Effects of Mixtures of Engineered Nanoparticles and Metallic Pollutants on Aquatic Organisms
Effects of Mixtures of Engineered Nanoparticles and Metallic Pollutants on Aquatic Organisms
Li, Mengting;Liu, Wei;Slaveykova, Vera I.
2020-04-01 00:00:00
environments Review Eects of Mixtures of Engineered Nanoparticles and Metallic Pollutants on Aquatic Organisms 1 , 2 1 , 2 1 , 2 , Mengting Li , Wei Liu and Vera I. Slaveykova * Department F.-A. Forel for Environmental and Aquatic Sciences, Earth and Environment Sciences, Faculty of Sciences, University of Geneva, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland; Mengting.Li@etu.unige.ch (M.L.); Wei.Liu@unige.ch (W.L.) Institute for Environmental Sciences, Uni Carl Vogt, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland * Correspondence: vera.slaveykova@unige.ch; Tel.: +41-22-379-0335 Received: 23 February 2020; Accepted: 30 March 2020; Published: 1 April 2020 Abstract: In aquatic environment, engineered nanoparticles (ENPs) are present as complex mixtures with other pollutants, such as trace metals, which could result in synergism, additivity or antagonism of their combined eects. Despite the fact that the toxicity and environmental risk of the ENPs have received extensive attention in the recent years, the interactions of ENPs with other pollutants and the consequent eects on aquatic organisms represent an important challenge in (nano)ecotoxicology. The present review provides an overview of the state-of-the-art and critically discusses the existing knowledge on combined eects of mixtures of ENPs and metallic pollutants on aquatic organisms. The specific emphasis is on the adsorption of metallic pollutants on metal-containing ENPs, transformation and bioavailability of ENPs and metallic pollutants in mixtures. Antagonistic, additive and synergistic eects observed in aquatic organisms co-exposed to ENPs and metallic pollutants are discussed in the case of “particle-proof” and “particle-ingestive” organisms. This knowledge is important in developing ecient strategies for sound environmental impact assessment of mixture exposure in complex environments. Keywords: nanomaterials; mixtures; trace metals; nanotoxicity; environmental risk assessment; synergy; antagonism 1. Introduction Engineered nanomaterials with significantly enhanced properties showed a lot of promises for direct and indirect benefits in almost all sphere of the modern society [1]. However, with increasing production and ever-expanding applications, engineered nanoparticles (ENPs) are unavoidably released to water, soil and atmosphere throughout their lifecycle [2–4]. Hence, the concerns about environmental safety of ENPs have significantly raised. Indeed, the abundant information on the environmental implications of ENPs can be found in recent review papers [5–13], evidencing the potential of ENPs to harm aquatic organisms if present in enough high concentrations. Nevertheless, in most cases the existing information is obtained considering pollution by ENPs individually, neglecting that in the environment the organisms are exposed simultaneously to mixtures of diverse pollutants. Therefore, evaluation of the potential risk of ENPs can be significantly under- or over-estimated if the cocktail eects are neglected. Assessing the eects of mixtures of environmental pollutants, and more generally multiple stressors, is a central topic in the modern ecotoxicology [14,15]. Approaches to assess mixture eects were thoroughly reviewed for toxic metals, pharmaceutical products or pesticides [16,17]. Fundamental concepts in describing the mixture eects can be divided into two major categories depending on the existence or not of the interactions between the components in the mixture and Environments 2020, 7, 27; doi:10.3390/environments7040027 www.mdpi.com/journal/environments Environments 2020, 7, 27 2 of 20 their mode-of-toxic-action [16,18]. In a case when no interaction between the mixture components exists, two major concepts are used to predict mixture eects: the concentration addition (CA) and the independent action (IA). CA applies when the sum of the eects of individual components is equal to the toxicity of a mixture as a whole. It assumes identical mechanisms of toxicity and same target sites for the individual components. By contrast, IA applies when the components of the mixture are acting independently and do not influence the toxicity of each other. It assumes that individual components have dierent mode-of-toxic-action and dierent biological target sites. In a case where interactions between the mixture components exist, the observed eects will dier from the CA and IA predictions. In a case that the observed toxicity is stronger than predicted one, the mixture toxicity eects are described as synergistic. By contrast, when the toxicity of a mixture is less than expected by CA or IA, the mixture eects are described as antagonistic. ENPs possess enhanced physical and chemical properties, and very high reactivity because of their smaller size and larger specific surface area, which favor the interactions with various biotic and abiotic components, including pollutants in the aquatic systems [19]. Therefore, similarly to the naturally present nanoparticles and colloids [20], ENPs could aect significantly the behavior and eects of pollutants in the aquatic environment. For example, based on the free metal ion and biotic ligand models [21], ENPs could be expected to decrease the concentration of the free metal ions in the exposure medium, thus to reduce metal bioavailability and toxicity. Naasz et al. recently reviewed the knowledge on the co-exposure to ENPs and dierent micropollutants in in-vitro and in-vivo biological test systems with a special focus on the Trojan-horse phenomenon and its ecotoxicological relevance [19]. The authors assigned the eects in mixtures containing ENPs to 6 groups, including Trojan horse (+) and ( ), surface enrichment, retention, inertism and coalism [19], and underlined the necessity of considering dierent processes, such as adsorption and desorption, bioavailability and internalization in which individual components in mixtures are involved, to better understand and predict the mixture toxicity. In such a context, the present review paper provides an overview and discusses relevant processes driving the interactions in mixtures of metal-containing ENPs and metallic pollutants with aquatic organisms. The specific focus is on: (i) adsorption of metallic pollutants on metal-containing ENPs; (ii) transformation processes in exposure medium containing mixture of ENPs and metallic pollutant; and (iii) adsorption and internalization of ENPs and metallic pollutants by aquatic organisms. The evidences of the toxicity to aquatic organisms co-exposed to mixtures of metal-containing ENPs and metallic pollutants as well as conceptualization of the toxic outcome are discussed. The important knowledge gaps and the further research needs are identified, too. Such information is critical in developing ecient strategies for assessment of environmental impact of ENPs and metal co-exposure in complex environments. 