Toxicological evaluation of silver nanoparticles and silver nitrate in rats following 28 days of repeated oral exposure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The increasing application of silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) has been raising concerns about their potential adverse effects to human and the environment. However, the knowledge on the systemic toxicity of AgNPs in mammalian systems is still limited. The present study investigated the toxicity of PVP‐coated AgNPs in rats treated with repeated oral administration, and compared that with equivalent dose of AgNO3. Specifically, one hundred male and female rats were orally administrated with particulate or ionic forms of silver (Ag) separately at doses of 0.5 and 1 mg kg−1 body weight daily for 28 days. The results reveal no significant toxic effects of AgNPs and AgNO3 up to 1 mg kg−1 body weight, with respect to the body weight, organ weight, food intake, and histopathological examination. Ag distribution pattern in organs of rats treated with AgNPs was similar to that of AgNO3 treated rats, showing liver and kidneys are the main target organs followed by testis and spleen. The total Ag contents in organs were significantly lower in the AgNPs treated rats than those in the AgNO3 treated rats. However, the comparisons between AgNPs and AgNO3 treatments further indicated more potent of AgNPs in biochemical and hematological parameters in rats, including red blood cell count (RBC), platelet count (PLT), white blood cell count (WBC) and aspartate transaminase (AST). Results of this study suggested that particulate Ag at least partially contributed to the observed toxicity of AgNPs, and both ionic and particulate Ag should be taken into consideration in toxicological evaluation of AgNPs. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Environ Toxicol 32: 609–618, 2017.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".