Cited by 390Nanoparticles: synthesis and applicationsAdvancements in Transdermal Drug DeliveryContact Dermatitis and Allergies

Nanoparticles skin absorption: New aspects for a safety profile evaluation

Larese Filon, Francesca, Mauro, Marcella, Adami, Gianpiero, Bovenzi, Massimo, Crosera, Matteo·2015·Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

Abstract

Nanoparticles (NPs) skin absorption is a wide issue, which needs to be better understood. The attempt of this review is to summarize the scientific evidence concerning open questions, i.e.: the role of NPs intrinsic characteristics (size, shape, charge, surface properties), the penetration of NPs through the intact or impaired skin barrier, the penetration pathways which should be considered and the role of NPs interaction in physiological media. The outcomes suggest that one main difference should be made between metal and non-metal NPs. Both kinds have a secondary NPs size which is given after interaction in physiological media, and allows a size-dependent skin penetration: NPs⩽4nm can penetrate and permeate intact skin, NPs size between 4 and 20nm can potentially permeate intact and damaged skin, NPs size between 21 and 45nm can penetrate and permeate only damaged skin, NPs size>45nm cannot penetrate nor permeate the skin. Other aspects play an important role, mostly for metal NPs, i.e., dissolution in physiological media, which can cause local and systemic effects, the sensitizing or toxic potential and the tendency to create aggregates. This paper suggests a decision tree to evaluate the potential risk for consumers and workers exposed to NPs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.05.005

Cites

127 of 127 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 129 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Larese Filon, F., Mauro, M., Adami, G., Bovenzi, M., & Crosera, M.
Affiliations
University of Trieste (IT)
Corresponding author
Mauro, Marcella
Venue
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-07
Volume
72
Issue
2
Pages
310-322
ISSN
0273-2300 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W290929610
Cited by
390
References
129
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 50 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 5
FWCI
1.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ArTS Archivio della ricerca di Trieste (University of Trieste https://www.units.it/) (submittedVersion)
Funders
European Commission
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Nanoparticles: synthesis and applications
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmaceutical Science › Advancements in Transdermal Drug Delivery
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Contact Dermatitis and Allergies
Keywords
nanoparticles, percutaneous absorption, skin penetration, skin barrier, nanoparticle size, metal nanoparticles, nanoparticle dissolution, nanoparticle aggregation, sensitization, toxicity, skin permeation, risk assessment, decision tree
MeSH terms
Animals, Humans, Skin, Skin Absorption, Risk Assessment, Nanoparticles

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review