2. Key Processes at The Exposure Medium—Organism Interface In the aquatic environment the ENPs and metallic pollutants interact with dierent biotic and abiotic constituents. As a result, they are present as complex and dynamic mixture of aggregates, dierent dissolved metal forms (free metal ions, bound to inorganic and organic ligands, forming labile or inert complexes), metal adsorbed on ENPs, natural nanoparticles, colloids and their aggregates. All these entities shape physicochemical speciation in the exposure medium and exhibit dierent reactivity towards biota. The key chemo- and bio-dynamic processes driving the interactions in the mixtures of metal-containing ENPs and metallic pollutants with aquatic (micro)organisms are shown in Figure 1. As these processes were recently reviewed for metal-containing ENPs [13], here we will focus specifically on the adsorption of the metallic pollutants on ENPs, the transformations of mixtures in exposure medium, the adsorption and internalization of ENPs and metallic pollutants by aquatic organisms. Environments 2020, 7, 27 3 of 20 Figure 1. Schematic representation of key processes at the exposure medium—organisms’ interface, which govern the interactions in the mixtures of metal-containing engineered nanoparticles (ENPs) and metallic pollutants. Dierent forms of ENPs and metallic pollutants are transported towards the organism surface via diusion (1). This process is size-dependent and diers for metal ions, metal complexes, ENPs and aggregates. Once at the vicinity of the organism, dierent species are adsorbed (5) on the organisms’ surface. ENPs and their aggregates (and sorbed metallic pollutants) adhere on the cell walls and cell membrane. Then ENPs could penetrate (6) through the membrane (but not necessarily) by dierent pathways, including endocytosis for the case of “particle-ingestive” organisms, alteration in cell membrane permeability for the “particle-proof” organism or other possible mechanisms [7,13,22,23]. Dissolved metallic pollutants first adsorb to dierent sites of the organism surface. Next, they could cross the membrane by facilitated (e.g., via channel mediated diusion) or active (e.g., through the essential trace metal transporters) transport. Once inside the cell, ENPs and metallic pollutants interact with intracellular structures and biomolecules, such as proteins, lipids and DNA, and could aect vital cellular processes; ENPs or metallic pollutants can be transformed (8) via dierent processes such as intracellular complexation, dissolution of ENPs, sulfidation or excreted (9). The complex interplay between all the processes will determine the overall eect of the mixture of ENPs and metallic pollutants. 2.1. Adsorption of Metallic Pollutants on Metal-Containing ENPs The adsorption of metallic pollutants on ENPs is widely studied from dierent perspectives, for example from nanocatalysis [24,25], wastewater treatment [26,27] and remediation [28,29]. The most studied metal-containing ENPs include metallic ENPs, metal oxide ENPs, quantum dots (QDs) and mixtures of dierent ENPs. Strong sorption on metallic ENPs is due to the presence of metal coordination sites (terrace, edge, kink or corner sites) on the particle surface which exhibit quite dierent coordination chemistry towards reactants, intermediates and products [30]. Atoms on the surface of metallic ENPs, especially the ones at the edges and corners are active center of the catalyst and the adsorption [31,32]. For example, a distinct decrease of AgNPs major peaks observed after adsorption of HgCl suggested that one of the adsorption mechanisms could be the formation of an amalgam between the two metals Ag Hg [33]. Adsorption of Au(III), Pd (II) and Pt(IV) on CuSNPs m n was related to high anity between exposed sulfur atoms on CuSNPs and noble metal ions [34]. Several articles focused on the interaction between QDs and dissolved metals. For instance, CdSe/ZnS QDs could be used to detect Hg(II) and Cu(II) [35]. PEG-ZnSQD @ZIF-67 hybrid nanocomposite could be used as fluorescence probe for Cu(II) [36]. CdSe/ZnS QDs exhibited ultrasensitive and highly selective detection of Zn(II) ions [37]. Carboxyl-terminal groups coupled polymer coated core/shell CdSe/ZnSQDs adsorbed significant amounts of dissolved Cu and Pb and aected their uptake in green algae Chlorella kesslerii and Chlamydomonas reinhardtii [38] and in metal-resistant bacterium Cupriavidus metallidurance [39]. Environments 2020, 7, 27 4 of 20 In addition to the high specific surface area, many metal oxide ENPs, such as ZnONPs, Al O NPs 2 3 and TiO NPs possess properties of both Lewis bases and acids [40–42]. Residual hydroxyl groups and anions/cations holes increase the surface activity of metal oxide ENPs [43,44]. Among the metal oxide ENPs, the most studied is TiO NPs [45–48]. Selected examples demonstrated its strong adsorption capacity: TiO NPs (Degussa P25) with primary size of 21 nm sorbed rapidly (equilibrium within 30 min) Cd(II) and As(V) [3,49]; P25, TiO NPs (anatase synthesized by sol-gel method) and titanate nanotubes adsorbed >99% of inorganic mercury (Hg) present in the medium [50]. Similarly, TiO NPs (Rutile/Anatase: 87/13) with size of 10 nm retained 96% of IHg in 45 min [51], whereas TiO NPs (Rutile/Anatase: 85/15) of 20 nm removed 98.6% of IHg [52]. Comparative study of four metal oxide ENPs revealed that the adsorption capacity of TiO NPs (5–10 nm) and Al O NPs (50-100 nm) to As(V) 2 2 3 were higher than that of ZnONPs (10–20 nm) and CuONPs (<10 nm) [53]. In some cases, the adoption of metallic pollutants is also accompanied with an oxidation process. For example, As(III) adsorbed on TiO NPs was oxidized to As(V) on the particle surface in the presence of UV light (Yan and Jing 2019). Recent studies demonstrated that binary metal oxides show enhanced adsorption of metals as compared with single metal oxides [54,55]. For example, Al-Mn binary oxides exhibited higher adsorption capacity for Cd(II) [56]. Fe O -TiO NPs completely removed As(V) and 93% of As(III) from 3 4 2 the medium in 1h [57]. Fe-Mn binary oxides combining the oxidation property of manganese dioxide and the high adsorption features of iron oxides were highly ecient in the removal of both As(V) and As(III) [58]. Fe-Mn binary oxides have also high adsorption capacity for Cr(VI) with the carboxyl- and the hydroxyl-groups participating in the adsorption process [59]. Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles functionalized with 3-mercaptopropionic acid were very ecient in sorbing metals: Ag(I) and Hg(II) interact strongly with the thiol groups, while the Pb(II) seems to adsorb mostly via electrostatic interaction [60]. When present in mixture with dissolving ENPs, the stable ENPs were also shown to adsorb the released ions. For example, the combined eects of ZnONPs dissolution and Zn(II) adsorption onto TiO NPs controlled the concentration of dissolved Zn(II) in the ZnONPs and TiO NPs mixture [61]. Overall, these studies revealed that the characteristics of ENPs, metallic pollutants and exposure medium influence the amount of adsorbed metallic pollutants. The adsorption of metallic pollutants on ENPs could results in their surface modification, which could change their properties and the way they interact with aquatic biota [62]. Nevertheless, the sorption of metallic pollutants on the ENPs has received only limited attention in (nano)ecotoxicology context and systematic studies on how the adsorption of the metallic pollutants on the ENPs will aect their reactivity towards the organisms are still missing. 2.2. Transformations of Mixture of ENPs and Metallic Pollutants in The Aquatic Environment In the environment ENPs are subject to dierent transformations including dissolution, agglomeration, aggregation and sedimentation, [63] which determine their stability and aect the interactions with aquatic organisms (Figure 1). The transformations of ENPs (and adsorbed metallic pollutants) strongly depend on: (i) Characteristics of ENPs (composition, size, shape, surface properties, crystal structure, etc.); for example, TiO NPs, SiO NPs and Al O NPs of smaller size aggregate easier 2 2 2 3 than larger ones [64]; Rutile TiO NPs aggregate stronger than anatase of comparable size [65]; TiO NPs with sodium citrate were more stable than polyvinylpyrrolidone, sodium dodecyl sulfate and polyethylene glycol [66]. (ii) Exposure medium variables (ionic strength, pH, composition and concentration of dissolved organic matter (DOM) etc.); for example, TiO NPs or Al O NPs and cells 2 2 3 significantly aggregated at neutral pH or low ionic strength, while SiO NPs at low pH or high ionic strength [64,67]. Extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) extracted from bacterium Bacillus subtilis stabilized TiO NPs [68]. Furthermore, once adsorbed on the ENPs metallic pollutants could alter the surface properties of ENPs and thus influence their aggregation and dissolution. For example, TiO NPs sorbed Zn(II) released from ZnONPs and also co-aggregated with ZnONPs [69]. Hetero-aggregates formed by Environments 2020, 7, 27 5 of 20 electrostatic interaction between AgNPs and hematite prevented AgNPs to have a direct contact with Escherichia coli cells [70]. CeO NPs and TiO NPs aggregated when present as a mixture in bacterial 2 2 culture medium due to their opposite surface charges, while CeO NPs had no eect on ZnONPs stability [71]. Magnetic Fe O NPs with dierent surface functionalities adsorbed various metal ions 3 4 (Cr(III), Co(II), Ni(II), Cu(II), Cd(II), Pb(II) and As(III)) by dierent mechanisms (chelation, ion exchange or/and electrostatic interaction etc.) [72,73]. 2.3. Adsorption and Internalization of ENPs and Metallic Pollutants in Mixtures by Aquatic Organisms Adsorption of ENPs (and associated metallic pollutants) onto the surface of aquatic organisms is a key step determining their bioavailability [13,23]. Dierent interaction forces could drive the adsorption process, including Van der Waals forces, hydrophobic forces, electrostatic attraction, hydrogen bonding and receptor-ligand interactions [23,74,75]. For the specific case of “particle-proof” microalgae, examples include adsorption of SiO NPs and CeO NPs on Raphidocelis subcapitata [76], TiO NPs on 2 2 2 Phaeodactylum tricornutum [77], CuONPs [78] and TiO NPs [13] on Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, AgNPs on Euglena gracilis [79]. AuNPs adsorbed on the carapace and appendages of water flea Daphnia magna, inducing mechanical disruptions of the feeding appendages [80]. Given the enhanced adsorption of metallic pollutant by ENPs (Section 2.1), ENPs can play a role of carriers facilitating the entry of metallic pollutants into the “particle-ingestive” organisms (“Trojan-horse eect”). For example, Pb(II) sorption on TiO NPs facilitated its accumulation by freshwater bivalve Corbicula fluminea [81]. Binding of Cd(II) on TiO NPs resulted in an alleviation of Cd(II) toxicity to Chlamydomonas reinhardtii [82], however has no consequences for the uptake and toxicity of Cd(II) by Daphnia magna and Lumbriculus variegatus [83]. The above examples demonstrated the complexity of the interactions between biota and mixtures of ENPs and metallic pollutants, as well as the ENPs, metals and species dependence. ENPs (and associated metallic pollutants) adsorbed onto the organisms can undergo translocation into the intracellular environment via dierent mechanisms, such as diusion and endocytosis, as evidenced by several studies [13,75]. Endocytosis occurs by multiple mechanisms that fall into two broad categories, “phagocytosis” and “pinocytosis” [84]. Dierent examples demonstrated the relevance of endocytosis for various microorganisms: internalization of AgNPs [85] and thioglycolic acid stabilized CdTe QDs [86] by the golden-brown alga Ochromonas danica, TiO NPs by the blue-green alga Anabaena variabilis [87]. The 3.4 nm AuNPs were taken up into macrophage cells via pinocytosis [88]. Carboxylic CdSe/ZnS QDs were shown to enter into the ciliate Tetrahymena thermophila by phagocytosis and clathrin-mediated endocytosis [89], as did AgNPs, AuNPs, CuONPs and TiO NPs [90]. Nonetheless, it is still unclear to what extent the majority of microorganisms have specific mechanisms of ENPs internalization. The internalization of ENPs by zooplankton is still poorly understood [12]. The water flea and shrimp can feed on particles of 0.4–40 m, and ENPs and their aggregates are taken up via water filtration. The uptake of AuNPs by Gammarus pulex varied depending on the surface coatings, with Au-mercaptoundecanoic acid and Au-citrate NPs being taken up to a greater extent than Au-NH and Au-PEG NPs in a range of standard ecotoxicity media and natural waters. No relationships were observed between the aggregation state of dierent AuNPs and the uptake, suggesting that the widely accepted assumption that AuNP uptake is related to particle size is, in fact, not verified [91]. No similar studies exist on the uptake of ENPs-metallic pollutant complexes, but in principle the mechanisms known for ENPs should be relevant. It is still unclear how the processes of adsorption of metallic pollutants on ENPs and their aggregation could influence the bioavailability of ENPs-metallic pollutants’ complexes. The recent work of Tan et al. evidenced that the biouptake of Cd(II) in Daphnia magna may either increase or reduce depending on the aggregation