Advertisement

Cellulose

, Volume 21, Issue 6, pp 3871–3886 | Cite as

Characteristics and safety of nano-sized cellulose fibrils

  • Marja PitkänenEmail author
  • Heli Kangas
  • Ossi Laitinen
  • Asko Sneck
  • Panu Lahtinen
  • Maria Soledad Peresin
  • Jouko Niinimäki
Original Paper

Abstract

A finely ground fibrillated cellulose was fractionated into separate size fractions. The characteristics of the smallest size fractions were studied, and the toxicity to humans was tested as part of a safety assessment. Morphological studies performed with state-of-the-art methods, such as scanning electron microscopy and atomic force microscopy, showed that the fraction obtained consisted of long thin fibrils but also larger fibril agglomerates, and spherical particles were present. The finest fraction did not show any sub-lethal effects as assessed by RNA inhibition test in vitro, nor were there any indications of genotoxicity as tested by the Ames test in vitro. Systemic effects tested in vivo with the nematode were also absent. No cytotoxic effects were seen in the highest tolerated dose test in vitro, but some indication of cytotoxicity was observed in the total protein content test in vitro at the highest sample concentration. The significance of this toxicity test result should be addressed in relation to the other toxicity tests, in which no toxicity was observed, with special emphasis on the in vivo test. Given this, the overall toxicity analyses support the conclusion that nano-scale cellulose fibrils can be considered to be safe towards humans. However, the reason for the positive cytotoxicity test result and, in addition, the effect of the biocide used in sample preservation on the toxicity tests need to be clarified before generalizing these results and declaring nanocellulose to be unambiguously safe.

Keywords

Nano-sized cellulose fibrils Cellulose nanofibrils Nanocellulose Fibrillated cellulose Cytotoxicity Genotoxicity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research leading to these results was performed as part of the Efficient Networking towards Novel Products and Processes (EffNet) research programme of the Finnish Bioeconomy Cluster (FIBIC). The EffNet programme has received funding from Tekes—the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation and from Forestcluster Ltd. The authors would like to thank Ulla Honkalampi-Hämäläinen, Biosafe Special Laboratory Services Oy Ltd, and Professor Atte von Wright, University of Eastern Finland, for performing the toxicity tests and their help in interpretation of the results.

