The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
ISDD: A computational model of particle sedimentation, diffusion and target cell dosimetry for in vitro toxicity studies
Open accessAbstract
Background: The difficulty of directly measuring cellular dose is a significant obstacle to application of target tissue dosimetry for nanoparticle and microparticle toxicity assessment, particularly for in vitro systems. As a consequence, the target tissue paradigm for dosimetry and hazard assessment of nanoparticles has largely been ignored in favor of using metrics of exposure (e.g. μg particle/mL culture medium, particle surface area/mL, particle number/mL). We have developed a computational model of solution particokinetics (sedimentation, diffusion) and dosimetry for non-interacting spherical particles and their agglomerates in monolayer cell culture systems. Particle transport to cells is calculated by simultaneous solution of Stokes Law (sedimentation) and the Stokes-Einstein equation (diffusion). Results: The In vitro Sedimentation, Diffusion and Dosimetry model (ISDD) was tested against measured transport rates or cellular doses for multiple sizes of polystyrene spheres (20-1100 nm), 35 nm amorphous silica, and large agglomerates of 30 nm iron oxide particles. Overall, without adjusting any parameters, model predicted cellular doses were in close agreement with the experimental data, differing from as little as 5% to as much as three-fold, but in most cases approximately two-fold, within the limits of the accuracy of the measurement systems. Applying the model, we generalize the effects of particle size, particle density, agglomeration state and agglomerate characteristics on target cell dosimetry in vitro. Conclusions: Our results confirm our hypothesis that for liquid-based in vitro systems, the dose-rates and target cell doses for all particles are not equal; they can vary significantly, in direct contrast to the assumption of dose-equivalency implicit in the use of mass-based media concentrations as metrics of exposure for dose-response assessment. The difference between equivalent nominal media concentration exposures on a μg/mL basis and target cell doses on a particle surface area or number basis can be as high as three to six orders of magnitude. As a consequence, in vitro hazard assessments utilizing mass-based exposure metrics have inherently high errors where particle number or surface areas target cells doses are believed to drive response. The gold standard for particle dosimetry for in vitro nanotoxicology studies should be direct experimental measurement of the cellular content of the studied particle. However, where such measurements are impractical, unfeasible, and before such measurements become common, particle dosimetry models such as ISDD provide a valuable, immediately useful alternative, and eventually, an adjunct to such measurements.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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
Limbach, L. K., Li, Y., Grass, R. N., Brunner, T. J., Hintermann, M. A., Muller, M., Gunther, D., & Stark, W. J. (2005) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es051043o · Cited by 779 · cited 7×
“Limbach raised this issue [4], presenting experimental evidence that transport to cells of 25-50 nm and 250-500 nm cerium oxide particles are different, depending in the former case on diffusion and the latter case on gravitational settling.”
BackgroundInfluentialA Multiple-Path Model of Particle Deposition in the Rat Lung
Anjilvel, S. (1995) · Fundamental and Applied Toxicology · doi:10.1006/faat.1995.1144 · Cited by 498
Dosimetric Comparisons of Particle Deposition and Retention in Rats and Humans
Brown, J. S., Wilson, W. E., & Grant, L. D. (2005) · Inhalation Toxicology · doi:10.1080/08958370590929475 · Cited by 131
Cited by
Nanoparticle colloidal stability in cell culture media and impact on cellular interactions
Moore, T. L., Rodriguez-Lorenzo, L., Hirsch, V., Balog, S., Urban, D., Jud, C., Rothen-Rutishauser, B., Lattuada, M., & Petri-Fink, A. (2015) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/c4cs00487f · Cited by 1,082
Minimum information reporting in bio–nano experimental literature
Faria, M., Björnmalm, M., Thurecht, K. J., Kent, S. J., Parton, R. G., Kavallaris, M., Johnston, A. P. R., Gooding, J. J., Corrie, S. R., Boyd, B. J., et al. (2018) · Nature Nanotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41565-018-0246-4 · Cited by 710
Nanoparticle toxicity by the gastrointestinal route: evidence and knowledge gaps
Bergin, I. L., & Witzmann, F. A. (2013) · International Journal of Biomedical Nanoscience and Nanotechnology · doi:10.1504/ijbnn.2013.054515 · Cited by 412
Nanomaterials Versus Ambient Ultrafine Particles: An Opportunity to Exchange Toxicology Knowledge
Stone, V., Miller, M. R., Clift, M. J. D., Elder, A., Mills, N. L., Møller, P., Schins, R. P. F., Vogel, U., Kreyling, W. G., Alstrup Jensen, K., et al. (2017) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp424 · Cited by 370
Estimating the effective density of engineered nanomaterials for in vitro dosimetry
DeLoid, G., Cohen, J. M., Darrah, T., Derk, R., Rojanasakul, L., Pyrgiotakis, G., Wohlleben, W., & Demokritou, P. (2014) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms4514 · Cited by 327
Metadata
- Authors
- Hinderliter, P. M., Minard, K. R., Orr, G., Chrisler, W. B., Thrall, B. D., Pounds, J. G., & Teeguarden, J. G.
- Venue
- Particle and Fibre Toxicology
- Published
- 2010-11-30
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 36-36
- ISSN
- 1743-8977 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2155349759
- Cited by
- 496
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 7.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: ISDD: A computational model of particle sedimentation, diffusion and target cell dosimetry for in vitro toxicity studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1743-8977-7-36
- The paper
- Hinderliter, P. M., Minard, K. R., Orr, G., Chrisler, W. B., Thrall, B. D., Pounds, J. G., & Teeguarden, J. G. (2010). ISDD: A computational model of particle sedimentation, diffusion and target cell dosimetry for in vitro toxicity studies. Particle and Fibre Toxicology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-8977-7-36
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.