Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 938–945 | Cite as

Response of the antioxidant enzymes of rats following oral administration of metal-oxide nanoparticles (Al2O3, CuO, TiO2)

  • Esin G. CanliEmail author
  • Hasan B. Ila
  • Mustafa Canli
Research Article


Metal-oxide nanoparticles (NPs), as a new emerging technological compound, promise a wide range of usage areas and consequently have the potential to cause environmental toxicology. In the present work, aluminum (Al2O3), copper (CuO), and titanium (TiO2) nanoparticles (NPs) were administered via oral gavage to mature female rats (Rattus norvegicus var. albinos) for 14 days with a dose series of 0 (control), 0.5, 5, and 50 (mg/kg b.w./day). Enzyme activities of the antioxidant system such as catalase (CAT), superoxide dismutase (SOD), glutathione peroxidase (GPx), glutathione S-transferase (GST), and glutathione reductase (GR) in the liver were measured. Transmission electron microscope (TEM) images of the liver were taken to demonstrate NP accumulation and distribution in liver tissue. Data showed that all NPs caused some significant (P > 0.05) alterations in the activities of antioxidant enzymes. CAT activity increased after CuO and TiO2 administrations, while SOD activity decreased after Al2O3 administration. The activities of enzymes associated with glutathione (GR, GPx, GST) metabolisms were also significantly altered by NPs. GPx activity increased in rats received Al2O3, CuO NPs, while GR activity increased only by Al2O3. However, there were increases (TiO2) and decreases (CuO) in GST activity in the liver of rats. TEM images of the liver demonstrated that all NPs accumulated in the liver, even at the lowest dose. This study indicated that the antioxidant enzymes in the liver of rats were affected by all NPs, suggesting the antioxidant system of rats suffered after NP administration.


Metal Nanoparticle Rat Liver Antioxidant Biomarker 



This study was produced from PhD Thesis of Dr. E.G. Canli, except nanoparticle characterizations and supported by the research fund (FDK-2017-8197) of Cukurova University (Turkey). We thank Dr. G. Atli for her help.