state of the TiO NPs [92]. This study highlighted the linkage between the aggregation of ENPs, adsorption of metallic pollutants and bioaccumulation. The ENPs compositions and concentrations were shown to impact the metallic pollutants uptake. For example, TiO NPs enhanced Cr(VI) bioavailability to freshwater alga Scenedesmus obliquus, while Al O NPs had 2 2 3 Environments 2020, 7, 27 6 of 20 no significant eect [93]. The bioavailability of ENPs and the feeding behavior of the aquatic organisms could also modulate metal uptake. For example, filter feeders, such as daphnids and shrimps can actively take up ENPs into their guts, thus facilitating accumulation of the adsorbed metal [92]. Adsorption and consequent internalization of dissolved metal is another key step in the overall biouptake process in co-exposure to ENPs and metallic pollutants. Dissolved fraction contains various species originating from the metallic pollutants and ENPs exhibiting dierent reactivities towards biota [94,95]. They bind to dierent functional groups (e.g., carboxyl-, hydroxyl-, phosphate, amino- and sulfhydryl-) in the cell wall and membrane constituents of aquatic microorganisms, such as algae [96] and bacteria [97]. Since the majority of metal species are hydrophilic, their transport through the biological membrane is mediated by specific proteins through the channels, channel carriers and pumps [98]. Common transporter families in eukaryotes and bacteria are well studied [99–102]. There is a consensus that for the majority of metals, the uptake is driven by the free metal ions [94,95] and the amount of metal bound to the biotic ligands [21]. Therefore, any environmental variables (including the ENPs) that could aect the speciation in the exposure medium as well as the competition between the metals for the biotic ligands will influence the amount of the metal taken up by the organisms. Based on the available literature for ENPs and metallic pollutants, as well as limited literature about the mixtures, the processes at the medium–organism interface in mixtures could depend on: (i) the physicochemical properties of the ENPs (e.g. size, shape, surface modification, etc.); (ii) the nature and characteristics of the metallic pollutants; (iii) the water quality variables (e.g., pH, ionic strength and the type/concentration of DOM); (iv) the characteristics of the aquatic organisms (e.g., membrane permeability, dierentiation stage and cellular uptake pathways). 3. Toxicity of Mixtures of ENPs and Metallic Pollutants to Aquatic Organisms Current knowledge on the co-exposure of aquatic organisms to mixtures of ENPs and metallic pollutants was nicely summarized in the literature [19]. Here we provide some more recent examples in Table 1. In general, the studies were designed in a way to consider the eect of mixture exposure by making comparison with the eect of individual components. Thus, toxicity outcomes of mixture exposure can be grouped in three categories: (i) ENPs have no significant eect on the toxicity of metallic pollutants; (ii) ENPs increase the toxicity of metallic pollutants; (iii) ENPs reduce toxicity of metallic pollutants (Table 1). However, this categorization is operational and dependent on dierent experimental factors, including species, exposure duration, etc. For instance, co-exposure of two Bacillus species to TiO NPs and Cu(II) under the same test conditions resulted in dierent eects, showing the species dependence of the observed eects [103]. Acute and chronic exposure of Tigriopus japonicus to mixtures of ZnONPs and Cd(II) or Pb(II) resulted in the contrasting eects [104]. However, chronic exposure of Daphnia magna to mixture of TiO NPs and As(III)/As(V) led to comparable toxicity [105]. 3.1. No Significant Eect of ENPs on The Toxicity of Metallic Pollutants ENPs have no significant eect on the toxicity of other metallic pollutants when there was no interaction between ENPs and metallic pollutants, and ENPs itself had no eect on the organisms [19]. Vale et al. states that Cd(II) uptake and antioxidant enzyme activities by bivalve Corbicula fluminea were comparable in the absence and presence TiO NPs [106]. Similarly, TiO NPs did not aect specific 2 2 metal-induced responses (metallothionein induction) and Cd(II) accumulation in tissues of marine bivalve Mytilus galloprovincialis [107]. AgNPs had no influence on the Cd(II) toxicity to green alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii [108]. The lack of modulation of the metal toxicity in the presence of ENPs could be also related with the lowering of the concentrations of the suspended ENPs which can interact with planktonic organisms due to the formation of the big aggregates that sedimented. For example, the real concentration of dispersed TiO NPs was by far lower than the nominal one, mainly due to particle concentration dependent aggregation and sedimentation [109]. Environments 2020, 7, 27 7 of 20 Table 1. Selected recent examples of studies investigating the combined eects of metals and ENPs on plankton species including algae, bacteria, ciliate and zooplankton. End Point/ ENPs Metal Organisms Test Conditions Ref. Mixture Eect 10–20 nm Al O NPs, modified Guillard f2 medium, Growth inhibition, chlorophyll fluorescence/Synergistic eect in 2 3 Al O Pb(II) Marine alga Isochrysis galbana [110] 2 3 1 Exposure time 72 h the presence of 10mg L Al O NPs 2 3 P25, Physiological saline buer, TiO Cu(II) Bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis Viability, ROS generation, enzymatic activity, Cu uptake/Increase [103] Exposure time 24 h TiO Cu(II) Bacterium Bacillus megaterium P25, Physiological saline buer, Exp. time 24 h Viability, ROS generation, enzymatic activity, Cu uptake/No eect [103] TiO Cd(II) Bacterium Escherichia coli Anatase 5–10 nm, Exposure time 3 h Growth reduction, Antagonistic interaction [111] Mortality, malformation rate, No eect; Locomotion/Decrease; TiO Pb(II) Zebrafish larvae 5 nm TiO NPs, Exposure time 48 h [112] 2 2 Biouptake and depuration/Increase Cd(II), As(III), Two sizes: 5 and 15 nm; strong aggregation Cd uptake/Decrease TiO Nematode Caenorhabditis elegans [113] Ni(II) Exposure time 12 h Reproduction and development toxicity/Increase 21 nm TiO , Acute immobilization test, TiO As(III), As(V) Water flea Daphnia magna Immobilization/Decrease [105] Exposure time 48 h 21 nm TiO , Chronic test, TiO As(III), As(V) Water flea Daphnia magna Body length and reproduction/Decrease [105] Exposure time 21 d 29.5 nm TiO with surface modified by Al(OH) , * 2 3 TiO Cu(II) Water flea Daphnia magna Bioaccumulation and oxidative stress/Increased [114] Exposure time 48 h 36.7 nm TiO with surface modified by Al(OH) + 2 3 TiO Cu(II) Water flea Daphnia magna High intestinal damage [114] stearic acid, 48 h ZnO Cd(II), Pb(II) Marine copepod Tigriopus japonicus 22 nm ZnONPs, artificial seawater