Diffusion dynamics and concentration of toxic materials from quantum dots-based nanotechnologies: an agent-based modeling simulation framework
Source abstract
Abstract
Due to their favorable electrical and optical properties, quantum dots (QDs) nanostructures have found numerous applications including nanomedicine and photovoltaic cells. However, increased future production, use, and disposal of engineered QD products also raise concerns about their potential environmental impacts. The objective of this work is to establish a modeling framework for predicting the diffusion dynamics and concentration of toxic materials released from Trioctylphosphine oxide-capped CdSe. To this end, an agent-based model simulation with reaction kinetics and Brownian motion dynamics was developed. Reaction kinetics is used to model the stability of surface capping agent particularly due to oxidation process. The diffusion of toxic Cd2+ ions in aquatic environment was simulated using an adapted Brownian motion algorithm. A calibrated parameter to reflect sensitivity to reaction rate is proposed. The model output demonstrates the stochastic spatial distribution of toxic Cd2+ ions under different values of proxy environmental factor parameters. With the only chemistry considered was oxidation, the simulation was able to replicate Cd2+ ion release from Thiol-capped QDs in aerated water. The agent-based method is the first to be developed in the QDs application domain. It adds both simplicity of the solubility and rate of release of Cd2+ ions and complexity of tracking of individual atoms of Cd at the same time.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Quantum Dots Synthesis And Properties · Nanoparticles: synthesis and applications · Gold and Silver Nanoparticles Synthesis and Applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (36)
Show source-provided references
1. Aldana J, Wang YA, Peng XG (2001) Photochemical instability of CdSe nanocrystals coated by hydrophilic thiols. J Am Chem Soc 123(36):8844–8850. doi: 10.1021/ja016424q10.1021/ja016424q ↗
2. Andrews SS, Bray D (2004) Stochastic simulation of chemical reactions with spatial resolution and single molecule detail. Phys Biol 1(3):137–151. doi: 10.1088/1478-3967/1/3/00110.1088/1478-3967/1/3/001 ↗
3. Azimi M, Jamali Y, Mofrad MRK (2011) “Accounting for Diffusion in Agent Based Models of Reaction-Diffusion Systems with Application to Cytoskeletal Diffusion.” Plos One 6 (9). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.002530610.1371/journal.pone.0025306 ↗
4. Chen Jixin (2010) Nanofabrication, plasmon enhanced fluorescence and photo-oxidation kinetics of CdSe nanoparticles. DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, Chemistry, Texas A&M University, College Station
5. Christoph L (2005) Small sizes that matter: opportunities and risks of Nanotechnologies Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), and Allianz Center for Technology, Paris, Munchen. http://www.oecd.org/science/nanosafety/44108334.pdf
6. Derfus AM, Chan WCW, Bhatia SN (2004) Probing the cytotoxicity of semiconductor quantum dots. Nano Lett 4(1):11–18. doi: 10.1021/nl034733410.1021/nl0347334 ↗
7. Dong X, Foteinou PT, Calvano SE, Lowry SF, Androulakis IP (2010) Agent-Based Modeling of endotoxin-induced acute inflammatory response in human blood leukocytes. Plos One 5(2):e9249. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.000924910.1371/journal.pone.0009249 ↗
8. Eckelman MJ, Mauter MS, Isaacs JA, Elimelech M (2012) New perspectives on nanomaterial aquatic ecotoxicity: production impacts exceed direct exposure impacts for carbon nanotubes. Environ Sci Technol 46(5):2902–2910. doi: 10.1021/es203409a10.1021/es203409a ↗
9. Emonet T, Macal CM, North MJ, Wickersham CE, Cluzel P (2005) AgentCell: a digital single-cell assay for bacterial chemotaxis. Bioinformatics 21(11):2714–2721. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti39110.1093/bioinformatics/bti391 ↗
10. EPA 2009 Nanomaterial research strategy, EPA 620/K-09/011
11. Figgemeier E, Hagfeldt A (2004) Are dye-sensitized nano-structured solar cells stable? An overview of device testing and component analyses. Int J Photoenergy 6(3):127–140. doi: 10.1155/s1110662x0400016910.1155/S1110662X04000169 ↗
12. Geranio L, Heuberger M, Nowack B (2009) The behavior of silver nanotextiles during washing. Environ Sci Technol 43(21):8113–8118. doi: 10.1021/es901833210.1021/es9018332 ↗
13. Gordon N, Sagman U (2003) Nanomedicine taxonomy. Canadian Institutes of Health Research & Canadian NanoBusiness Alliance, Toronto
14. Gottschalk F, Sonderer T, Scholz RW, Nowack B (2009) Modeled environmental concentrations of engineered nanomaterials (TiO2, ZnO, Ag, CNT, Fullerenes) for different regions. Environ Sci Technol 43(24):9216–9222. doi: 10.1021/es901555310.1021/es9015553 ↗
