oxide on human lung cells. Part. Fibre Toxicol. 2014, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Papis, E.; Rossi, F.; Raspanti, M.; Dalle-Donne, I.; Colombo, G.; Milzani, A.; Bernardini, G.; Gornati, R. Engineered cobalt oxide nanoparticles readily enter cells. Toxicol. Lett. 2009, 189, 253–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Cho, W.-S.; Dart, K.; Nowakowska, D.J.; Zheng, X.; Donaldson, K.; Howie, S.E.M. Adjuvanticity and toxicity of cobalt oxide nanoparticles as an alternative vaccine adjuvant. Nanomedicine 2012, 7, 1495–1505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Karlsson, H.L.; Cronholm, P.; Gustafsson, J.; Moller, L. Copper oxide nanoparticles are highly toxic: A comparison between metal oxide nanoparticles and carbon nanotubes. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2008, 21, 1726–1732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Hu, W.; Culloty, S.; Darmody, G.; Lynch, S.; Davenport, J.; Ramirez-Garcia, S.; Dawson, K.A.; Lynch, I.; Blasco, J.; Sheehan, D. Toxicity of copper oxide nanoparticles in the blue mussel, Mytilus edulis: A redox proteomic investigation. Chemosphere 2014, 108, 289–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Heinlaan, M.; Blinova, I.; Dubourguier, H.C.; Kahru, A. Toxicity of nanosized and bulk ZnO, CuO and TiO2 to bacteria Vibrio fischeri and crustaceans Daphnia magna and Thamnocephalus platyurus. Chemosphere 2008, 71, 1308–1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Laha, D.; Pramanik, A.; Maity, J.; Mukherjee, A.; Pramanik, P.; Laskar, A.; Karmakar, P. Interplay between autophagy and apoptosis mediated by copper oxide nanoparticles in human breast cancer cells MCF7. Biochim Biophys Acta 2014, 1840, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Siddiqui, M.A.; Alhadlaq, H.A.; Ahmad, J.; Al-Khedhairy, A.A.; Musarrat, J.; Ahamed, M. Copper oxide nanoparticles induced mitochondria mediated apoptosis in human hepatocarcinoma cells. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e69534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Sun, T.; Yan, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Guo, F.; Jiang, C. Copper oxide nanoparticles induce autophagic cell death in A549 cells. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e43442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Padil, V.V.T.; Cerník, M. Green synthesis of copper oxide nanoparticles using gum karaya as a biotemplate and their antibacterial application. Inter. J. Nanomed. 2013, 8, 889–898. [Google Scholar]
  84. Abboud, Y.; Saffaj, T.; Chagraoui, A.; Bouari, E.; Brouzi, K.; Tanane, O.; Ihssane, B. Biosynthesis, characterization and antimicrobial activity of copperoxide nanoparticles (CONPs) produced using brown alga extract (Bifurcaria bifurcata). Appl. Nanosci. 2014, 4, 571–576. [Google Scholar]
  85. Acharyulu, N.P.S.; Dubey, R.S.; Swaminadham, V.; Kollu, P.; Kalyani, R.L.; Pammi, S.V.N. Green Synthesis of CuO Nanoparticles using Phyllanthus amarus Leaf Extract and their Antibacterial Activity against Multidrug Resistance Bacteria. Inter. J. Eng. Res. Technol. 2014, 3, 639–641. [Google Scholar]
  86. Sivaraj, R.; Rahman, P.K.S.M.; Rajiv, P.; Venckatesh, H.A.S.R. Biogenic copper oxide nanoparticles synthesis using Tabernaemontana divaricate leaf extract and its antibacterial activity against urinary tract pathogen. Spectrochim. Acta Part A Mol. Biomol. Spec. 2014, 133, 178–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Seabra, A.B.; Haddad, P.S. Cytotoxicity and Genotoxicity of Iron Oxides Nanoparticles. In Nanotoxicology: Materials, Methodologies, and Assessment; Durán, N., Guterres, S.S., Alves, O.L., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; Chapter 12; pp. 265–279. [Google Scholar]
  88. Xiang, L.; Wei, J.; Jianbo, S.; Guili, W.; Feng, G.; Ying, L. Purified and sterilized magnetosomes from Magnetospirillum gryphiswaldense MSR-1 were not toxic to mouse fibroblasts in vitro. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2007, 45, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Lang, C.; Schuler, D. Biogenic nanoparticles: Production, characterization, and application of bacterial magnetosomes. J. Phys. Condens. Matter. 2006, 18, S2815–S2828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. De Lima, R.; Oliveira, J.L.; Ludescher, A.; Molina, M.M.; Itri, R.; Seabra, A.B.; Haddad, P.S. Nitric oxide releasing iron oxide magnetic nanoparticles for biomedical applications: Cell viability, apoptosis and cell death evaluations. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2013, 429, 012034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. De Lima, R.; Oliveira, J.L.; Murakami, P.S.K.; Molina, M.M.; Itri, R.; Haddad, P.S.; Seabra, A.B. Iron oxide nanoparticles show no toxicity in the comet assay in lymphocytes: A promising vehicle as a nitric oxide releasing nanocarriers in biomedical applications. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2013, 429, 012021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Wu, H.; Yin, J.-J.; Wamer, W.G.; Zeng, M.; Lo, Y.M. Reactive oxygen species-related activities of nano-iron metal and nano-iron oxides. J. Food Drug Anal. 2014, 22, 86–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Han, L.; Li, S.; Yang, Y.; Zhao, F.; Huang, J.; Chang, J. Comparison of magnetite nanocrystals formed by biomineralization and chemosynthesis. J. Mag. Mag. Mat. 2007, 313, 236–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Ross, G.; Harrison, A.P. The exposure to and health effects of antimony. Indian J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2009, 13, 3–10. [Google Scholar]
  95. Bregoli, L.; Francesca, C.; Gambarelli, A.; Sighinolfi, G.; Gatti, A.M.; Santi, P.; Martelli, A.M.; Cocco, L. Toxicity of antimony trioxide nanoparticles on human hematopoietic progenitor cells and comparison to cell lines. Toxicology 2009, 262, 121–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. McCarthy, J.; Inkielewicz-Stepniak, I.; Corbalan, J.J.; Radomski, M.M. Mechanisms of toxicity of amorphous silica nanoparticles on human Lung submucosal cells in vitro: Protective effects of Fisetin. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2012, 25, 2227–2235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Bancos, S.; Stevens, D.L.; Tyner, K.M. Effect of silica and gold nanoparticles on macrophage proliferation, activation markers, cytokine production, and phagocytosis in vitro. Int. J. Nanomed. 2015, 10, 183–206. [Google Scholar]
  98. Hassankhani, R.; Esmaeillou, M.; Tehrani, A.A.; Nasirzadeh, K.; Khadir, F.; Maadi, H. In vivo toxicity of orally administrated silicon dioxide nanoparticles in healthy adult mice. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 1127–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Kim, Y.-R.; Lee, S.-Y.; Lee, E.J.; Park, S.H.; Seong, N.; Seo, H.-S.; Shin, S.S.; Kim, S.J.; Meang, E.H.; Park, M.K.; et al. Toxicity of colloidal silica nanoparticles administered orally for 90 days in rats. Int. J. Nanomed. 2014, 9, 67–78. [Google Scholar]
  100. Periasamy, V.S.; Athinarayanan, J.; Akbarsha, M.A.; Alshatwi, A.A. Silica nanoparticles induced metabolic stress through EGR1, CCND, and E2F1 genes in human mesenchymal stem cells. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2015, 175, 1181–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Wang, J.; Fan, Y. Lung injury induced by TiO2 nanoparticles depends on their structural features: size, shape, crystal phases, and surface coating. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2014, 15, 22258–22278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Sheng, L.; Wang, L.; Sang, X.; Zhao, X.; Hong, J.; Cheng, S.; Yu, X.; Liu, D.; Xu, B.; Hu, R.; et al. Nano-sized titanium dioxide-induced splenic toxicity: A biological pathway explored using microarray technology. J. Hazard. Mat. 2014, 278, 180–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Órdenes-Aenishanslins, N.A.; Saona, L.A.; Durán-Toro, V.M.; Monrás, J.P.; Bravo, D.M.; Pérez-Donoso, J.M. Use of titanium dioxide nanoparticles biosynthesized by Bacillus mycoides in quantum dot sensitized solar cells. Microb. Cell Fact. 2014, 13, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Rajakumar, G.; Rahuman, A.; Roopan, S.M.; Khanna, V.G.; Elango, G.; Kamaraj, C.; Zahir, A.A.; Velayutham, K. Fungus-mediated biosynthesis and characterization of TiO2 nanoparticles and their activity against pathogenic bacteria. Spectrochim. Acta Part A 2012, 91, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Jayaseelan, C.; Rahuman, A.; Roopan, S.M.; Kirthi, A.V.; Venkatesan, J.; Kim, S.K.; Iyappan, M.; Siva, C. Biological approach to synthesize TiO2 nanoparticles using Aeromonas hydrophila and its antibacterial activity. Spectrochim Acta Part A 2013, 107, 82–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Babitha, S.; Korrapati, P.S. Biosynthesis of titanium dioxide nanoparticles using a probiotic from coal fly ash effluent. Mater. Res. Bull. 2013, 48, 4738–4742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices, 6th ed.; American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists Inc: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 1991.
