CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 160

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Impact of storage conditions and storage time on silver nanoparticles' physicochemical properties and implications for their biological effects

Izak-Nau, E., Huk, A., Reidy, B., Uggerud, H., Vadset, M., Eiden, S., Voetz, M., Himly, M., Duschl, A., Dusinska, M., Lynch, I.·2015·RSC Advances
DOI 10.1039/c5ra10187e
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A multi-parametric assessment of the impact of storage time/conditions and capping agent charge on the stability and toxicity of AgNPs showed agglomeration, dissolution, oxidation, capping agent degradation and attachment of Ag + ions all play a role.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1039/c5ra10187e

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 TEM pictures of AgNPs stored at: (1) T0, (2) T6:4  C-D, (3) T6:RT-D, (4) T6:RT-DL (scale bar 20 nm).
Fig. 1 TEM pictures of AgNPs stored at: (1) T0, (2) T6:4  C-D, (3) T6:RT-D, (4) T6:RT-DL (scale bar 20 nm).CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 2 DLS of AgNPs from di ff erent time points and storage conditions.
Fig. 2 DLS of AgNPs from di ff erent time points and storage conditions.CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 3 UV-vis of AgNPs from di ff erent time points and storage conditions.
Fig. 3 UV-vis of AgNPs from di ff erent time points and storage conditions.CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 4 Zeta potential of AgNPs from di ff erent time points and storage conditions.
Fig. 4 Zeta potential of AgNPs from di ff erent time points and storage conditions.CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 5 ICP-MS measurements of dissolved Ag from AgNPs at time 0, and after 6 months storage. AgNP samples with di ff erent charge and surface composition were stored for 6 months in T ¼ 4  Cwithout light exposure (T6:4  C-D); in T ¼ 21  Cwithout light exposure (T6:RT-D) and in T ¼ 21  C with light exposure (T6:RT-DL). The amount of released Ag ions was calculated as the di ff erence between the Ag detected at time 0 and 6 months in the extracted fraction. AgNPs with positive charge (chitosan and BYK) were found to interfere with the solid phase of extracted columns and the amount of released silver ions couldn't be estimated for them by this method.
Fig. 5 ICP-MS measurements of dissolved Ag from AgNPs at time 0, and after 6 months storage. AgNP samples with di ff erent charge and surface composition were stored for 6 months in T ¼ 4  Cwithout light exposure (T6:4  C-D); in T ¼ 21  Cwithout light exposure (T6:RT-D) and in T ¼ 21  C with light exposure (T6:RT-DL). The amount of released Ag ions was calculated as the di ff erence between the Ag detected at time 0 and 6 months in the extracted fraction. AgNPs with positive charge (chitosan and BYK) were found to interfere with the solid phase of extracted columns and the amount of released silver ions couldn't be estimated for them by this method.CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 6 AgNPs stored at: (1) T0, (2) T6:4  C-D, (3) T6:RT-D, (4) T6:RT-DL.
Fig. 6 AgNPs stored at: (1) T0, (2) T6:4  C-D, (3) T6:RT-D, (4) T6:RT-DL.CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 7 Impact of time and storage conditions on cytotoxicity of AgNPs with negative surface charge (Ag_Citrate, Ag_SDS). AgNPs samples were stored for 6 months in di ff erent conditions: T ¼ 4  Cwithout light exposure (T6:4  C-D); in T ¼ 21  Cwithout light exposure (T6:RT-D); in T ¼ 21  Cwith light exposure (T6:RT-DL). Cytotoxicity was measured by HCS (Laboratory 1) and by RGA and PE assay (Laboratory 2). Columns represent cytotoxicity relative to 100% of negative control (untreated cells). The data are expressed as mean  SE of three independent experiments. Letters indicate results between which statistically signi fi cant di ff erence has been found (a -T0 and T6:4  C-D; b -T0 and T6:RT-D; c -T0 and T6:RTDL; d -T6:4  C-D and T6:RT-D; e -T6:RT-D and T6:RT-DL; f -T6:4  C-D and T6:RT-DL).
