A critical review of the current knowledge regarding the biological impact of nanocellulose

Journal of Nanobiotechnology

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Endes, C ^a,b   Camarero Espinosa, S ^a,b   Mueller, S ^a   Foster, E J ^a,c   Petri Fink, A ^a   Rothen Rutishauser, B ^a   Weder, C ^a   Clift, M J D ^a,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FRIBOURG   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^c VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d SWANSEA UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cellulose nanocrystals; Exposure; Hazard; Human health; Nano object cell interactions; Nanocellulose; Nanofibers; Nanotoxicology; Risk

Indexed keywords

BIOHAZARDS; CELLULOSE DERIVATIVES; FILLED POLYMERS; FOAMS; FUNCTIONAL POLYMERS; HAZARDS; HEALTH RISKS; NANOCRYSTALS; NANOFIBERS; RISKS;

CELL INTERACTION; CELLULOSE NANO-CRYSTALS; EXPOSURE; HUMAN HEALTH; NANO-CELLULOSE; NANOTOXICOLOGY;

CELLULOSE;

CELLULOSE; CHEMOATTRACTANT; GRANULOCYTE COLONY STIMULATING FACTOR; GRANULOCYTE MACROPHAGE COLONY STIMULATING FACTOR; INTERLEUKIN 12P40; INTERLEUKIN 1ALPHA; INTERLEUKIN 1BETA; INTERLEUKIN 5; INTERLEUKIN 6; INTERLEUKIN 8; KERATINOCYTE CHEMOATTRACTANT; LIPOCORTIN 5; MACROPHAGE INFLAMMATORY PROTEIN 1ALPHA; MONOCYTE CHEMOTACTIC PROTEIN 1; NANOCELLULOSE; PEROXIREDOXIN; POLYMER; PROPIDIUM IODIDE; SUPEROXIDE DISMUTASE; TUMOR NECROSIS FACTOR; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; NANOFIBER; NANOPARTICLE;

APOPTOSIS; CELL INTERACTION; CHLORELLA VULGARIS; CONCENTRATION (PARAMETERS); CYTOKINE RESPONSE; CYTOTOXICITY; DENDRITIC CELL; DNA STRAND BREAKAGE; DOWN REGULATION; ENZYME ACTIVITY; GENOTOXICITY; HUMAN; IN VITRO STUDY; IN VIVO STUDY; LC50; LIFE CYCLE; MACROPHAGE; MONOCYTE; MTT ASSAY; NANOTECHNOLOGY; NONHUMAN; OXIDATIVE STRESS; PROTEIN AGGREGATION; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; TH1 CELL; TH2 CELL; UMBILICAL VEIN ENDOTHELIAL CELL; ANIMAL; CELL LINE; CELL SURVIVAL; CHEMISTRY; CYTOLOGY; DRUG EFFECTS; METABOLISM;

CELLULOSE DERIVATIVES; EXPOSURE; HAZARDOUS MATERIALS; HEALTH; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICOLOGY;

ANIMALS; CELL LINE; CELL SURVIVAL; CELLULOSE; HUMANS; MACROPHAGES; NANOFIBERS; NANOPARTICLES; OXIDATIVE STRESS;

EID: 85000427272     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14773155     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12951-016-0230-9     Document Type: Review

References (96)

