Laboratory of Molecular Genetics, National Institute of Chemical Physics and Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia.
Acc Chem Res. 2013 Mar 19;46(3):823-33. doi: 10.1021/ar3000212. Epub 2012 Nov 13.
Some researchers consider nanotechnology the next industrial revolution, and consumer products and a variety of industries increasingly use synthetic nanoparticles. In this Account, we review the initial accomplishments of nanoecotoxicology, a discipline that is just a decade old. This new subdiscipline of ecotoxicology faces two important and challenging problems: the analysis of the safety of nanotechnologies in the natural environment and the promotion of sustainable development while mitigating the potential pitfalls of innovative nanotechnologies. In this Account, we provide a snapshot of the publicly available scientific information regarding the ecotoxicity of engineered nanoparticles. We pay special attention to information relevant to aquatic freshwater species commonly used for risk assessment and regulation. Just as the development of ecotoxicology has lagged behind that of toxicology, nanoecotoxicological research has developed much more slowly than nanotoxicology. Although the first nanotoxicolology papers were published in 1990s, the first nanoecotoxicology papers came out in 2006. A meta-analysis of scientific publications covering different environmental impacts of nanomaterials showed that the importance of research into the environmental impact of nanotechnology has gradually increased since 2005. Now the most frequently cited papers in the environmental disciplines are often those that focus on synthetic nanoparticles. The first nanoecotoxicology studies focused on adverse effects of nanoparticles on fish, algae and daphnids, which are ecotoxicological model organisms for classification and labeling of chemicals (these model organisms are also used in the EU chemical safety policy adopted in 2007: Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)). Based on our experience, we propose a multitrophic battery of nanoecotoxicological testing that includes particle-feeding and a priori particle-"proof" prokaryotic and eukaryotic organisms at different food-chain levels. Using this battery of selected test organisms, we demonstrated that TiO₂ nanoparticles were toxic to algae and that ZnO and CuO nanoparticles were toxic to several aquatic invertebrate test species. Thus, one single biotest cannot predict the ecotoxicological effects of chemicals/nanoparticles, and researchers should use several tests instead. Moreover, produced nanoparticles usually vary in features such as size, shape, and coating; therefore, a single nanoparticle species may actually include many entities with different physicochemical properties. An ecotoxicity analysis of all these variants would require a huge number of laboratory tests. To address these issues, high throughput bioassays and computational (QSAR) models that serve as powerful alternatives to conventional (eco)toxicity testing must be implemented to handle both the diversity of nanomaterials and the complexity of ecosystems.
一些研究人员认为纳米技术是下一次工业革命，越来越多的消费品和各种行业开始使用合成纳米颗粒。在本报告中，我们回顾了纳米生态毒理学这一新兴学科的初步成就，这门学科只有十年的历史。作为生态毒理学的一个新分支，纳米生态毒理学面临着两个重要而具有挑战性的问题：分析纳米技术在自然环境中的安全性，以及在减轻创新纳米技术潜在风险的同时促进可持续发展。在本报告中，我们提供了有关工程纳米颗粒生态毒性的公开可用科学信息的快照。我们特别关注与常用于风险评估和管理的水生淡水物种相关的信息。正如生态毒理学的发展落后于毒理学一样，纳米生态毒理学的研究进展也比纳米毒理学慢得多。虽然第一篇纳米毒理学论文发表于 20 世纪 90 年代，但第一篇纳米生态毒理学论文直到 2006 年才出现。对涵盖纳米材料不同环境影响的科学出版物进行的荟萃分析表明，自 2005 年以来，人们对纳米技术环境影响的研究重要性逐渐增加。现在，环境学科中被引用最多的论文通常是那些关注合成纳米颗粒的论文。最早的纳米生态毒理学研究集中在纳米颗粒对鱼类、藻类和水蚤的不良影响上，这些是用于化学品分类和标签的生态毒理学模式生物（这些模式生物也用于 2007 年采用的欧盟化学品安全政策：化学品注册、评估、授权和限制（REACH））。根据我们的经验，我们提出了一种多营养层次的纳米生态毒理学测试组合，其中包括以颗粒为食，以及在不同食物链层次上预先进行颗粒“证明”的原核和真核生物。使用这种选定的测试生物组合，我们证明了 TiO₂纳米颗粒对藻类有毒，而 ZnO 和 CuO 纳米颗粒对几种水生无脊椎动物测试物种有毒。因此，单一的生物测试不能预测化学品/纳米颗粒的生态毒性效应，研究人员应该使用多种测试方法。此外，所产生的纳米颗粒在尺寸、形状和涂层等方面通常存在差异；因此，单一的纳米颗粒物种实际上可能包含许多具有不同物理化学性质的实体。对所有这些变体的生态毒性分析都需要进行大量的实验室测试。为了解决这些问题，必须实施高通量生物测定和计算（QSAR）模型，以替代传统（生态）毒性测试，从而处理纳米材料的多样性和生态系统的复杂性。
