2018
DOI: 10.1080/08958378.2018.1516834
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Differences in the toxicity of cerium dioxide nanomaterials after inhalation can be explained by lung deposition, animal species and nanoforms

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Detailed characteristics of NPs and their particle size distributions, mass and number exposure concentrations as well as lung deposited dose estimations for the inhalations are described in detail elsewhere ( Dekkers et al 2017 , 2018 ). Briefly, the different CeO 2 particles had a primary particle size of 4.7 ± 1.4 nm.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Detailed characteristics of NPs and their particle size distributions, mass and number exposure concentrations as well as lung deposited dose estimations for the inhalations are described in detail elsewhere ( Dekkers et al 2017 , 2018 ). Briefly, the different CeO 2 particles had a primary particle size of 4.7 ± 1.4 nm.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The aim of the current study was to evaluate the potential neurotoxic and neurodegenerative effects of CeO 2 NPs in mice following a four-week inhalation exposure and to assess the influence of redox activity by the concurrent evaluation of CeO 2 NPs with different Zr-doping grades. The investigations formed part of a large study conducted in to explore the (patho)physiological effects of NP exposure on multiple organ systems in various mouse models ( Dekkers et al 2017 , 2018 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The toxicity of CeO 2 NPs remains controversial, because conflicting results have been reported in the scientific community, with both pro-oxidant and anti-oxidant effects in tissues. This variability depends mostly on the cell type, but also on the physical and chemical characteristics of nanoceria, like the aggregation state, the shape (nanocubes vs. nanorods), surface modifications and the oxidative status of the cerium (Ce) [ 29 , 30 ]. Altogether, these properties modulate the nanoceria’s behavior in different environments and thus its distribution, elimination and toxicity, at both the cellular level and in the body.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[19][20][21][22][23] In contrast to research about the antioxidant activity of CeNPs, inhalable CeNPs have been detected in ambient air and concerns have been raised about their potential adverse health effect. 24,25 Besides this, additional studies suggested that CeNPs can induce oxidative stress, inammatory signaling response, and cell death upon generating ROS (processes ④-⑥ in Scheme 1) or ROS-messengers. [26][27][28][29][30] Given the controversies about the benecial and toxic effects of CeNPs, it is necessary to distinguish the anti-and prooxidant activities of CeNPs under physiologically relevant conditions.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%