1. Duncan TV. Applications of nanotechnology in food packaging and food safety: barrier materials, antimicrobials and sensors. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2011;363(1):1-24. doi: 10.1016/j.jcis.2011.07.017.
2. Hanus MJ, Harris AT. Nanotechnology innovations for the construction industry. Prog Mater Sci. 2013;58(7):1056-102. doi: 10.1016/j.pmatsci.2013.04.001.
3. Rao CNR, Cheetham AK. Science and technology of nanomaterials: current status and future prospects. J Mater Chem. 2001;11(12):2887-94. doi: 10.1039/B105058N.
4. Klemm D, Kramer F, Moritz S, Lindström T, Ankerfors M, Gray D, et al. Nanocelluloses: a new family of nature-based materials. Angew Chem Int Ed. 2011;50(24):5438-66. doi: 10.1002/anie.201001273.
5. Eichhorn SJ, Dufresne A, Aranguren M, Marcovich NE, Capadona JR, Rowan SJ, et al. Review: current international research into cellulose nanofibres and nanocomposites. J Mater Sci. 2010;45(1):1-33. doi: 10.1007/s10853-009-3874-0.
6. Jorfi M, Foster EJ. Recent advances in nanocellulose for biomedical applications. J Appl Polymer Sci. 2015;132(14):41719. doi: 10.1002/app.41719.
7. Lin N, Dufresne A. Nanocellulose in biomedicine: current status and future prospect. Eur Polymer J. 2014;59:302-25. doi: 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2014.07.025.
8. Ranby BG. Aqueous colloidal solutions of cellulose micelles. Acta Chem Scand. 1949;3(5):649-50. doi: 10.3891/acta.chem.scand.03-0649.
9. Capadona JR, Shanmuganathan K, Tyler DJ, Rowan SJ, Weder C. Stimuli-responsive polymer nanocomposites inspired by the sea cucumber dermis. Science. 2008;319(5868):1370-4. doi: 10.1126/science.1153307.
10. Mueller S, Weder C, Foster EJ. Isolation of cellulose nanocrystals from pseudostems of banana plants. RSC Advances. 2014;4(2):907-15. doi: 10.1039/c3ra46390g.
11. Petersen N, Gatenholm P. Bacterial cellulose-based materials and medical devices: current state and perspectives. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2011;91(5):1277-86. doi: 10.1007/s00253-011-3432-y.
12. Šturcová A, His I, Apperley DC, Sugiyama J, Jarvis MC. Structural details of crystalline cellulose from higher plants. Biomacromolecules. 2004;5(4):1333-9. doi: 10.1021/bm034517p.
13. VanderHart DL, Atalla RH. Studies of microstructure in native celluloses using solid-state carbon-13 NMR. Macromolecules. 1984;17(8):1465-72. doi: 10.1021/ma00138a009.
14. Poland CA, Duffin R, Kinloch I, Maynard A, Wallace WAH, Seaton A, et al. Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study. Nat Nanotechnol. 2008;3(7):423-8. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2008.111.
15. Moon RJ, Martini A, Nairn J, Simonsen J, Youngblood J. Cellulose nanomaterials review: structure, properties and nanocomposites. Chem Soc Rev. 2011;40(7):3941-94. doi: 10.1039/c0cs00108b.
16. Šturcová A, Davies GR, Eichhorn SJ. Elastic modulus and stress-transfer properties of tunicate cellulose whiskers. Biomacromolecules. 2005;6(2):1055-61. doi: 10.1021/bm049291k.
17. De Souza Lima MM, Wong JT, Paillet M, Borsali R, Pecora R. Translational and rotational dynamics of rodlike cellulose whiskers. Langmuir. 2002;19(1):24-9. doi: 10.1021/la020475z.
18. Araki J, Wada M, Kuga S, Okano T. Flow properties of microcrystalline cellulose suspension prepared by acid treatment of native cellulose. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp. 1998;142(1):75-82. doi: 10.1016/s0927-7757(98)00404-x.
19. Hua K, Carlsson DO, Alander E, Lindstrom T, Stromme M, Mihranyan A, et al. Translational study between structure and biological response of nanocellulose from wood and green algae. RSC Adv. 2014;4(6):2892-903. doi: 10.1039/c3ra45553j.
20. Habibi Y, Lucia LA, Rojas OJ. Cellulose Nanocrystals: chemistry, Self-Assembly, and Applications. Chem Rev. 2010;110(6):3479-500. doi: 10.1021/cr900339w.
21. Henriksson M, Henriksson G, Berglund LA, Lindstrom T. An environmentally friendly method for enzyme-assisted preparation of microfibrillated cellulose (MFC) nanofibers. Eur Polymer J. 2007;43(8):3434-41. doi: 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2007.05.038.