Fig. 7 Impact of time and storage conditions on cytotoxicity of AgNPs with negative surface charge (Ag_Citrate, Ag_SDS). AgNPs samples were stored for 6 months in di ff erent conditions: T ¼ 4  Cwithout light exposure (T6:4  C-D); in T ¼ 21  Cwithout light exposure (T6:RT-D); in T ¼ 21  Cwith light exposure (T6:RT-DL). Cytotoxicity was measured by HCS (Laboratory 1) and by RGA and PE assay (Laboratory 2). Columns represent cytotoxicity relative to 100% of negative control (untreated cells). The data are expressed as mean  SE of three independent experiments. Letters indicate results between which statistically signi fi cant di ff erence has been found (a -T0 and T6:4  C-D; b -T0 and T6:RT-D; c -T0 and T6:RTDL; d -T6:4  C-D and T6:RT-D; e -T6:RT-D and T6:RT-DL; f -T6:4  C-D and T6:RT-DL).CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 8 Impact of time and storage conditions on cytotoxicity of AgNPs stabilized by chitosan (Ag_Chitosan) and Byk (Ag_Byk). Ag NPs samples were stored for 6 months under di ff erent conditions: T ¼ 4  Cwithout light exposure (T6:4  C-D); T ¼ 21  Cwithout light exposure (T6:RT-D); T ¼ 21  C with light exposure (T6:RT-DL). Cytotoxicity was measured by HCS (Laboratory 1) and by RGA and PE assay (Laboratory 2). Columns represent cytotoxicity relative to 100% of negative control (untreated cells). The data are expressed as mean  SE of three independent experiments. Letters indicate results between which statistically signi fi cant di ff erence has been found (a -T0 and T6:4  C-D; b -T0 and T6:RTD; c -T0 and T6:RT-DL; d -T6:4  C-D and T6:RT-D; e -T6:RT-D and T6:RT-DL; f -T6:4  C-D and T6:RT-DL).
Fig. 8 Impact of time and storage conditions on cytotoxicity of AgNPs stabilized by chitosan (Ag_Chitosan) and Byk (Ag_Byk). Ag NPs samples were stored for 6 months under di ff erent conditions: T ¼ 4  Cwithout light exposure (T6:4  C-D); T ¼ 21  Cwithout light exposure (T6:RT-D); T ¼ 21  C with light exposure (T6:RT-DL). Cytotoxicity was measured by HCS (Laboratory 1) and by RGA and PE assay (Laboratory 2). Columns represent cytotoxicity relative to 100% of negative control (untreated cells). The data are expressed as mean  SE of three independent experiments. Letters indicate results between which statistically signi fi cant di ff erence has been found (a -T0 and T6:4  C-D; b -T0 and T6:RTD; c -T0 and T6:RT-DL; d -T6:4  C-D and T6:RT-D; e -T6:RT-D and T6:RT-DL; f -T6:4  C-D and T6:RT-DL).CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 9 Impact of time and storage conditions on cytotoxicity of AgNPs stabilized by Disperbyk (Ag_Disperbyk) and Tween (Ag_Tween). AgNPs samples were stored for 6 months under the following conditions: T ¼ 4  Cwithout light exposure (T6:4  C-D); T ¼ 21  Cwithout light exposure (T6:RT-D); T ¼ 21  C with light exposure (T6:RT-DL). Cytotoxicity was measured by HCS (Laboratory 1) and by RGA and PE assay (Laboratory 2). Columns represent cytotoxicity relative to 100% of negative control (untreated cells). The data are expressed as mean  SE of three independent experiments. Letters indicate results between which statistically signi fi cant di ff erence has been found (a -T0 and T6:4  C-D; b -T0 and T6:RTD; c -T0 and T6:RT-DL; d -T6:4  C-D and T6:RT-D; e -T6:RT-D and T6:RT-DL; f -T6:4  C-D and T6:RT-DL).
Fig. 9 Impact of time and storage conditions on cytotoxicity of AgNPs stabilized by Disperbyk (Ag_Disperbyk) and Tween (Ag_Tween). AgNPs samples were stored for 6 months under the following conditions: T ¼ 4  Cwithout light exposure (T6:4  C-D); T ¼ 21  Cwithout light exposure (T6:RT-D); T ¼ 21  C with light exposure (T6:RT-DL). Cytotoxicity was measured by HCS (Laboratory 1) and by RGA and PE assay (Laboratory 2). Columns represent cytotoxicity relative to 100% of negative control (untreated cells). The data are expressed as mean  SE of three independent experiments. Letters indicate results between which statistically signi fi cant di ff erence has been found (a -T0 and T6:4  C-D; b -T0 and T6:RTD; c -T0 and T6:RT-DL; d -T6:4  C-D and T6:RT-D; e -T6:RT-D and T6:RT-DL; f -T6:4  C-D and T6:RT-DL).CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 54