  1. Abdelhalim MA, Jarrar BM (2012) Histological alterations in the liver of rats induced by different gold nanoparticle sizes, doses and exposure duration. J Nanobiotechnology 10:1–10. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. AshaRani PV, Mun GLK, Hande MP, Valiyaveettil S (2009) Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of silver nanoparticles in human cells. ACS Nano 3:279–290. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atli G, Canli EG, Eroglu A, Canli M (2016) Characterization of antioxidant system parameters in four freshwater fish species. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 126:30–37. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bahadar H, Maqbool F, Niaz K, Abdollahi M (2016) Toxicity of nanoparticles and an overview of current experimental models. Iran Biomed J 20:1–11Google Scholar
  5. Canli EG, Canli M (2017) Effects of aluminum, copper, and titanium nanoparticles on some blood parameters in Wistar rats. Turk J Zool 41:259–266. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Canli EG, Atli G, Canli M (2017) Response of the antioxidant enzymes of the erythrocyte and alterations in the serum biomarkers in rats following oral administration of nanoparticles. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 50:145–150. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Canli EG, Dogan A, Canli M (2018) Serum biomarker levels alter following nanoparticle (Al2O3, CuO, TiO2) exposures in freshwater fish (Oreochromis niloticus). Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 62:181–187. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carlberg I, Mannervik B (1975) Purification and characterization of the flavoenzyme glutathione reductase from rat liver. J Biol Chem 250:5475–5480Google Scholar
  9. Elle RE et al (2013) Dietary exposure to silver nanoparticles in Sprague-Dawley rats: effects on oxidative stress and inflammation. Food Chem Toxicol 60:297–301. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ema M, Hougaard KS, Kishimoto A, Honda K (2016) Reproductive and developmental toxicity of carbon-based nanomaterials: a literature review. Nanotoxicology 10:391–412. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fatima R, Akhtar K, Hossain MM, Ahmad R (2017) Chromium oxide nanoparticle-induced biochemical and histopathological alterations in the kidneys and brain of Wistar rats. Toxicol Ind Health 33:911–921. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Habig WH, Pabst MJ, Jakoby WB (1974) Glutathione S-transferases the first enzymatic step in mercapturic acid formation. Biol Chem 249:7130–7139Google Scholar
  13. Handy RD, Benjamin JS (2007) Toxic effects of nanoparticles and nanomaterials: implications for public health, risk assessment and the public perception of nanotechnology. Health Risk Soc 9:125–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hidalgo MC, Exposito A, Palma JM, de la Higuera M (2002) Oxidative stress generated by dietary Zn-deficiency: studies in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Int J Biochem Cell Biol 34:183–193. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hu H, Guo Q, Wang C, Ma X, He H, Oh Y, Feng Y, Wu Q, Gu N (2015) Titanium dioxide nanoparticles increase plasma glucose via reactive oxygen species-induced insulin resistance in mice. J Appl Toxicol 35:1122–1132. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Janrao KK, Gadhave MV, Banerjee SK, Gaikwad DD (2014) Nanoparticle induced nanotoxicity: an overview. Asian J Biomed Pharma Sci 4(32):1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jeng HA, Swanson J (2006) Toxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles in mammalian cells. J Environ Sci Health A 41:2699–2711. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kiranmai G, Reddy AR (2013) Antioxidant status in MgO nanoparticle-exposed rats. Toxicol Ind Health 29:897–903. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klaine SJ, Alvarez PJ, Batley GE, Fernandes TF, Handy RD, Lyon DY, Lead JR (2008) Nanomaterials in the environment: behavior, fate, bioavailability, and effects. Environ Toxicol Chem 27:1825–1851. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lartillot S, Kedziora P, Athias A (1988) Purification and characterization of a new fungal catalase. Prep Biochem 18:241–246. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lei R, Yang B, Wu C, Liao M, Ding R, Wang Q (2015) Mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative damage in the liver and kidney of rats following exposure to copper nanoparticles for five consecutive days. Toxicol Res 4(2):351–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Livingstone DR, Lips F, Martinez PG, Pipe RK (1992) Antioxidant enzymes in the digestive gland of the common mussel Mytilus edulis. Mar Biol 112:265–276. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lowry OH, Rosebrough N, Farra NJ, Randall RJ (1951) Protein measurements with the folin phenol reagent. J Biol Chem 193:265–275Google Scholar
  24. Martinez-Alvarez RM, Morales AE, Sanz A (2005) Antioxidant defenses in fish: biotic and abiotic factors. Rev Fish Biol Fish 15:75–88. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McCord JM, Fridovich I (1969) Superoxide dismutase: an enzymatic function for erythrocuprein (hemocuprein). J Biol Chem 244:6049–6055Google Scholar
  26. Park EJ, Sim J, Kim Y, Han BS, Yoon C, Lee S, Cho MH, Lee BS, Kim JH (2015) A 13-week repeated-dose oral toxicity and bioaccumulation of aluminum oxide nanoparticles in mice. Arch Toxicol 89:371–379. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rizk MZ, Ali SA, Hamed MA, El-Rigal NS, Aly HF, Salah HH (2017) Toxicity of titanium dioxide nanoparticles: effect of dose and time on biochemical disturbance, oxidative stress and genotoxicity in mice. Biomed Pharmacother 90:466–472. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sanchez W, Palluel O, Meunier L, Coquery M, Porcher JM, Ait-Aissa S (2005) Copper-induced oxidative stress in three-spined stickleback: relationship with hepatic metal levels. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 19:177–183. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sarhan OM, Hussein RM (2014) Effects of intraperitoneally injected silver nanoparticles on histological structures and blood parameters in the albino rat. Int J Nanomedicine 9:1505–1517. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schrand AM, Rahman MF, Hussain SM, Schlager JJ, Smith DA, Ali SF (2010) Metal-based nanoparticles and their toxicity assessment. WIREs Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 2:544–568. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sha BY, Gao W, Wang SQ, Xu F, Lu TJ (2011) Cytotoxicity of titanium dioxide nanoparticles differs in four liver cells from human and rat. Compos Part B Eng 42:2136–2144. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shrivastava R, Raza S, Yadav A, Kushwaha P, Flora SJS (2014) Effects of sub-acute exposure to TiO2, ZnO and Al2O3 nanoparticles on oxidative stress and histological changes in mouse liver and brain. Drug Chem Toxicol 37:336–347. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Song MF, Li YS, Kasai H, Kawai K (2012) Metal nanoparticle-induced micronuclei and oxidative DNA damage in mice. J Clin Biochem Nutr 50:211–216. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Syama S, Sreekanth PJ, Varma HK, Mohanan PV (2013) Effect of zinc oxide nanoparticles on cellular oxidative stress and antioxidant defense mechanisms in mouse liver. Toxicol Environ Chem 95:495–503. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vinardell MP, Sorde A, Diaz J, Baccarin T, Mitjans M (2015) Comparative effects of macro-sized aluminum oxide and aluminum oxide nanoparticles on erythrocyte hemolysis: influence of cell source, temperature, and size. J Nanopart Res 17:80–90. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wang DG, Guo DD, Bi HS, Wu QX, Tian QM, Du YX (2013) Zinc oxide nanoparticles inhibit Ca2+-ATPase expression in human lens epithelial cells under UVB irradiation. Toxicol in Vitro 27:2117–2126. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Winston GW (1991) Oxidants and antioxidants in aquatic animals. Comp Biochem Physiol C Pharmacol Toxicol Endocrinol 100:173–176. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yu ZX, Ze Y, Wang L, Liu D, Hong J, Li B (2014) Changes of serum parameters of TiO2 nanoparticle-induced atherosclerosis in mice. J Hazard Mater 280:364–371. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biology, Faculty of Sciences and ArtsUniversity of CukurovaAdanaTurkey

Personalised recommendations