22. Saito T, Kimura S, Nishiyama Y, Isogai A. Cellulose nanofibers prepared by TEMPO-mediated oxidation of native cellulose. Biomacromolecules. 2007;8(8):2485-91. doi: 10.1021/bm0703970.
23. Isogai A, Saito T, Fukuzumi H. TEMPO-oxidized cellulose nanofibers. Nanoscale. 2011;3(1):71-85. doi: 10.1039/C0NR00583E.
24. Dong XM, Revol JF, Gray DG. Effect of microcrystallite preparation conditions on the formation of colloid crystals of cellulose. Cellulose. 1998;5(1):19-32.
25. Camarero Espinosa S, Kuhnt T, Foster EJ, Weder C. Isolation of thermally stable cellulose nanocrystals by phosphoric acid hydrolysis. Biomacromolecules. 2013;14(4):1223-30. doi: 10.1021/bm400219u.
26. Wang N, Ding E, Cheng R. Thermal degradation behaviors of spherical cellulose nanocrystals with sulfate groups. Polymer. 2007;48(12):3486-93. doi: 10.1016/j.polymer.2007.03.062.
27. Roman M, Winter WT. Effect of sulfate groups from sulfuric acid hydrolysis on the thermal degradation behavior of bacterial cellulose. Biomacromolecules. 2004;5(5):1671-7. doi: 10.1021/bm034519+.
28. Rambo CR, Recouvreux DOS, Carminatti CA, Pitlovanciv AK, Antônio RV, Porto LM. Template assisted synthesis of porous nanofibrous cellulose membranes for tissue engineering. Mater Sci Eng C. 2008;28(4):549-54. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2007.11.011.
29. Klemm D, Schumann D, Udhardt U, Marsch S. Bacterial synthesized cellulose-artificial blood vessels for microsurgery. Prog Polym Sci. 2001;26(9):1561-603. doi: 10.1016/s0079-6700(01)00021-1.
30. Tashiro K, Kobayashi M. Theoretical evaluation of 3-dimensional elastic-constants of native and regenerated celluloses-role of hydrogen-bonds. Polymer. 1991;32(8):1516-30. doi: 10.1016/0032-3861(91)90435-l.
31. Meyer KH, Lotmar W. Sur l'élasticité de la cellulose. (Sur la constitution de la partie cristallisée de la cellulose IV). Helv Chim Acta. 1936;19(1):68-86. doi: 10.1002/hlca.19360190110.
32. Favier V, Canova GR, Shrivastava SC, Cavaille JY. Mechanical percolation in cellulose whisker nanocomposites. Polym Eng Sci. 1997;37(10):1732-9. doi: 10.1002/pen.11821.
33. Capadona JR, Van Den Berg O, Capadona LA, Schroeter M, Rowan SJ, Tyler DJ, et al. A versatile approach for the processing of polymer nanocomposites with self-assembled nanofibre templates. Nat Nanotechnol. 2007;2(12):765-9. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2007.379.
34. Shanmuganathan K, Capadona JR, Rowan SJ, Weder C. Bio-inspired mechanically-adaptive nanocomposites derived from cotton cellulose whiskers. J Mater Chem. 2010;20(1):180-6. doi: 10.1039/b916130a.
35. Sapkota J, Jorfi M, Weder C, Foster EJ. Reinforcing poly(ethylene) with cellulose nanocrystals. Macromol Rapid Commun. 2014;35(20):1747-53. doi: 10.1002/marc.201400382.
36. Mueller S, Sapkota J, Nicharat A, Zimmermann T, Tingaut P, Weder C, et al. Influence of the nanofiber dimensions on the properties of nanocellulose/poly(vinyl alcohol) aerogels. J Appl Polymer Sci. 2015. doi: 10.1002/app.41740.
37. Biyani MV, Foster EJ, Weder C. Light-healable supramolecular nanocomposites based on modified cellulose nanocrystals. ACS Macro Lett. 2013;2(3):236-40. doi: 10.1021/mz400059w.
38. Annamalai PK, Dagnon KL, Monemian S, Foster EJ, Rowan SJ, Weder C. Water-responsive mechanically adaptive nanocomposites based on styrene-butadiene rubber and cellulose nanocrystals-processing matters. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2014;6(2):967-76. doi: 10.1021/am404382x.
39. Camarero-Espinosa S, Boday DJ, Weder C, Foster EJ. Cellulose nanocrystal driven crystallization of poly(d, l-lactide) and improvement of the thermomechanical properties. J Appl Polym Sci. 2015;132(10):41607. doi: 10.1002/app.41607.
40. Pei A, Zhou Q, Berglund LA. Functionalized cellulose nanocrystals as biobased nucleation agents in poly(L-lactide) (PLLA)-crystallization and mechanical property effects. Compos Sci Technol. 2010;70(5):815-21. doi: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2010.01.018.
