Condensational particle growth device for reliable cell exposure at the air–liquid interface to nanoparticles

Toxicity assessment of CeO₂ and CuO nanoparticles at the air-liquid interface using bioinspired condensational particle growth

“…A549 cells (CCL-185, American Type Cell Collection, Manassas, VA, USA) were used. As previously described ( Tilly et al, 2019 ), the cells were cultured in glutamine-free RPMI 1640 base medium supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (Heat Inactivated FBS, Gibco, Carlsbad, CA, USA), 100-fold dilution of penicillin-streptomycin (Pen: 100 U/mL, Strep: 100 μg/mL, Gibco), and 100-fold dilution of GlutaMAX Supplement (35,050,061, Gibco). The cells were cultured to confluence before being treated with 0.25% trypsin-EDTA (0.25%, phenol red, Gibco) for detachment from flask, counted by hemocytometer, and seeded on custom cell culture supports for ALI exposure.…”

“…The differences in particokinetics in exposure medium between various types of particles makes the dosimetric consideration a necessity for toxicity assessment ( Teeguarden et al, 2007 ); nevertheless, it is often neglected ( DeLoid et al, 2017 ). Secondly, by transferring NPs from aerosol phase to liquid phase, their physical and chemical properties may be altered, which can include changes to agglomeration, surface functionality and dissolution of ions into the medium ( Tilly et al, 2019 ; Tilly et al, 2020 ). These changes in the physicochemical properties of the NPs that occur through dispersion in liquid have been shown to alter their cellular response and toxicity outcome ( Lichtveld et al, 2012 ).…”

“…However, deposition of NPs using these mechanisms is size-dependent (unipolar charging efficiency and thermophoretic efficiency is based on particle size) ( Dixkens and Fissan, 2010 ). They still have low efficiency that ultimately results in a NP dose too low to produce a biological response and that complicates their use for toxicity evaluation ( Tilly et al, 2019 ). Further, the heating required for thermophoresis or the charging of the particles required by electrostatics has little relevance to how NPs are exposed in the human respiratory system, and the processes can alter the particle characteristics and consequently the toxicity outcome ( Tilly et al, 2020 ).…”

“…The collection and deposition efficiency of the CPG technology used in DAVID has been previously proven in the collection of aerosol particles containing viable virus, the same size scale as NPs, with 10–100 fold better collection efficiency than the industry standard of BioSampler ® ( Pan et al, 2016 ; Lednicky et al, 2016 ). More recently, DAVID was demonstrated to have highly efficient NP deposition for cell exposure, with negligible variation in dosing between replicate experiments and no stress to cells exposed to clean air ( Tilly et al, 2019 ). Further, DAVID was demonstrated in the toxicity evaluation of freshly generated welding fume ( Ward et al, 2020 ).…”

Change of Composition, Source Contribution, and Oxidative Effects of Environmental PM2.5 in the Respiratory Tract

“…in the respiratory tract differ from peripheral environments including indoor and outdoor settings, some key characteristics of PM 2.5 such as composition and toxicity could vary as they travel through the respiratory tract. , Knowledge about this process is critical for health assessment and understanding of health mechanisms but remains scarce. Researchers developed physiologically relevant air–liquid interface devices to study biological effects (e.g., cell viability) of exposure to particles. − Numerous simulation models about drug delivery efficiency have been developed to investigate hygroscopic growth and deposition of drug particles in the human respiratory tract, − and composition or toxicity variation is not considered. A recent study experimentally examined powder particles during inhalation and exhalation processes using a 3D-printed mechanical upper airway apparatus .…”