4.8 Article

Effect of Nanoparticles on the Bulk Shear Viscosity of a Lung Surfactant Fluid

期刊

ACS NANO
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 466-475

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.9b06293

关键词

pulmonary (lung) surfactant; nanoparticles; biomolecular corona; air pollution; magnetic wires; microrheology

资金

  1. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)
  2. Commissariat a l'Investissement d'Avenir (CGI) through Labex Science and Engineering for Advanced Materials and devices (SEAM) [ANR 11 LABX 086, ANR 11 IDEX OS 02]
  3. French National Research Agency [ANR-10-1NSB-04]
  4. Agence Nationale de la Recherche [ANR-13-BS08-0015, ANR-12-CHEX-0011, ANR-15-CE18-0024-01, ANR-17-CE09-0017]
  5. Solvay

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inhaled nanoparticles (<100 nm) reaching the deep lung region first interact with the pulmonary surfactant, a thin lipid film lining the alveolar epithelium. To date, most biophysical studies have focused on particle-induced modifications of the film interfacial properties. In comparison, there is less work on the surfactant bulk properties and on their changes upon particle exposure. Here we study the viscoelastic properties of a biomimetic pulmonary surfactant in the presence of various engineered nanoparticles. The microrheology technique used is based on the remote actuation of micron-sized wires via the application of a rotating magnetic field and on time-lapse optical microscopy. It is found that particles strongly interacting with lipid vesicles, such as cationic silica (SiO2, 42 nm) and alumina (Al2O3, 40 nm) induce profound modifications of the surfactant flow properties, even at low concentrations. In particular, we find that silica causes fluidification, while alumina induces a liquid-to-soft solid transition. Both phenomena are described quantitatively and accounted for in the context of colloidal physics models. It is finally suggested that the structure and viscosity changes could impair the fluid reorganization and recirculation occurring during breathing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据