  108. Craig, D.K. Chemical and radiological toxicity of uranium and its compounds. WSRC-TR-2001–00331. Available online: http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/tr2001331/tr2001331.html (accessed on 28 May 2015).
  109. Petitot, F.; Lestaevel, P.; Tourlonias, E.; Mazzucco, C.; Jacquinot, S.; Dhieux, B.; Delissen, O.; Tournier, B.B.; Gensdarmes, T.F.; Beaunier, P.; et al. Inhalation of uranium nanoparticles: Respiratory tract deposition and translocation to secondary target organs in rats. Toxicol. Lett. 2013, 217, 217–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Monleau, M.; de Meo, M.; Frelon, S.; Paquet, F.; Donnadieu-Claraz, M.; Duménil, G.; Chazel, V. Distribution and genotoxic effects after successive exposure to different uranium oxide particles inhaled by rats. Inhal. Toxicol. 2006, 18, 885–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Lee, S.Y.; Baik, M.H.; Choi, J.W. Biogenic formation and growth of uraninite (UO2). Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 8409–8414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Newsome, L.; Morris, K.; Jonathan, R.; Lloyd, J.R. The biogeochemistry and bioremediation of uranium and other priority radionuclides. Chem. Geol. 2014, 363, 164–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Baskar, G.; Chandhuru, J.; Fahad, K.S.; Praveen, A.S. Mycological synthesis, characterization and antifungal activity of zinc oxide nanoparticles. Asian J. Pharm. Tech. 2013, 3, 142–146. [Google Scholar]
  114. AbdElhady, M.M. Preparation and characterization of chitosan/zinc oxide nanoparticles for imparting antimicrobial and UV protection to cotton fabric. Int. J. Carbohy. Chem. 2012, 840591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Sindhura, K.S.; Prasad, T.N.V.K.V.; Selvam, P.P.; Hussain, O.M. Synthesis, characterization and evaluation of effect of phytogenic zinc nanoparticles on soil exo-enzymes. Appl. Nanosci. 2014, 4, 819–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Ramesh, M.; Anbuvannan, M.; Viruthagiri, G. Green synthesis of ZnO nanoparticles using Solanum nigrum leaf extract and their antibacterial activity. Spectrochim. Acta A 2015, 136, 864–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Darroudi, M.; Sabouri, Z.; Oskuee, R.K.; Zak, A.K.; Kargar, H.; Hamid, M.H.N.A. Green chemistry approach for the synthesis of ZnO nanopowders and their cytotoxic effects. Ceram. Int. 2014, 40, 4827–4831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Sivaraj, R.; Rahman, P.K.S.M.; Rajiv, G.P.; Venckatesh, R. Biogenic zinc oxide nanoparticles synthesis using Tabernaemontana Divaricate leaf extract and its anticancer activity against MCF-7 breast cancer cell Lines. Int. Conf. Advan. Agric. Biol. Environ. Sci. 2014, 83–85. [Google Scholar]
  119. Zirconium and Zirconium Compounds. Available online: http://www.gezondheidsraad.nl/sites/default/files/0015059OSH.pdf (accessed on 28 May 2015).