41. Kuhnt T, Herrmann A, Benczedi D, Foster EJ, Weder C. Functionalized cellulose nanocrystals as nanocarriers for sustained fragrance release. Polymer Chem. 2015;6(36):6553-62. doi: 10.1039/C5PY00944H.
42. Schyrr B, Pasche S, Voirin G, Weder C, Simon YC, Foster EJ. Biosensors based on porous cellulose nanocrystal-poly(vinyl alcohol) scaffolds. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2014;6(15):12674-83. doi: 10.1021/am502670u.
43. Muller FA, Muller L, Hofmann I, Greil P, Wenzel MM, Staudenmaier R. Cellulose-based scaffold materials for cartilage tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2006;27(21):3955-63. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.02.031.
44. Camarero-Espinosa S, Rothen-Rutishauser B, Foster EJ, Weder C. Articular cartilage: from formation to tissue engineering. Biomater Sci. 2016;4(5):734-67. doi: 10.1039/C6BM00068A.
45. TAPPI. International nanocellulose standards-The need and purpose of standards for nanocellulosic materials. TAPPI: Norcross, 201. http://www.tappinano.org. Accessed 29 Aug 2016.
46. http://celluforce.com/en/product_plant.php. Accessed 29 Aug 2016.
47. ASPI. Domtar expands into nanotechnology. ASPI News. 2012;9(2):4-5.
48. Inventia. http://www.tappi.org/Downloads/Conference-Papers/2011/2011-TAPPI-International-Conference-on-Nanotechnology-for-Renewable-Materials/11NANO44.aspx.
49. Cowie J, Bilek EM, Wegner TH, Shatkin JA. Market projections of cellulose nanomaterial-enabled products-part 2: volume estimates. TAPPI J. 2014;13(6):57-69.
50. Shatkin JA, Wegner TH, Bilek EM, Cowie J. Market projections of cellulose nanomaterial-enabled products-part 1: applications. TAPPI J. 2014;13(5):9-16.
51. Roman M. Toxicity of cellulose nanocrystals: a review. Ind Biotechnol. 2015;11(1):25-33. doi: 10.1089/ind.2014.0024.
52. Warheit DB, Reed KL, Webb TR. Man-made respirable-sized organic fibers: what do we know about their toxicological profiles? Ind Health. 2001;39(2):119-25. doi: 10.2486/indhealth.39.119.
53. Camarero-Espinosa S, Endes C, Mueller S, Petri-Fink A, Rothen-Rutishauser B, Weder C, et al. Elucidating the potential biological impact of cellulose nanocrystals. Fibers. 2016;4(3):21.
54. Stone V, Miller MR, Clift MJD, Elder A, Mills NL, Moller P, et al. Nanomaterials vs ambient ultrafine particles: an opportunity to exchange toxicology knowledge. Environ Health Perspect. 2016. doi: 10.1289/EHP424.
55. Poland CA, Duffin R, Kinloch I, Maynard A, Wallace WAH, Seaton A, et al. Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study. Nat Nano. 2008;3(7):423-8.
56. Donaldson K, Murphy FA, Duffin R, Poland CA. Asbestos, carbon nanotubes and the pleural mesothelium: a review of the hypothesis regarding the role of long fibre retention in the parietal pleura, inflammation and mesothelioma. Particle Fibre Toxicol. 2010;7:5.
57. Becklake MR. Asbestos-related diseases of lung and other organs-their epidemiology and implications for clinical practice. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1976;114(1):187-227.
58. Donaldson K, Tran CL. An introduction to the short-term toxicology of respirable industrial fibres. Mutation Res Fundam Mol Mech Mutagen. 2004;553(1-2):5-9. doi: 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2004.06.011.
59. Bernstein DM. Synthetic vitreous fibers: a review toxicology, epidemiology and regulations. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2007;37(10):839-86. doi: 10.1080/10408440701524592.
60. Wick P, Clift MJD, Rösslein M, Rothen-Rutishauser B. A brief summary of carbon nanotubes science and technology: a health and safety perspective. ChemSusChem. 2011;4(7):905-11. doi: 10.1002/cssc.201100161.
61. Donaldson K, Brown RC, Brown GM. New perspectives on basic mechanisms in lung disease. 5. Respirable industrial fibres: mechanisms of pathogenicity. Thorax. 1993;48(4):390-5. doi: 10.1136/thx.48.4.390.
