Abstract

  During this era, applications of nanoparticle has exponentially elevated such as being employed in textiles, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and medicine. Due to their exclusive properties, nanomaterials are now being considered as an empowering domain that serves as the basis for the development of novel nano-based products in the scientific arena and worth millions in the commercial market. However, this perpetual usage of nanoparticles has intensified numerous environmental and health risks. And therefore, requires attentive evaluation in order to analyze their associated toxicological effects. Thus, investigation of their associated toxicity is a requirement. However, the cumulative diversity of nanomaterials requires to exam a diverse group of nano entities for toxicity prediction subsequently making it a challenging task to gather information regarding their potential exposure and probable risk. Previously employed invitro toxicity testing systems were constrained by principled considerations, time and financial accountabilities Therefore, an alternative unconventional computational approach is needed for the evaluation of nanoparticle associated risk. Such computational approaches for risk assessment are characterized as in silico methods that are cost effective and far less time consuming than customary testing systems and serves to develop a sound infrastructure for nanotoxicology studies.

Keywords: Bioactivity; Hazard assessment; In silico; Nanoinformatics; Physiochemical; Surface Functionality

References

1. CDC Advisory. “Discontinuation of Transmission based precautions and disposition of patients with Covid 19 in healthcare settings (Interim guidance) Discharging Covid 19 patients”. CDC (2020).
2. Applied Biosystems. Taq Path Covid-19 combo kit catalogue (2020).
3. La Scola B., et al. “Viral RNA load as determined by cell culture as a management tool for discharge of SARS CoV 2 patients from infectious disease wards”. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 39 (2020): 1059.
4. Bullard J., et al. “Predicting infectious SARS CoV 2 from diagnostic samples”. Clinical Infectious Diseases (2020): ciaa638.
5. Singanayagam A., et al. “Duration of infectiveness and correlation with RT PCR cycle threshold values in cases od Covid 19, England January to May 2020”. Eurosurveillance 32 (2020): 2001483.
6. Binnicker Ma. “Can the SARS CoV 2 PCR cycle threshold value and the time from symptom onset to test predict infectivity?” Clinical Infectious Diseases (2020): ciaa735.
7. Han MS., et al. “RT PCR for SARS CoV 2 quantitative versus qualitative”. Lancer (2020).
8. Belabed M. “Virus dissociated from inflammation in fatal Covid 19”. Nature Reviews Immunology 20 (2020): 519.
9. Pujadas E., et al. “SARS CoV 2 viral load predicts Covid 19 mortality”. Lancet 8 (2020): e70.
10. Westbalde LF., et al. “SARS CoV 2 viral load predicts mortality in patients with or without cancer who are hospitalized with Covid 19”. Cancer Cell 38 (2020): 1.
11. Liu Y., et al. “Viral dynamic in mild and severe cases of Covid 19”. The Lancet Infectious Diseases (2020).

Citation

Citation: Nida Tabassum Khan and Samiullah Khan. “Nanotoxicology - An Emerging Discipline Evolving from Nanoparticle Risk Assessment".Acta Scientific Microbiology 3.12 (2020): 124-127.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2020 Nida Tabassum Khan and Samiullah Khan. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.