  120. Saridag, S.; Tak, O.; Alniacik, G. Basic properties and types of zirconia: An overview. World J. Stomatol. 2013, 2, 40–47. [Google Scholar]
  121. Li, Q.; Deacon, A.D.; Coleman, N.J. The impact of zirconium oxide nanoparticles on the hydration chemistry and biocompatibility of white Portland cement. Dent. Mater. J. 2013, 32, 808–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Takamura, K.; Hayashi, K.; Ishinishi, N.; Yamada, T.; Sugioka, Y. Evaluation of carcinogenicity and chronic toxicity associated with orthopedic implants in mice. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 1994, 28, 583–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Jangra, S.L.; Stalin, L.; Dilbaghi, N.; Kumar, S.; Tawale, J.; Singh, S.P.; Pasricha, R. Antimicrobial activity of zirconia (ZrO2) nanoparticles and zirconium complexes. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2012, 12, 7105–7112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Roopan, S.M.; Kumar, S.H.S.; Madhumitha, G.; Suthindhira, K. Biogenic-production of SnO2 nanoparticles and its cytotoxic effect against hepatocellular carcinoma cell line (HepG2). Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Khan, M.J.; Husain, Q. Influence of pH and temperature on the activity of SnO2-bound alpha-amylase: A genotoxicity assessment of SnO2 nanoparticles. Prep. Biochem. Biotech. 2014, 44, 558–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Cho, W.-S.; Duffin, R.; Bradley, M.; Megson, I.L.; MacNee, W.; Lee, J.K.; Jeong, J.; Donaldson, K. Predictive value of in vitro assays depends on the mechanism of toxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles. Part. Fibre Toxiol. 2013, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Buesen, R.; Landsiedel, R.; Sauer, U.G.; Wohlleben, W.; Groeters, S.; Strauss, V.; Kamp, H.; Ravenzwaay, B.V. Effects of SiO2, ZrO2, and BaSO4 nanomaterials with or without surface functionalization upon 28-day oral exposure to rats. Arch. Toxicol. 2014, 88, 1881–1960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Baek, Y.-W.; An, Y.-J. Microbial toxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles (CuO, NiO, ZnO, and Sb2O3) to Escherichia coli, Bacillus subtilis, and Streptococcus aureus. Sci. Total Environ. 2011, 409, 1603–1608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Dasari, T.P.; Pathakoti, K.; Hwang, H.-M. Determination of the mechanism of photoinduced toxicity of selected metal oxide nanoparticles (ZnO, CuO, Co3O4 and TiO2) to E. coli bacteria. J. Environ. Sci. 2013, 25, 882–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Goix, S.; Lévêque, T.; Xiong, T.-T.; Schreck, E.; Baeza-Squiban, A.; Geret, F.; Uzu, G.; Austruy, A.; Dumat, C. Environmental and health impacts of fine and ultrafine metallic particles: Assessment of threat scores. Environ. Res. 2014, 133, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Ko, K.-S.; Kong, I.C. Toxic effects of nanoparticles on bioluminescence activity, seed germination, and gene mutation. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2014, 98, 3295–3303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Golinska, P.; Wypij, M.; Ingle, A.P.; Gupta, I.; Dahm, H.; Rai, M. Biogenic synthesis of metal nanoparticles from actinomycetes: Biomedical applications and cytotoxicity. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2014, 98, 8083–8097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Landsiedel, R.; Ma-Hock, L.; Kroll, A.; Hahn, D.; Schnekenburger, J.; Wiench, K.; Wohllben, W. Testing metal-oxide nanomaterials for human safety. Adv. Mater. 2010, 22, 2601–2627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Darolles, C.; Sage, N.; Armengaud, J.; Malard, V. In vitro assessment of cobalt oxide particle toxicity: identifying and circumventing interference. Toxicol. In Vitro 2013, 27, 1699–1710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Djurisic, A.B.; Leung, Y.H.; Ng, A.M.C.; Xu, X.Y.; Lee, P.K.H.; Degger, N.; Wu, R.S.S. Toxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles: Mechanisms, characterization, and avoiding experimental artefacts. Small 2015, 11, 26–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Adner, D.; Korb, M.; Schulze, S.; Hietschol, M.; Lang, H. A straightforward approach to oxide-free copper nanoparticles by thermal decomposition of a copper(I) precursor. Chem. Commun. 2013, 49, 6855–6857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Khalil, A.; Jouiad, M.; Khraished, M.; Hashaikeh, R. Facile synthesis of copper oxide nanoparticles via electrospinning. J. Nanomater. 2014, 2014, 438407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Cuevas, R.; Duran, N.; Diez, M.C.; Tortella, G.R.; Rubilar, O. Extracellular biosynthesis of copper and copper oxide nanoparticles by Stereum hirsutum, a native white-rot fungus from chilean forests. J. Nanomater. 2015, 2015, 789089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Wang, J.; Zhang, B.; Wang, L.; Wang, M.; Gao, F. One-pot synthesis of water-soluble superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles and their MRI contrast effects in the mouse brains. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2015, 48, 416–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Liu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, M.; Zhang, W.; Yang, L.; Wang, C.; Chen, Z. Preparation of nanocrystalline antimony oxide powders by use of gamma-ray radiation-oxidization route. Mater. Sci. Eng. B 1997, 49, 42–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Zhang, Y.; Li, G.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, L. Shape-controlled growth of one-dimensional Sb2O3 nanomaterials. Nanotechnology 2004, 15, 762–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Yamada, H.; Urata, C.; Ujiie, H.; Yamauchi, Y.; Kuroda, K. Preparation of aqueous colloidal mesostructured and mesoporous silica nanoparticles with controlled particle size in a very wide range from 20 nm to 700 nm. Nanoscale 2013, 5, 6145–6153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Das, D.; Yang, Y.; O´Brien, J.S.; Breznan, D.; Nimesh, S.; Bernatchez, S.; Hill, M.; Sayari, A.; Vincent, R.; Kumarathasan, P. Synthesis and physicochemical characterization of mesoporous SiO2 nanoparticles. J. Nanomater. 2014, 2014, 176015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Arthi, G.; Archana, J.; Navaneethan, M.; Ponnusamy, S.; Hayakawa, Y.; Muthamizhchelvan, C. Solvothermal growth of diethylamine capped TiO2 nanoparticles and functional properties. J. Mater. Sci Mater. Electron 2015, 26, 2380–2383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Behnajady, M.A.; Eskandarloo, H. Preparation of TiO2 nanoparticles by the sol–gel method under different pH conditions and modeling of photocatalytic activity by artificial neural network. Res. Chem. Intermed. 2015, 41, 2001–2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Rath, M.C.; Naik, D.B. Post-irradiation induction time in the radiolytic synthesis of UO2 nanoparticles in aqueous solutions. J. Nucl. Mater. 2014, 454, 54–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Zhao, R.; Wang, L.; Gu, Z.J.; Yuang, L.Y.; Xiao, C.L.; Zhao, Y.L.; Cahi, Z.F.; Shi, W.Q. A facile additive-free method for tunable fabrication of UO2 and U3O8 nanoparticles in aqueous solution. Cryst. Eng. Comm. 2014, 16, 2645–2651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Ali, M.A.; Idris, M.R.; Quayum, M.E. Fabrication of ZnO nanoparticles by solution combustion method for the photocatalytic degradation of organic dye. J. Nanostructure Chem. 2013, 3, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Bai, X.; Li, J.; Liu, H.; Tan, L.; Liu, T.; Meng, X. Solvothermal synthesis of ZnO nanoparticles and anti-infection application in vivo. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2015, 7, 1308–1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  150. Ghoul, J.E.; Kraini, M.; Mir, L.E. Synthesis of Co-doped ZnO nanoparticles by sol–gel method and its characterization. J. Mater. Sci: Mater. Electron. 2015, 26, 2555–2562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Hajizadeh-Oghaz, M.; Razavi, R.S.; Khajelakzay, M. Optimizing sol–gel synthesis of magnesia-stabilized zirconia (MSZ) nanoparticles using Taguchi robust design for thermal barrier coatings (TBCs) applications. J. Sol-Gel Sci. Technol. 2015, 73, 227–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Rabjbar, M.; Lahooti, M.; Yousefi, M.; Malekzadeh, A. Sonochemical synthesis and characterization of nano-sized zirconium(IV) complex: New precursor for the preparation of pure monoclinic and tetragonal zirconia nanoparticles. J. Iran Chem. Soc. 2014, 11, 1257–1264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Sreeremya, T.S.; Krishnan, A.; Satapathy, L.N.; Ghosh, S. Facile synthetic strategy of oleophilic zirconia nanoparticles allows preparation of highly stable thermo-conductive coolant. RSC Adv. 2014, 4, 28020–28028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Bhattacharjee, A.; Ahmaruzzaman, M.; Sinha, T. A novel approach for the synthesis of SnO2 nanoparticles and its application as a catalyst in the reduction and photodegradation of organic compounds. Spectrochim. Acta Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 2015, 136, 751–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Sun, G.; Qi, F.; Zhang, S.; Li, Y.; Wang, Y.; Cao, J.; Bala, H.; Wang, X.; Jia, T.; Zhang, Z. Synthesis and enhanced gas sensing properties of flower-like SnO2 hierarchical structures decorated with discrete ZnO nanoparticles. J. Alloys Compd. 2014, 25, 192–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Zamand, N.; Pour, A.N.; Housaindokht, M.R.; Izadyar, M. Size-controlled synthesis of SnO2 nanoparticles using reverse microemulsion method. Solid State Sci. 2014, 33, 6–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Seabra, A.B.; Durán, N. Nanotoxicology of Metal Oxide Nanoparticles. Metals 2015, 5, 934-975. https://doi.org/10.3390/met5020934

AMA Style

Seabra AB, Durán N. Nanotoxicology of Metal Oxide Nanoparticles. Metals. 2015; 5(2):934-975. https://doi.org/10.3390/met5020934

Chicago/Turabian Style

Seabra, Amedea B., and Nelson Durán. 2015. "Nanotoxicology of Metal Oxide Nanoparticles" Metals 5, no. 2: 934-975. https://doi.org/10.3390/met5020934

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop