4.7 Article

Cytotoxicity Screening of Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes: Detection and Removal of Cytotoxic Contaminants from Carboxylated Carbon Nanotubes

Journal

MOLECULAR PHARMACEUTICS
Volume 8, Issue 4, Pages 1351-1361

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/mp2001439

Keywords

carbon nanotubes; nanotoxicology; cytotoxicity; amorphous carbon; carboxylation

Funding

  1. SEMATECH/Semiconductor Research Corporation [ERC42S-027]
  2. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [1R41ES018002-01]
  3. UT Dallas Center for Applied Biology
  4. NTH STTR

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compares the cytotoxicity to cultured mammalian cells of nine different single-walled carbon nanotube (SWNT) products synthesized by a variety of methods and obtained from a cross section of vendors. A standard procedure involving sonication and centrifugation in buffered bovine serum albumin was developed to disperse all the SWNTs in a biocompatible solution to facilitate comparisons. The effect of the SWNTs on the proliferative ability of a standard cell line was then assessed. Of the nine different SWNT materials tested, only two were significantly toxic, and both were functionalized by carboxylation from different vendors. This was unexpected because carboxylation makes SWNTs more water-soluble, which would presumably correlate with better biocompatibility. However, additional purification work demonstrated that the toxic material in the carboxylated SWNT preparations could be separated from the SWNTs by filtration. The filtrate that contained the toxic activity also contained abundant small carbon fragments that had Raman signatures characteristic of amorphous carbon species, suggesting a correlation between toxicity and oxidized carbon fragments. The removal of a toxic contaminant associated with carboxylated SWNTs is important in the development of carboxylated SWNTs for pharmacological applications.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available