Exposure time 96 h Acute test, mortality/Increase [104] 22 nm ZnONPs, artificial seawater Exposure time 96 h Chronic test, Reproduction (spawning rate, time to hatch, Nb of ZnO Cd(II), Pb(II) Marine copepod Tigriopus japonicus [104] 20 C, 21 days nauplii)/Decrease Pb(II), Toxicity impact index / Increase (Pb(II)); antagonistic interaction Bacterium ZVI 67 nm, Microtox®Test, ** ZVI Cd(II), Decrease (Cd(II), Zn(II)) [115] Vibrio fischeri Exposure time 5 min Zn(II) Synergistic interaction Pb(II), Growth, reproduction, survival ZVI 67 nm, ZVI Cd(II), Nematode Caenorhabditis elegans Improvement (Cd(II), Zn(II)) [115] Exposure time 96 h Zn(II) No eect (Pb(II)) Pb(II), ZVI 67 nm, Growth rate inhibition ZVI Cd(II), Green alga Scenedesmus intermedius [115] b c Exposure time 72h NOEC , IC50 /Increase Zn(II) Pb(II), Cyanobacterium Microcystis ZVI 67 nm, Growth rate inhibition ZVI Cd(II), [115] aeruginosa Exposure time 72h NOEC, IC50/Increase Zn(II) a b c *hydrophobic. **ZVI: zero valent iron. ROS: reactive oxygen species. NOEC: non-observed eect concentration. IC: mean inhibitory concentration. Environments 2020, 7, 27 8 of 20 Moreover, Canesi et al. suggested that ENPs interact with organic matter produced by the organisms (mucus, fecal pellets, gametes), promoting the adsorption on mussel shell and byssal threads, as well as the sedimentation, thus aecting ENPs capability to adsorb contaminants [116]. All these processes may account for the low ENPs concentrations found in water samples collected during exposure, clearly indicating that only a minor fraction of the ENPs (and associated pollutants) in the dispersed form is available to the test organisms. There are some evidences showing that ENPs had no significant eect on the toxicity of other metallic pollutants even though there was interaction between ENPs and metallic pollutants, and ENPs had an eect on the organism. For instance, the acute toxicities of As(V) and Cu(II) were unaected by citrate-coated AgNPs despite the fact that their bioaccumulation was reduced [117]. 3.2. Increase of Toxicity/Bioavailability of Metallic Pollutants by ENPs Since ENPs are ecient adsorbents for metallic pollutants, they can play a role of carriers facilitating the entry of metallic pollutants into the organisms (“Trojan-horse eect”), which may lead to enhancement of metallic pollutant toxicity to aquatic organisms. Indeed, TiO NPs (21 nm) greatly promoted the accumulation of Cd(II) in Cyprinus carpio and the cumulative Cd(II) concentrations in the presence of TiO NPs were 2.5 times higher than in the absence [3]. Similarly, TiO NPs increased 2 2 As(V) accumulation in Cyprinus carpio by 44% [118], suggesting that TiO NPs played a role of carrier promoting the uptake. TiO NPs increased the bioconcentration of Pb(II), which led to the disruption of thyroid endocrine and neuronal system in zebrafish larvae [119]. Toxicity and bioavailability of Cd(II) and Zn(II) to Daphnia magna increased significantly after TiO NPs pre-exposure [120], as was observed for Cu(II) accumulation [121]. The presence of hydrophobic TiO NPs increased simultaneously the bioaccumulation of Cu(II) and Ti(IV) and induced high oxidative stress injury [114]. TiO NPs enhanced Cd uptake in the “particle-ingestive” protozoa Tetrahymena thermophila, with 46.3% of internalized Cd corresponded to Cd-TiO NPs complex [122]. The presence of ENPs can also increase the uptake and toxicity of dierent pollutants to unicellular organisms with no endocytosis. For example, Hartmann et al. showed that despite of the decrease of Cd(II) concentration due to the adsorption to TiO NPs, algal growth inhibition increased [123]. This observation was explained by: (i) adsorption of Cd(II) on TiO NPs resulting in an increase of Cd(II) concentration in algal cells surface; the main component of the algal cell wall is cellulose, which also usually contains glycoproteins and polysaccharides [124]. These components can act as binding sites to promote the adsorption of ENPs by algae [125,126]. Large aggregates of TiO NPs entrapped almost all Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata cells [127]. It was also observed that algae Chlorella vulgaris and Raphidocelis subcapitata absorb large amount of AgNPs [128]. TiO NPs at low concentrations (<1.0 mgL ) significantly enhanced the toxicity of Zn(II) to Anabaena sp. [129]. (ii) TiO NPs changed the permeability of the cells and increased the bioavailability of Cd(II). Indeed, various ENPs such as TiO NPs, CuONPs and QD were shown to induce membrane damage to dierent unicellular organisms, such as algae or bacteria [78,130–132]. (iii) TiO NPs can transfer Cd into the algae cells as a carrier. The algae cell walls are semipermeable, and their structure is usually porous [124]. The diameter of these pores is in the range of 5–20 nm [133,134], which makes the ENPs in the size smaller than the maximal pore size can pass through the cell wall easily. Once the ENPs pass through the cell wall, ENPs will encounter the second barrier—the plasma membrane. Endocytosis and passive diusion are considered to be the main pathway for ENPs to cross the bilayer lipid membrane [135,136]. In addition, the permeability of the cell wall may change during cell cycling, with the newly synthesized cell wall being more permeable to ENPs, thereby increasing the uptake of ENPs by algal cells [128,137]. Al O NPs loaded with Pb(II) penetrated Isochrysis galbana cells and a synergistic eect was also found 2 3 for the toxic eect of Pb(II) [110]. ENPs adhered to the bacterial surface and enhanced the membrane damage and metal accumulation in bacterial cell [138]. Co-exposure to TiO NPs and Cu(II) resulted in an increased uptake of Cu(II) by Bacillus thuringiensis, leading to increase of growth inhibition and oxidative stress [103]. Environments 2020, 7, 27 9 of 20 ENPs mainly aected cell membrane by the oxidative damage and membrane integrity [139]. AgNPs induced an excessive generation of ROS in the cell membrane and the production of membrane protein crystals of Dunaliella salina [140]. ENPs can also accumulate in the cell membrane and lead to cell wall depression, which causes changes in cell membrane permeability, until cell apoptosis occurs [141]. 