15. Hines DA, Becker MA, Kamat PV (2012) Photoinduced surface oxidation and its effect on the exciton dynamics of CdSe quantum dots. J Phys Chem C 116(24):13452–13457. doi: 10.1021/jp303659g10.1021/jp303659g ↗
16. Hotze Ernest M, Phenrat Tanapon, Lowry Gregory V (2010) Nanoparticle aggregation: challenges to understanding transport and reactivity in the environment. J Environ Qual 39:1909–192410.2134/jeq2009.0462 ↗
17. Jamieson T, Bakhshi R, Petrova D, Pocock R, Imani M, Seifalian AM (2007) Biological applications of quantum dots. Biomaterials 28(31):4717–4732. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.07.01410.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.07.014 ↗
18. Jin S, Hu YX, Gu ZJ, Liu L, Wu HC (2011) Application of quantum dots in biological imaging. J Nanomater. doi: 10.1155/2011/834139
19. Kirschling TL, Golas PL, Unrine JM, Matyjaszewski K, Gregory KB, Lowry GV, Tilton RD (2011) Microbial bioavailability of covalently bound polymer coatings on model engineered nanomaterials. Environ Sci Technol 45(12):5253–5259. doi: 10.1021/es200770z10.1021/es200770z ↗
20. Klann MT, Lapin A, Reuss M (2011) Agent-based simulation of reactions in the crowded and structured intracellular environment: Influence of mobility and location of the reactants. BMC Syst Biol 5:71. doi: 10.1186/1752-0509-5-7110.1186/1752-0509-5-71 ↗
21. Kuan Z, Rui-bin Q, Hao-ran Z, Jun-qing N (2011) An Agent-based Modeling Approach for Stochastic Molecular Events of Biochemical Networks. Intell Comput Technol Automa 1:759–763
22. Lowry GV, Gregory KB, Apte SC, Lead JR (2012) Transformations of nanomaterials in the environment. Environ Sci Technol 46(13):6893–6899. doi: 10.1021/es300839e10.1021/es300839e ↗
23. Maynard AD, Warheit DB, Philbert MA (2011) The new toxicology of sophisticated materials: nanotoxicology and beyond. Toxicol Sci 120:S109–S129. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfq37210.1093/toxsci/kfq372 ↗
24. Meng L, Song ZX (2004) Applications of quantum dots to biological medicine. Prog Biochem Biophys 31(2):185–187
25. Mueller NC, Nowack B (2008) Exposure modeling of engineered nanoparticles in the environment. Environ Sci Technol 42(12):4447–4453. doi: 10.1021/es702963710.1021/es7029637 ↗
26. Nowack B (2009) The behavior and effects of nanoparticles in the environment. Environ Pollut 157(4):1063–1064. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2008.12.01910.1016/j.envpol.2008.12.019 ↗
27. Nowack B, Ranville JF, Diamond S, Gallego-Urrea JA, Metcalfe C, Rose J, Horne N, Koelmans AA, Klaine SJ (2012) Potential scenarios for nanomaterial release and subsequent alteration in the environment. Environ Toxicol Chem 31(1):50–59. doi: 10.1002/etc.72610.1002/etc.726 ↗
28. Oberdorster G (2010) Safety assessment for nanotechnology and nanomedicine: concepts of nanotoxicology. J Intern Med 267(1):89–105. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2009.02187.x10.1111/j.1365-2796.2009.02187.x ↗
29. O’Brien N, Cummins E (2008) Recent developments in nanotechnology and risk assessment strategies for addressing public and environmental health concerns. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 14(3):568–592. doi: 10.1080/1080703080207426110.1080/10807030802074261 ↗
30. Petersen EJ, Lam T, Gorham JM, Scott KC, Long CJ, Stanley D, Sharma R, Liddle JA, Pellegrin B, Nguyen T (2014) Methods to assess the impact of UV irradiation on the surface chemistry and structure of multiwall carbon nanotube epoxy nanocomposites. Carbon 69:194–205. doi: 10.1016/j.carbon.2013.12.01610.1016/j.carbon.2013.12.016 ↗
31. Peulen TO, Wilkinson KJ (2011) Diffusion of nanoparticles in a biofilm. Environ Sci Technol 45(8):3367–3373. doi: 10.1021/es103450g10.1021/es103450g ↗
32. Pogson M, Smallwood R, Qwarnstrom E, Holcombe M (2006) Formal agent-based modelling of intracellular chemical interactions. Biosystems 85(1):37–45. doi: 10.1016/j.biosystems.2006.02.00410.1016/j.biosystems.2006.02.004 ↗
33. Scown TM, van Aerle R, Tyler CR (2010) Review: do engineered nanoparticles pose a significant threat to the aquatic environment? Crit Rev Toxicol 40(7):653–670. doi: 10.3109/10408444.2010.49417410.3109/10408444.2010.494174 ↗
34. Wiesner MR, Lowry GV, Alvarez P, Dionysiou D, Biswas P (2006) Assessing the risks of manufactured nanomaterials. Environ Sci Technol 40(14):4336–4345. doi: 10.1021/es062726m10.1021/es062726m ↗
35. Wohlleben W, Meier MW, Vogel S, Landsiedel R, Cox G, Hirth S, Tomovic Z (2013) Elastic CNT-polyurethane nanocomposite: synthesis, performance and assessment of fragments released during use. Nanoscale 5(1):369–380. doi: 10.1039/c2nr32711b10.1039/C2NR32711B ↗
36. Yong KT, Law WC, Hu R, Ye L, Liu LW, Swihart MT, Prasad PN (2013) Nanotoxicity assessment of quantum dots: from cellular to primate studies. Chem Soc Rev 42(3):1236–1250. doi: 10.1039/c2cs35392j10.1039/C2CS35392J ↗