References

  1. Alexandrescu L, Syverud K, Gatti A, Chinga Carrasco G (2013) Cytotoxicity test of cellulose nanofibril-based structures. Cellulose 20:1765–1775. doi: 10.1007/s10570-013-9948-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bhattacharya M, Malinen MM, Lauren P, Lou Y-R, Kuisma SW, Kanninen L, Lille M, Corlu A, Gu-Guen-Guillouzo C, Ikkala O, Laukkanen A, Urtti A, Yliperttula M (2012) Nanofibrillar cellulose hydrogel promotes three-dimensional liver cell culture. J Control Release 164:291–298. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2012.06.039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ECHA European Chemicals Agency (2012) Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment. Appendix R7-1 Recommendations for nanomaterials applicable to Chapter R7a Endpoint specific guidance, p 59Google Scholar
  4. Forestcluster Ltd. (2011) Intelligent and resource-efficient production technologies. EffTech programme. Programme report 2008–2010, pp 119–120Google Scholar
  5. Haapala AT, Laitinen O, Karinkanta P, Liimatainen H, Niinimäki J (2013) Optical characterization of size, shape and fibrillarity from microfibrillar and microcrystalline cellulose, and fine ground wood powder fractions. Appita J 66:331–339Google Scholar
  6. Hasegawa K, Miwa S, Tsutsumiuchi K, Taniguchi H, Miwa J (2004) Extremely low dose of acrylamide decreases lifespan in Caenorhabditis elegans. Toxicol Lett 152:183–189Google Scholar
  7. Hua K, Carlsson DO, Ålander E, Linström T, Stromme M, Mihranyan A, Ferraz N (2014) Translational study between structure and biological response of nanocellulose from wood and green algae. RSC Adv 4:2892–2903. doi: 10.1039/c3ra45553j CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jeong SI, Lee SE, Yang H, Jin Y-H, Park C-S, Park YS (2010) Toxicologic evaluation of bacterial synthesized cellulose in endothelial cells and animals. Mol Cell Toxicol 6:373–380. doi: 10.1007/s13273-010-0049-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kaletta T and Hengartner MO (2006) Finding function in novel targets: C. elegans as a model organism. Nat Rev Drug Discov. AOP published online 21 Apr 2006. doi: 10.1038/nrd2031
  10. Kangas H, Lahtinen P, Sneck A, Saariaho A-M, Laitinen O, Hellén E (2014) Characterization of fibrillated celluloses. A short review and evaluation of characteristics with a combination of methods. Nord Pulp Paper Res J 29:129–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Khandoudi N, Porte P, Chtourou S, Nesslany F, Marzin D, Le Curieux F (2009) The presence of arginine may be a source of false positive results in the Ames test. Mutat Res 679:65–71. doi: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2009.03.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Laitinen O, Niinimäki J (2014) Fractional study of the microfibrillated cellulose. Tappi J 13:49–55Google Scholar
  13. Laitinen O, Kemppainen K, Stoor T, Niinimäki J (2011) Fractionation of pulp and paper particles selectively by size. BioResources 6:672–685Google Scholar
  14. Landsiedel R, Kapp MD, Schulz M, Wiench K, Oesch F (2009) Genotoxicity investigations on nanomaterials: methods, preparation and characterization of test material, potential artifacts and limitations—many questions, some answers. Mutat Res 681:241–258. doi: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2008.10.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Moreira S, Silva NB, Almeida-Lima J, Rocha HAO, Medeiros SRB, Alves C, Cama FM (2009) BC nanofibers: in vitro study of genotoxicity and cell proliferation. Toxicol Lett 189:235–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. O’Connor B (2009) Ensuring safety of manufactured nanocrystalline cellulose. In: OECD conference, July 15–17, 2009, Paris Google Scholar
  17. O’Connor B (2011) Ensuring safety of manufactured nanocrystalline cellulose. A risk assessment under Canada’s new substances notification regulations. In: 2011 TAPPI international conference on nanotechnology for renewable materials. June 6–8, 2011, Arlington, VA, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. O’Connor B (2012) NCC: Environmental health and safety update. In: 2012 TAPPI international conference on nanotechnology for renewable materials. June 5–7, 2012, Montreal, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  19. Pertile RAN, Moreira S, da Costa RMG, Correia A, Guardao L, Gartner F, Vilanova M, Gama M (2012) Bacterial cellulose: long-term biocompatibility studies. J Biomater Sci 23:1339–1354Google Scholar
  20. Pitkänen M, Sneck A, Hentze H-P, Sievänen J, Hiltunen J, Hellén E, Honkalampi U, von Wright A (2010) Nanofibrillar cellulose—Assessment of cytotoxic and genotoxic properties in vitro. In: 2010 Tappi International conference on nanotechnology for the forest products industry. Sept 27–29, 2010, Espoo, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  21. Pitkänen M, Kangas H, Vartiainen J (2014) Toxicity and health issues. In: Chapter 12 in Handbook of Green Materials; Processing Technologies, Properties and Applications, vol 1. Bionanomaterials: separation processes, characterization and properties. World Scientific, pp 181–205Google Scholar
  22. Rouhiainen J, Tsitko I, Vippola M, Koivisto J (2010) Literature study on risks and risk assessment methods related to nanobased products and the recommended methodology for risk of nanofibrillar cellulose products. In: A public report of Scale-up Nanoparticles in Modern Papermaking-SUNPAP, FP7, Theme 4, NMP—Nanosciences, Nanotechnologies, Materials and New Production Technologies, p 53 Google Scholar
  23. Rouhiainen J, Väänänen V, Tsitko I, Kautto J (2012) Risk assessment of nanofibrillated cellulose in occupational settings. In: SUNPAP Final conference, June 19–20, 2012, Milan, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  24. Tanaka A, Seppänen V, Houni J, Sneck A, Pirkonen P (2012) Nanocellulose characterisation with mechanical fractionation. Nord Pulp Paper Res J 27:689–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vartiainen S (2007) Caenorhabditis elegans as a model for human synucleopathies. Doctoral Thesis, Kuopio University, Finland, 107 pGoogle Scholar
  26. Vartiainen J, Vikman M (2013) Health and safety aspects of CNF. In: Postek MT, Moon RJ, Rudie AW, Bilodeau MA (eds) Production and Applications of Cellulose Nanonaterials. TAPPI PRESS, GA, USAGoogle Scholar
  27. Vartiainen J, Pöhler T, Sirola K, Pylkkänen L, Alenius H, Hokkinen J, Tapper U, Lahtinen P, Kapanen A, Putkisto K, Hiekkataipale P, Eronen P, Ruokolainen J, Laukkanen A (2011) Health and environmental safety aspects of friction grinding and spray drying of microfibrillated cellulose. Cellulose 18:775–786. doi: 10.1007/s10570-011-9501-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wang QQ, Zhung JY, Gleiner R, Kuster TA, Baxa U, McNeil SE (2012) Morphological development of cellulose fibrils of a bleached eucalyptus pulp by mechanical fibrillation. Cellulose 19:1631–1643. doi: 10.1007/s10570-012-9745-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marja Pitkänen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Heli Kangas
    • 1
  • Ossi Laitinen
    • 2
  • Asko Sneck
    • 1
  • Panu Lahtinen
    • 1
  • Maria Soledad Peresin
    • 1
  • Jouko Niinimäki
    • 2
  1. 1.VTT Technical Research of FinlandEspooFinland
  2. 2.Fibre and Particle Engineering LaboratoryUniversity of OuluOuluFinland

Personalised recommendations