Nanobiotechnological advancements in agriculture and food industry: Applications, nanotoxicity, and future perspectives.

Valorization of agro-industrial biowaste to green nanomaterials for wastewater treatment: Approaching green chemistry and circular economy principles.

MXenes are a family of two-dimensional (2D) composite materials based on transition metal carbides, nitrides and carbonitrides that have been attracting attention since 2011. Combination of electrical and mechanical properties with hydrophilicity makes them promising materials for biomedical applications. This review briefly discusses methods for the synthesis of MXenes, their potential applications in medicine, ranging from sensors and antibacterial agents to targeted drug delivery, cancer photo/chemotherapy, tissue engineering, bioimaging, and environmental applications such as sensors and adsorbents. We focus on in vitro and in vivo toxicity and possible mechanisms. We discuss the toxicity analogies of MXenes and other 2D materials such as graphene, mentioning the greater biocompatibility of MXenes. We identify existing barriers that hinder the formation of objective knowledge about the toxicity of MXenes. The most important of these barriers are the differences in the methods of synthesis of MXenes, their composition and structure, including the level of oxidation, the number of layers and flake size; functionalization, test concentrations, duration of exposure, and individual characteristics of biological test objects Finally, we discuss key areas for further research that need to involve new methods of nanotoxicology, including predictive computational methods. Such studies will bring closer the prospect of widespread industrial production and safe use of MXene-based products.

/pdf/synthesis-toxicity-assessment-environmental-and-biomedical-1mnablhm.pdf

Synthesis, Toxicity Assessment, Environmental and Biomedical Applications of MXenes: A Review

Engineered nanomaterials are bestowed with certain inherent physicochemical properties unlike their parent materials, rendering them suitable for the multifaceted needs of state-of-the-art biomedical, and pharmaceutical applications. The log-phase development of nano-science along with improved "bench to beside" conversion carries an enhanced probability of human exposure with numerous nanoparticles. Thus, toxicity assessment of these novel nanoscale materials holds a key to ensuring the safety aspects or else the global biome will certainly face a debacle. The toxicity may span from health hazards due to direct exposure to indirect means through food chain contamination or environmental pollution, even causing genotoxicity. Multiple ways of nanotoxicity evaluation include several in vitro and in vivo methods, with in vitro methods occupying the bulk of the "experimental space." The underlying reason may be multiple, but ethical constraints in in vivo animal experiments are a significant one. Two-dimensional (2D) monoculture is undoubtedly the most exploited in vitro method providing advantages in terms of cost-effectiveness, high throughput, and reproducibility. However, it often fails to mimic a tissue or organ which possesses a defined three-dimensional structure (3D) along with intercellular communication machinery. Instead, microtissues such as spheroids or organoids having a precise 3D architecture and proximate in vivo tissue-like behavior can provide a more realistic evaluation than 2D monocultures. Recent developments in microfluidics and bioreactor-based organoid synthesis have eased the difficulties to prosper nano-toxicological analysis in organoid models surpassing the obstacle of ethical issues. The present review will enlighten applications of organoids in nanotoxicological evaluation, their advantages, and prospects toward securing commonplace nano-interventions.

/pdf/organoid-technology-a-reliable-developmental-biology-tool-2z7t9pw060.pdf

Organoid Technology: A Reliable Developmental Biology Tool for Organ-Specific Nanotoxicity Evaluation.

The growing development and applications of nanomaterials lead to an increasing release of these materials in the environment. The adverse effects they may elicit on ecosystems or human health are not always fully characterized. Such potential toxicity must be carefully assessed with the underlying mechanisms elucidated. To that purpose, different approaches can be used. First, experimental toxicology consisting of conducting in vitro or in vivo experiments (including clinical studies) can be used to evaluate the nanomaterial hazard. It can rely on variable models (more or less complex), allowing the investigation of different biological endpoints. The respective advantages and limitations of in vitro and in vivo models are discussed as well as some issues associated with experimental nanotoxicology. Perspectives of future developments in the field are also proposed. Second, computational nanotoxicology, i.e., in silico approaches, can be used to predict nanomaterial toxicity. In this context, we describe the general principles, advantages, and limitations especially of quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) models and grouping/read-across approaches. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of these different approaches based on examples and highlight their complementarity.

/pdf/experimental-and-computational-nanotoxicology-complementary-1fngp0ds.pdf

Experimental and Computational Nanotoxicology—Complementary Approaches for Nanomaterial Hazard Assessment

Millions of experimental animals are widely used in the assessment of toxicological or biological effects of manufactured nanomaterials in medical technology. However, the animal consciousness has increased and become an issue for debate in recent years. Currently, the principle of the 3Rs (i.e., reduction, refinement, and replacement) is applied to ensure the more ethical application of humane animal research. In order to avoid unethical procedures, the strategy of alternatives to animal testing has been employed to overcome the drawbacks of animal experiments. This article provides current alternative strategies to replace or reduce the use of experimental animals in the assessment of nanotoxicity. The currently available alternative methods include in vitro and in silico approaches, which can be used as cost-effective approaches to meet the principle of the 3Rs. These methods are regarded as non-animal approaches and have been implemented in many countries for scientific purposes. The in vitro experiments related to nanotoxicity assays involve cell culture testing and tissue engineering, while the in silico methods refer to prediction using molecular docking, molecular dynamics simulations, and quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) modeling. The commonly used novel cell-based methods and computational approaches have the potential to help minimize the use of experimental animals for nanomaterial toxicity assessments.

Hung Jin Huang

Papers

Current Strategies in Assessment of Nanotoxicity: Alternatives to In Vivo Animal Testing