62. Furness G, Maitland HB. Studies on cotton dust in relation to byssinosis. 1. Bacteria and fungi in cotton dust. Br J Ind Med. 1952;9(2):138-45.
63. Niven RM, Pickering CAC. Byssinosis: a review. Thorax. 1996;51(6):632-7.
64. Pickering CAC, Niven R. Byssinosis and other cotton-related diseases. Hunter's diseases of occupations, 10th Edn. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton. 2010.
65. Tatrai E, Adamis Z, Bohm U, Meretey K, Ungvary G. Role of cellulose in wood dust-induced fibrosing alveo-bronchiolitis in rat. J Appl Toxicol. 1995;15(1):45-8.
66. Warheit DB, Snajdr SI, Harstsky MA, Frame SR. Advances in the prevention of occupational respiratory diseases. International Congress Series, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science; 1998. p. 579-89.
67. Davis JMG. The need for standardized testing procedures for all products capable of liberating respirable fibers-the example of materials based on cellulose. Br J Ind Med. 1993;50(2):187-90.
68. Stefaniak AB, Seehra MS, Fix NR, Leonard SS. Lung biodurability and free radical production of cellulose nanomaterials. Inhal Toxicol. 2014;26(12):733-49. doi: 10.3109/08958378.2014.948650.
69. Muhle H, Ernst H, Bellmann B. Investigation of the durability of cellulose fibres in rat lungs. Ann Occup Hyg. 1997;41(Supplement 1):184-8.
70. Shatkin JA, Kim B. Cellulose nanomaterials: life cycle risk assessment, and environmental health and safety roadmap. Environ Sci Nano. 2015;5(2):477-99.
71. Köhler AR, Som C, Helland A, Gottschalk F. Studying the potential release of carbon nanotubes throughout the application life cycle. J Clean Prod. 2008;16(8-9):927-37. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.04.007.
72. Albanese A, Tang PS, Chan WCW. The Effect of nanoparticle size, shape, and surface chemistry on biological systems. In: Yarmush ML, editor. Annual review of biomedical engineering, vol 14. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering; 2012. p. 1-16.
73. Clift MJD, Rothen-Rutishauser B, Brown DM, Duffin R, Donaldson K, Proudfoot L, et al. The impact of different nanoparticle surface chemistry and size on uptake and toxicity in a murine macrophage cell line. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2008;232(3):418-27. doi: 10.1016/j.taap.2008.06.009.
74. Donaldson K, Schinwald A, Murphy F, Cho W-S, Duffin R, Lang T, et al. The biologically effective dose in inhalation nanotoxicology. Acc Chem Res. 2013;46(3):723-32. doi: 10.1021/ar300092y.
75. Vartiainen J, Pohler T, Sirola K, Pylkkanen L, Alenius H, Hokkinen J, et al. Health and environmental safety aspects of friction grinding and spray drying of microfibrillated cellulose. Cellulose. 2011;18(3):775-86. doi: 10.1007/s10570-011-9501-7.
76. Kovacs T, Naish V, O'Connor B, Blaise C, Gagne F, Hall L, et al. An ecotoxicological characterization of nanocrystalline cellulose (NCC). Nanotoxicology. 2010;4(3):255-70. doi: 10.3109/17435391003628713.
77. Male KB, Leung ACW, Montes J, Kamen A, Luong JHT. Probing inhibitory effects of nanocrystalline cellulose: inhibition versus surface charge. Nanoscale. 2012;4(4):1373-9. doi: 10.1039/c2nr11886f.
78. Dong S, Hirani AA, Colacino KR, Lee YW, Roman M. Cytotoxicity and cellular uptake of cellulose nanocrystals. Nano LIFE. 2012;02(03):1241006. doi: 10.1142/S1793984412410061.
79. Endes C, Mueller S, Kinnear C, Vanhecke D, Foster EJ, Petri-Fink A, et al. Fate of cellulose nanocrystal aerosols deposited on the lung cell surface in vitro. Biomacromolecules. 2015;16(4):1267-75. doi: 10.1021/acs.biomac.5b00055.
80. Endes C, Schmid O, Kinnear C, Mueller S, Camarero-Espinosa S, Vanhecke D, et al. An in vitro testing strategy towards mimicking the inhalation of high aspect ratio nanoparticles. Particle Fibre Toxicol. 2014;11(1):40.
81. Jeong SI, Lee SE, Yang H, Jin YH, Park CS, Park YS. Toxicologic evaluation of bacterial synthesized cellulose in endothelial cells and animals. Mol Cell Toxicol. 2010;6(4):373-80. doi: 10.1007/s13273-010-0049-7.
82. Moreira S, Silva NB, Almeida-Lima J, Oliveira Rocha HA, Batistuzzo Medeiros SR, Alves C Jr, et al. BC nanofibres: in vitro study of genotoxicity and cell proliferation. Toxicol Lett. 2009;189(3):235-41. doi: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2009.06.849.
83. Mahmoud KA, Mena JA, Male KB, Hrapovic S, Kamen A, Luong JHT. Effect of surface charge on the cellular uptake and cytotoxicity of fluorescent labeled cellulose nanocrystals. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2010;2(10):2924-32. doi: 10.1021/am1006222.
84. Pereira M, Mouton L, Yepremian C, Coute A, Lo J, Marconcini J, et al. Ecotoxicological effects of carbon nanotubes and cellulose nanofibers in Chlorella vulgaris. J Nanobiotechnol. 2014;12(1):15.
85. Catalan J, Ilves M, Jarventaus H, Hannukainen KS, Kontturi E, Vanhala E, et al. Genotoxic and immunotoxic effects of cellulose nanocrystals in vitro. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2014;56(2):171-82
86. Hanif Z, Ahmed FR, Shin SW, Kim Y-K, Um SH. Size- and dose-dependent toxicity of cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) on human fibroblasts and colon adenocarcinoma. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2014;119:162-5. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2014.04.018.
87. de Lima R, Feitosa LO, Maruyama CR, Barga MA, Yamawaki PC, Vieira IJ, et al. Evaluation of the genotoxicity of cellulose nanofibers. Int J Nanomed. 2012;7:3555-65. doi: 10.2147/ijn.s30596.
88. Pereira MM, Raposo NRB, Brayner R, Teixeira EM, Oliveira V, Quintao CCR, et al. Cytotoxicity and expression of genes involved in the cellular stress response and apoptosis in mammalian fibroblast exposed to cotton cellulose nanofibers. Nanotechnology. 2013;24(7):075103.
89. Colic M, Mihajlovic D, Mathew A, Naseri N, Kokol V. Cytocompatibility and immunomodulatory properties of wood based nanofibrillated cellulose. Cellulose. 2015;22(1):763-78. doi: 10.1007/s10570-014-0524-8.
90. Yanamala N, Farcas MT, Hatfield MK, Kisin ER, Kagan VE, Geraci CL, et al. In vivo evaluation of the pulmonary toxicity of cellulose nanocrystals: a renewable and sustainable nanomaterial of the future. ACS Sustain Chem Eng. 2014;2(7):1691-8. doi: 10.1021/sc500153k.
91. Clift MJD, Foster EJ, Vanhecke D, Studer D, Wick P, Gehr P, et al. Investigating the interaction of cellulose nanofibers derived from cotton with a sophisticated 3D human lung cell coculture. Biomacromolecules. 2011;12(10):3666-73. doi: 10.1021/bm200865j.
92. Catalan J, Ilves M, Jarventaus H, Hannukainen K-S, Kontturi E, Vanhala E, et al. Genotoxic and immunotoxic effects of cellulose nanocrystals in vitro. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2015;56(2):171-82. doi: 10.1002/em.21913.
93. Hannukainen KS, Suhonen S, Savolainen K, Norppa H. Genotoxicity of nanofibrillated cellulose in vitro as measured by enzyme comet assay. Toxicol Lett. 2012;211:S71. doi: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2012.03.276.
94. Shvedova AA, Kisin ER, Yanamala N, Farcas MT, Menas AL, Williams A, Fournier PM, Reynolds JS, Gutkin DW, Star A, Reiner RS, Halappanavar S, Kagan VE. Gender differences in murine pulmonary responses elicited by cellulose nanocrystals. Part Fibre Toxicol. 2016;13(1):28. doi: 10.1186/s12989-016-0140-x.
95. Farcas MT, Kisin ER, Menas AL, Gutkin DW, Star A, Reiner RS, Yanamala N, Savolainen K, Shvedova AA. Pulmonary exposure to cellulose nanocrystals caused deleterious effects to reproductive system in male mice. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2016;24:1-14.
96. Sacui IA, Nieuwendaal RC, Burnett DJ, Stranick SJ, Jorfi M, Weder C, et al. Comparison of the properties of cellulose nanocrystals and cellulose nanofibrils isolated from bacteria, tunicate, and wood processed using acid, enzymatic, mechanical, and oxidative methods. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2014;6(9):6127-38. doi: 10.1021/am500359f.