Natural Nanoparticles: Implications for Environment and Human Health

Nanomaterials are engineered structures with at least one dimension of 100 nanometers or less. These materials are increasingly being used for commercial purposes such as fillers, opacifiers, catalysts, semiconductors, cosmetics, microelectronics, and drug carriers. Materials in this size range may approach the length scale at which some specific physical or chemical interactions with their environment can occur. As a result, their properties differ substantially from those bulk materials of the same composition, allowing them to perform exceptional feats of conductivity, reactivity, and optical sensitivity. Possible undesirable results of these capabilities are harmful interactions with biological systems and the environment, with the potential to generate toxicity. The establishment of principles and test procedures to ensure safe manufacture and use of nanomaterials in the marketplace is urgently required and achievable.

Although humans have been exposed to airborne nanosized particles (NSPs; < 100 nm) throughout their evolutionary stages, such exposure has increased dramatically over the last century due to anthropogenic sources. The rapidly developing field of nanotechnology is likely to become yet another source through inhalation, ingestion, skin uptake, and injection of engineered nanomaterials. Information about safety and potential hazards is urgently needed. Results of older bio-kinetic studies with NSPs and newer epidemiologic and toxicologic studies with airborne ultrafine particles can be viewed as the basis for the expanding field of nanotoxicology, which can be defined as safety evaluation of engineered nanostructures and nanodevices. Collectively, some emerging concepts of nanotoxicology can be identified from the results of these studies. When inhaled, specific sizes of NSPs are efficiently deposited by diffusional mechanisms in all regions of the respiratory tract. The small size facilitates uptake into cells and transcytosis across epithelial and endothelial cells into the blood and lymph circulation to reach potentially sensitive target sites such as bone marrow, lymph nodes, spleen, and heart. Access to the central nervous system and ganglia via translocation along axons and dendrites of neurons has also been observed. NSPs penetrating the skin distribute via uptake into lymphatic channels. Endocytosis and biokinetics are largely dependent on NSP surface chemistry (coating) and in vivo surface modifications. The greater surface area per mass compared with larger-sized particles of the same chemistry renders NSPs more active biologically. This activity includes a potential for inflammatory and pro-oxidant, but also antioxidant, activity, which can explain early findings showing mixed results in terms of toxicity of NSPs to environmentally relevant species. Evidence of mitochondrial distribution and oxidative stress response after NSP endocytosis points to a need for basic research on their interactions with subcellular structures. Additional considerations for assessing safety of engineered NSPs include careful selections of appropriate and relevant doses/concentrations, the likelihood of increased effects in a compromised organism, and also the benefits of possible desirable effects. An interdisciplinary team approach (e.g., toxicology, materials science, medicine, molecular biology, and bioinformatics, to name a few) is mandatory for nanotoxicology research to arrive at an appropriate risk assessment.

Arsenic's history in science, medicine and technology has been overshadowed by its notoriety as a poison in homicides. Arsenic is viewed as being synonymous with toxicity. Dangerous arsenic concentrations in natural waters is now a worldwide problem and often referred to as a 20th-21st century calamity. High arsenic concentrations have been reported recently from the USA, China, Chile, Bangladesh, Taiwan, Mexico, Argentina, Poland, Canada, Hungary, Japan and India. Among 21 countries in different parts of the world affected by groundwater arsenic contamination, the largest population at risk is in Bangladesh followed by West Bengal in India. Existing overviews of arsenic removal include technologies that have traditionally been used (oxidation, precipitation/coagulation/membrane separation) with far less attention paid to adsorption. No previous review is available where readers can get an overview of the sorption capacities of both available and developed sorbents used for arsenic remediation together with the traditional remediation methods. We have incorporated most of the valuable available literature on arsenic remediation by adsorption ( approximately 600 references). Existing purification methods for drinking water; wastewater; industrial effluents, and technological solutions for arsenic have been listed. Arsenic sorption by commercially available carbons and other low-cost adsorbents are surveyed and critically reviewed and their sorption efficiencies are compared. Arsenic adsorption behavior in presence of other impurities has been discussed. Some commercially available adsorbents are also surveyed. An extensive table summarizes the sorption capacities of various adsorbents. Some low-cost adsorbents are superior including treated slags, carbons developed from agricultural waste (char carbons and coconut husk carbons), biosorbents (immobilized biomass, orange juice residue), goethite and some commercial adsorbents, which include resins, gels, silica, treated silica tested for arsenic removal come out to be superior. Immobilized biomass adsorbents offered outstanding performances. Desorption of arsenic followed by regeneration of sorbents has been discussed. Strong acids and bases seem to be the best desorbing agents to produce arsenic concentrates. Arsenic concentrate treatment and disposal obtained is briefly addressed. This issue is very important but much less discussed.