3.3. Reduction of The Toxicity/Bioavailability of Metallic Pollutants by ENPs Most of the existing studies on reduced combined toxic eects of ENPs and metallic pollutants were based on the adsorption consideration and reduction of metallic pollutants bioavailability in a way similar to those of natural nanoparticles and colloids [20]. For instance, TiO NPs reduced the growth inhibitory eect of Cd(II) on Chlamydomonas reinhardtii due to the adsorption of Cd(II) by TiO NPs and reduction of the concentrations of free Cd(II) ions [82,142]. High TiO NPs concentration 2 2 eectively reduced the soluble Zn(II) (and its toxicity) concentrations by adsorbing Zn(II) on ENPs and settling to the bottom of the reactor [129]. Growth inhibition, oxidative stress and Cu(II) uptake by Scenedesmus obliquus were lower in mixture exposure with Al O NPs [143]. TiO NPs reduced the 2 3 2 toxicity of Cd(II) to bacterium Escherichia coli and the combined toxicity decreased with the increasing TiO NPs concentrations, which can be explained by the reduction of the free Cd(II) concentration in the exposure medium [111]. Furthermore, ENPs may interfere with the metabolism of co-existed metals. Indeed, TiO NPs altered the metabolization of arsenic by polychaete Laeonereis acuta and increased the proportions of dimethyl arsenic forms [144]. The well dispersed TiO NPs and their m-sized aggregates lessened Cd(II) toxicity to Daphnia magna, however the alleviation mechanisms were dierent. The m-sized aggregates were actively ingested by Daphnia magna which resulted in an accumulation of Cd(II) in the daphnid gut. Whereas, the well dispersed TiO NPs were taken up mainly by endocytosis which resulted in their accumulation in abdominal areas and the gut of Daphnia magna. Accumulation of Cd(II) was considerably impaired because of the metal’s rapid dissociation from the ENPs surfaces during endocytosis of the metal-ENPs complexes [92]. Li et al. showed that ENPs can modulate the toxicity of metallic pollutants by influencing their subcellular distribution in the test organisms, too. TiO NPs (25 nm) decreased the toxicity of As(III) to Daphnia magna, as TiO NPs accumulated in intestinal tract may act as a barrier, blocking the intestinal absorption of As(III) [145]. Excretion is another important process that may impact the eventually toxicological eects of the mixtures. It was found that organisms may excrete compounds as a feedback response, to alter the ENPs’ toxicity [146–148]. The excretion behavior of the mixtures may dier among the organisms as a function of their physiology, exposure routes, ENPs and metallic pollutants. For instance, the main elimination routes for AgNPs in Daphnia magna were excretion (63%) and fecal production [37]. In addition, the excretion rate constant of AgNPs in daphnids was much lower than that of Ag, suggesting the diculty of eliminating AgNPs [149]. The majority of CdSe/ZnSQDs adhered to the external carapace or free floating within the gastrointestinal tract were excreted, whereas there were still a significant number of QDs retained by Ceriodaphnia dubia within the digestive tract [150]. No studies are currently available about ENPs excretion for microalgae. Only studies about the biosynthesis of ENPs in microalgae have been reported [151–153]. Overall, the existing research on combined eects of mixtures containing ENPs and metallic pollutants focused on the eects of fixed concentrations of ENPs on the toxicity of metallic pollutants, without considering the varied proportions of ENPs and metallic pollutants in the real environment. 4. Possible Bioaccumulation and Toxicity Outcome Scenarios during Co-Exposure to ENPs and Metallic Pollutants 4.1. Exposure of “Particle-Proof” Organisms to Mixtures of ENPs and Metallic Pollutants Based on the available literature, we propose 10 possible toxicity outcome scenarios of ENPs-metallic pollutants mixtures on the “particle-proof” organisms (Figure 2). Environments 2020, 7, 27 10 of 20 Figure 2. Conceptual presentation of dierent scenarios concerning combined eects of mixtures of ENPs and metallic pollutants to “particle-proof” microorganisms like Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. 1. No interaction between ENPs and metallic pollutants; ENPs do not adsorb or penetrate algal cells. ENPs have no significant eect on algae. Metallic pollutants’ bioaccumulation and toxicity to the algae are unchanged. 2. No interaction between ENPs and metallic pollutants; ENPs adsorb and penetrate into algal cells. Metallic pollutants’ bioaccumulation in the algae is unchanged. Eects of ENPs and metallic pollutants on the organism are independent. Combined toxicity may remain the same or increase depending on the species and concentrations of ENPs. 3. No interaction between ENPs and metallic pollutants; ENPs and metallic pollutants compete for the same binding sites on algal surface. Under this condition, the metallic pollutants’ bioaccumulation decreases. Whereas the combined toxicity may increase, decrease or remain the same depending on the toxicity of ENPs. 4. No interaction between ENPs and metallic pollutants; ENPs adsorb, but do not enter algal cells. ENPs aect cell membrane permeability, resulting in increase of bioaccumulation of metallic pollutants. 5. No interaction between ENPs and metallic pollutants; ENPs adsorb and alter cell membrane permeability. ENPs and metallic pollutants enter the algal cells independently. Bioaccumulation of ENPs and metallic pollutants both increase. 6. Metallic pollutants adsorb onto ENPs; ENPs do not interact with algal cells. Bioaccumulation and eect of metallic pollutants decrease. 7. Metallic pollutants adsorb onto ENPs; ENPs with adsorbed metallic pollutants accumulate on the surface of algal cells. Bioaccumulation of metallic pollutants increases whereas the toxicity decreases. 8. Metallic pollutants adsorb onto ENPs; ENPs aect membrane permeability and enter algal cells. There is no desorption of metallic pollutants from ENPs. Bioaccumulation of metallic pollutants increases whereas the toxicity decreases. 9. Metallic pollutants adsorb onto ENPs; ENPs alter cell membrane permeability and enter algal cells. Metallic pollutants desorb from ENPs. In this case, the bioaccumulation of metallic pollutants increases. Desorption of chemical from ENPs is an important process for microorganisms with the food vacuoles. The pH in the food vacuoles becomes acidic (pH<4) within 1h after vacuole formation [154]. ENPs tend to release adsorbed environmental pollutants under the acidic condition [155]. Environments 2020, 7, 27 11 of 20 10. Free metal ions released from ENPs compete with metallic pollutants for algal cell binding and internalization sites. Accumulation of metallic pollutants in algal cells decreases. The biological outcome is uncertain depending the species and concentration of ENPs. 4.2. Exposure of “Particle-Ingestive” Organisms to Mixtures of ENPs and Metallic Pollutants Based on the available literature here we summarized 6 possible toxicity outcome scenarios for mixtures of ENPs and metallic pollutants (Figure 3). These scenarios are proposed considering several dominating processes that determine the toxicity outcome of ENPs metallic pollutants mixtures, namely (i) aggregation, (ii) type of interaction between ENPs and metallic pollutants, (iii) internalization of ENPs by test organisms, (iv) desorption of metallic pollutants from ENPs upon contact to organisms and (v) excretion of ENPs, metallic pollutants and their complexes. We also assumed that invertebrates like Daphnia magna and shrimps take up more metallic pollutants adsorbed on ENPs via water filtration than exposed to metallic pollutants alone, and monodispersed ENPs can easier get deep inside the organisms and harder to be excreted compared with aggregated ENPs. Figure 3. Conceptual presentation of dierent scenarios concerning combined eects of mixtures of ENPs and metallic pollutants to ecologically important freshwater zooplankton species Daphnia magna. 