  1. Gupta, 2008, J. Cotton Sci., 12, 280
  2. Lee, 2007, ACS Nano, 1, 133, 10.1021/nn700048y · DOI · Paper page
  3. Silver, 2006, J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol., 33, 627, 10.1007/s10295-006-0139-7 · DOI
  4. Tolaymat, 2010, Sci. Total Environ., 408, 999, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.11.003 · DOI
  5. Köhler, 2008, Chem. Eng. Sci., 63, 5048, 10.1016/j.ces.2007.11.038 · DOI
  6. Petica, 2008, Mater. Sci. Eng., B, 152, 22, 10.1016/j.mseb.2008.06.021 · DOI
  7. Russell, 1994, Prog. Med. Chem., 31, 351, 10.1016/S0079-6468(08)70024-9 · DOI
  8. Yuning, 2005, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 127, 3266, 10.1021/ja043425k · DOI
  9. Herzog, 2013, Part. Fibre Toxicol., 10, 11, 10.1186/1743-8977-10-11 · DOI
  10. Ratte, 1999, Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 18, 89, 10.1002/etc.5620180112 · DOI
  11. Sung, 2009, Toxicol. Sci., 108, 452, 10.1093/toxsci/kfn246 · DOI
  12. el Badawy, 2010, Environ. Sci. Technol., 44, 1260, 10.1021/es902240k · DOI
  13. Tejamaja, 2012, Environ. Sci. Technol., 46, 7011, 10.1021/es2038596 · DOI
  14. Gorham, 2014, J. Nanopart. Res., 16, 2339, 10.1007/s11051-014-2339-9 · DOI
  15. Elzey, 2010, J. Nanopart. Res., 12, 1945, 10.1007/s11051-009-9783-y · DOI
  16. Teeguarden, 2007, Toxicol. Sci., 95, 300, 10.1093/toxsci/kfl165 · DOI
  17. Jacobson, 2005, Environ. Pollut., 135, 1, 10.1016/j.envpol.2004.10.017 · DOI
  18. Kvitek, 2008, J. Phys. Chem. C, 112, 5825, 10.1021/jp711616v · DOI
  19. Li, 2012, Langmuir, 28, 1095, 10.1021/la202328n · DOI
  20. Shin, 2004, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 274, 89, 10.1016/j.jcis.2004.02.084 · DOI
  21. Cisneros, 2009, Microelectron. J., 40, 618, 10.1016/j.mejo.2008.06.043 · DOI
  22. Shkilnyy, 2009, Analyst, 134, 1868, 10.1039/b905694g · DOI
  23. Liu, 2010, Environ. Sci. Technol., 44, 2169, 10.1021/es9035557 · DOI
  24. Suresh, 2012, Langmuir, 28, 2727, 10.1021/la2042058 · DOI
  25. Varela, 2012, J. Nanobiotechnol., 10, 39, 10.1186/1477-3155-10-39 · DOI
  26. Lankoff, 2012, Toxicol. Lett., 208, 197, 10.1016/j.toxlet.2011.11.006 · DOI
  27. Krug, 2014, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 53, 12304, 10.1002/anie.201403367 · DOI
  28. Pintoa, 2010, Colloids Surf., A, 364, 19, 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2010.04.015 · DOI
  29. Creighton, 1979, J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans. 2, 75, 790, 10.1039/f29797500790 · DOI
  30. Huk, 2015, Part. Fibre Toxicol., 12, 25, 10.1186/s12989-015-0100-x · DOI
  31. Agnihotri, 2014, RSC Adv., 4, 3974, 10.1039/C3RA44507K · DOI
  32. de Rooij, 1989, ESA Journal, 13, 363
  33. AshaRani, 2008, ACS Nano, 3, 279, 10.1021/nn800596w · DOI