1. No aggregation of ENPs. No interaction between ENPs and metallic pollutants. Bioaccumulation and eect of metallic pollutants are unchanged. 2. No aggregation of ENPs. Adsorption of metallic pollutants onto ENPs. No desorption of metallic pollutants from ENPs in the organism. Metallic pollutants uptake is facilitated by ENPs but the bioavailability of metallic pollutants decreases because of the reduction of the concentration of free metallic pollutants. Environments 2020, 7, 27 12 of 20 3. Aggregation of ENPs. Adsorption of metallic pollutants onto ENPs in medium. Desorption of metallic pollutant from ENPs in the organism. Increased body burden and bioavailability as a result of desorption of metallic pollutants from ENPs. 4. Aggregation of ENPs. No interaction between ENPs and metallic pollutants. Bioaccumulation and toxicity of metallic pollutants are unchanged as the metallic pollutants and ENPs act independently. 5. Aggregation of ENPs. Adsorption of metallic pollutants onto ENPs in medium. No desorption of metallic pollutants from ENPs in the organism. Reduced bioavailability of the metallic pollutants due to the decline in the concentration of free metallic pollutants. 6. Aggregation of ENPs. Adsorption of metallic pollutants onto ENPs in medium. No desorption of metallic pollutants from ENPs in the organism. Increased body burden and toxicity as a result of desorption of metallic pollutants from ENPs. 5. Conclusions and Outlook Aquatic organisms are typically exposed to multi-component mixtures of environmental pollutants, including ENPs. However, the current environmental risk assessment considers the eects of single pollutant which might be over-simplistic and this results to underestimation the possible risks. Since it is not realistic to test every possible combination of ENPs and environmental pollutants, development of the conceptual frames allowing to predict the cocktail eects is very important. The existing concepts of CA and IA were developed for dissolved pollutant mixtures; therefore, it is necessary to verify their applicability and to make an adjustment (if necessary) in the specific case of mixtures containing ENPs. Significant progress was achieved in the understanding of the bioavailability and cocktail eects of mixtures containing ENPs and metallic pollutants. There is a consensus that ENPs can either increase, decrease or have no eect on the trace metal bioavailability and toxic eect depending on the feeding pattern of the organisms (e.g., “particle-proof” or “particle-ingestive” organism). Among the metallic ENPs, the most studied is TiO NPs given its wide use [156,157], and among the metallic pollutants Cd(II) due to its high toxicity [158]. All the studies that analyzed the joint action of defined mixtures were combinations of only 2 components—ENPs and one metallic pollutant. The results on the combined exposure of model species, such as Daphnia magna and dierent algae, to ENPs and metallic pollutants revealed no interactions, positive or negative interactions between them. However, the limited data availability and low comparability make dicult the comparison between metals, ENPs and species. Despite the growing literature dealing with combined eects of ENPs and metallic pollutants on phyto- and zoo-plankton, numerous knowledge gaps still need to be filled. Coming studies should focus on the better understanding of the interactions between ENPs and metallic pollutants and go beyond of the sorption equilibrium considerations. Cocktail eects of mixtures containing low doses of ENPs and metallic pollutants, when individual components have no eects are to be explored. Most of the results are obtained in well controlled lab conditions with quite high concentrations of ENPs and metallic pollutants with unrealistic ratios, which make dicult the extrapolation of the obtained results to natural environments. Better understanding of the mechanisms driving bioavailability and eects of mixtures containing ENPs and metals in the complex environment settings (e.g., presence of dissolved organic matter), more realistic ENPs/ metallic pollutant ratios will enable relevant lab-to-field extrapolation of toxicity data. Incorporation of the time-dependent size distribution of dispersed and internalized ENPs in the bioavailability modeling [159] was proposed. Overall, a more systematic approach considering the combined pressure of multiple stressors [160] and reconceptualization of exposure and eects of chemical cocktails containing ENPs is necessary and will be in the center of forthcoming nanoecotoxicology agenda. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, V.I.S.; writing—original draft preparation, M.L., W.L., V.I.S.; writing—review and editing, M.L., W.L., V.I.S.; funding acquisition, M.L., V.I.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research was funded by China Scholarship Council grant [2016]3100. Environments 2020, 7, 27 13 of 20 Acknowledgments: M.L. and V.I.S. are grateful for the financial support of the China Scholarship Council. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. Nanotechnology Market: By Type (Nanocomposites, Nanofibers, Nanoceramics, Nanomagnetics); By Application (Medical Diagnosis, Energy, ICT, Nano-EHS); By End-Users (Electronics, Pharmaceuticals, Biotechnology, Textile, Military)—Forecast (2016–2021); Industry ARC: Telangana, India, 2016. 2. Quigg, A.; Chin, W.-C.; Chen, C.-S.; Zhang, S.; Jiang, Y.; Miao, A.-J.; Schwehr, K.A.; Xu, C.; Santschi, P.H. Direct and indirect toxic eects of engineered nanoparticles on algae: Role of natural organic matter. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2013, 1, 686–702. [CrossRef] 3. Zhang, X.; Sun, H.; Zhang, Z.; Niu, Q.; Chen, Y.; Crittenden, J.C. Enhanced bioaccumulation of cadmium in carp in the presence of titanium dioxide nanoparticles. Chemosphere 2007, 67, 160–166. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 4. Hu, J.; Wang, D.; Wang, J.; Wang, J. Toxicity of lead on Ceriodaphnia dubia in the presence of nano-CeO and nano-TiO . Chemosphere 2012, 89, 536–541. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 5. Akter, M.; Sikder, M.T.; Rahman, M.M.; Ullah, A.; Hossain, K.F.B.; Banik, S.; Hosokawa, T.; Saito, T.; Kurasaki, M. A systematic review on silver nanoparticles-induced cytotoxicity: Physicochemical properties and perspectives. J. Adv. Res. 2018, 9, 1–16. [CrossRef] 6. Holden, P.A.