  34. Gliga, 2014, Part. Fibre Toxicol., 11, 28, 10.1186/1743-8977-11-11 · DOI
  35. Huk, 2014, Part. Fibre Toxicol., 11, 65, 10.1186/s12989-014-0065-1 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Foldbjerg, 2009, Toxicol. Lett., 190, 156, 10.1016/j.toxlet.2009.07.009 · DOI
  37. Foldbjerg, 2011, Arch. Toxicol., 85, 743, 10.1007/s00204-010-0545-5 · DOI
  38. Kumarasamy, 2015, Nanoscale, 7, 4199, 10.1039/C4NR06849A · DOI
  39. Don, 2008, Nanotechnology, 19, 255702, 10.1088/0957-4484/19/25/255702 · DOI
  40. Stefaniak, 2013, Nanotoxicology, 7, 1325, 10.3109/17435390.2012.739664 · DOI
  41. Riva, 2011, Adv. Polym. Sci., 244, 19, 10.1007/12_2011_137 · DOI
  42. Zhang, 2013, Pharmaceutics, 27, 329, 10.3390/pharmaceutics5020329 · DOI
  43. Peng, 2010, Anal. Chem., 82, 8664, 10.1021/ac101919h · DOI
  44. Schneider, 1994, Photochem. Photobiol., 60, 605, 10.1111/j.1751-1097.1994.tb05156.x · DOI
  45. Xia, 2005, MRS Bull., 30, 338, 10.1557/mrs2005.96 · DOI
  46. Yin, 2002, J. Mater. Chem., 12, 522, 10.1039/b107469e · DOI
  47. Maurer, 2014, Nanotoxicology, 8, 718
  48. Hadioui, 2013, Talanta, 105, 15, 10.1016/j.talanta.2012.11.048 · DOI
  49. Trefry, 2010, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 132, 10970, 10.1021/ja103809c · DOI
  50. Dalwadi, 2005, Pharm. Res., 22, 2152, 10.1007/s11095-005-7781-z · DOI
  51. Jan, 2008, ACS Nano, 2, 928, 10.1021/nn7004393 · DOI
  52. Anguissola, 2014, PLoS One, 9, e108025, 10.1371/journal.pone.0108025 · DOI
  53. Guadagnini, 2015, Nanotoxicology, 9, 13, 10.3109/17435390.2013.829590 · DOI
  54. Kerwin, 2008, J. Pharm. Sci., 97, 2924, 10.1002/jps.21190 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 160

Metadata

Authors
Izak-Nau, E., Huk, A., Reidy, B., Uggerud, H., Vadset, M., Eiden, S., Voetz, M., Himly, M., Duschl, A., Dusinska, M., & Lynch, I.
Venue
RSC Advances
Publisher
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
Published
2015
Volume
5
Issue
102
Pages
84172-84185
ISSN
2046-2069
DOI
10.1039/c5ra10187e
Cited by
160
References
2
Language
en
Funders
  • Research Executive Agency (PITN-GA-2010-264506)
  • Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (310584, INFRA-2010-214547-2)

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Impact of storage conditions and storage time on silver nanoparticles' physicochemical properties and implications for their biological effects. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1039/c5ra10187e
The paper
Izak-Nau, E., Huk, A., Reidy, B., Uggerud, H., Vadset, M., Eiden, S., Voetz, M., Himly, M., Duschl, A., Dusinska, M., & Lynch, I. (2015). Impact of storage conditions and storage time on silver nanoparticles' physicochemical properties and implications for their biological effects. RSC Advances. https://doi.org/10.1039/c5ra10187e