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L.; Klaessig, F.; Turco, R.F.; Mortimer, M.; Hund-Rinke, K.; Hubal, E.A.C.; Avery, D.; Barcelo, D.; Behra, R.; et al. Considerations of environmentally relevant test conditions for improved evaluation of ecological hazards of engineered nanomaterials. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 6124–6145. [CrossRef] 7. Ivask, A.; Juganson, K.; Bondarenko, O.; Mortimer, M.; Aruoja, V.; Kasemets, K.; Blinova, I.; Heinlaan, M.; Slaveykova, V.; Kahru, A. Mechanisms of toxic action of Ag, ZnO and CuO nanoparticles to selected ecotoxicological test organisms and mammalian cells in vitro: A comparative review. Nanotoxicology 2014, 8, 57–71. [CrossRef] 8. McGillicuddy, E.; Murray, I.; Kavanagh, S.; Morrison, L.; Fogarty, A.; Cormican, M.; Dockery, P.; Prendergast, M.; Rowan, N.; Morris, D. Silver nanoparticles in the environment: Sources, detection and ecotoxicology. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 575, 231–246. [CrossRef] 9. Zhang, W.C.; Xiao, B.D.; Fang, T. Chemical transformation of silver nanoparticles in aquatic environments: Mechanism, morphology and toxicity. Chemosphere 2018, 191, 324–334. [CrossRef] 10. Joonas, E.; Aruoja, V.; Olli, K.; Kahru, A. Environmental safety data on CuO and TiO nanoparticles for multiple algal species in natural water: Filling the data gaps for risk assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 647, 973–980. [CrossRef] 11. Kumar, R.; Umar, A.; Kumar, G.; Nalwa, H.S. Antimicrobial properties of ZnO nanomaterials: A review. Ceram. Int. 2017, 43, 3940–3961. [CrossRef] 12. Lead, J.R.; Batley, G.E.; Alvarez, P.J.J.; Croteau, M.N.; Handy, R.D.; McLaughlin, M.J.; Judy, J.D.; Schirmer, K. Nanomaterials in the environment: Behavior, fate, bioavailability, and eects. An updated review. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2018, 37, 2029–2063. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 13. Slaveykova, V.I.; Li, M.; Worms, I.A.; Liu, W. When environmental chemistry meets ecotoxicology: Bioavailability of inorganic nanoparticles to phytoplankton. Chimia 2020. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 14. Fischer, B.B.; Pomati, F.; Eggen, R.I.L. The toxicity of chemical pollutants in dynamic natural systems: The challenge of integrating environmental factors and biological complexity. Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 449, 253–259. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 15. Segner, H.; Schmitt-Jansen, M.; Sabater, S. Assessing the impact of multiple stressors on aquatic biota: The receptor ’s side matters. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 7690–7696. [CrossRef] 16. Heys, K.A.; Shore, R.F.; Pereira, M.G.; Jones, K.C.; Martin, F.L. Risk assessment of environmental mixture eects. RSC Adv. 2016, 6, 47844–47857. [CrossRef] 17. Godoy, A.A.; Kummrow, F. What do we know about the ecotoxicology of pharmaceutical and personal care product mixtures? A critical review. Crit. Rev. Env. Sci. Technol. 2017, 47, 1453–1496. [CrossRef] 18. Escher, B.I.; Hermens, J.L.M. Modes of Action in Ecotoxicology: Their role in body burdens, species sensitivity, QSARs, and mixture eects. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 36, 4201–4217. [CrossRef] Environments 2020, 7, 27 14 of 20 19. Naasz, S.; Altenburger, R.; Kühnel, D. Environmental mixtures of nanomaterials and chemicals: The Trojan-horse phenomenon and its relevance for ecotoxicity. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 635, 1170–1181. [CrossRef] 20. Hartland, A.; Lead, J.R.; Slaveykova, V.; O’Carroll, D.; Valsami-Jones, E. The environmental significance of natural nanoparticles. Nat. Educ. Knowl. 2013, 4, 7. 21. Slaveykova, V.I.; Wilkinson, K.J. Predicting the bioavailability of metals and metal complexes: Critical review of the biotic ligand model. Environ. Chem. 2005, 2, 9–24. [CrossRef] 22. Ma, S.; Lin, D. The biophysicochemical interactions at the interfaces between nanoparticles and aquatic organisms: Adsorption and internalization. Env. Sci. Process. Impacts 2013, 14, 145–160. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 23. Von Moos, N.; Bowen, P.; Slaveykova, V.I. Bioavailability of inorganic nanoparticles to planktonic bacteria and aquatic microalgae in freshwater. Environ. Sci. Nano 2014, 1, 214–232. [CrossRef] 24. Nelson, J.; Bargar, J.R.; Wasylenki, L.; Brown Jr, G.E.; Maher, K. Eects of nano-confinement on Zn (II) adsorption to nanoporous silica. Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta 2018, 240, 80–97. [CrossRef] 25. Kumari, P.; Alam, M.; Siddiqi, W.A. Usage of nanoparticles as adsorbents for waste water treatment: An emerging trend. Sustain. Mater. Technol. 2019, 22, e00128. [CrossRef] 26. Hokkanen, S.; Sillanpää, M. Nano-and microcellulose-based adsorption materials in water treatment. In Advanced Water Treatment; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 1–83. 27. Abdugaarova, K.K.; Dorogov, M.V.; Vikarchuk, A.A.; Zabolotskikh, V.V.; Firsov, V.S. New sorption materials on the basis of aluminosilicates for wasterwater treatment. In Nano Hybrids and Composites; Trans Tech Publications Ltd.: Zurich, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 190–196. 28. Xue, W.; Peng, Z.; Huang, D.; Zeng, G.; Wan, J.; Xu, R.; Cheng, M.; Zhang, C.; Jiang, D.; Hu, Z. Nanoremediation of cadmium contaminated river sediments: Microbial response and organic carbon changes. J. Hazard. Mater. 2018, 359, 290–299. [CrossRef] 29. Fajardo, C.; Sánchez-Fortún, S.; Costa, G.; Nande, M.; Botías, P.; García-Cantalejo, J.; Mengs, G.; Martín, M. Evaluation of nanoremediation strategy in a Pb, Zn and Cd contaminated soil. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 706, 136041. [CrossRef] 30. Zecchina, A.; Bordiga, S.; Groppo, E. Selective Nanocatalysts and Nanoscience: Concepts for Heterogeneous and Homogeneous Catalysis; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011. 31. O’Brien, N.J.; Cummins, E.J. A risk assessment framework for assessing metallic nanomaterials of environmental concern: Aquatic exposure and behavior. Risk Anal. 2011, 31, 706–726. [CrossRef] 32. Sethi, M.; Pacardo, D.B.; Knecht, M.R. Biological surface eects of metallic nanomaterials for applications in assembly and catalysis. Langmuir 2010, 26, 15121–15134. [CrossRef] 33. Tauanov, Z.; Shah, D.; Inglezakis, V. Silver nanoparticles impregnated zeolites derived from coal fly ash: Eect of the silver loading on adsorption of mercury (II). In Proceedings of the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Lefkada Island, Greece, 27–30 June 2018; p. 647. 34. Yao, C.; Chen, S.; Wang, L.; Deng, H.; Tong, S. Low cost and rapid fabrication of copper sulfides nanoparticles for selective and ecient capture of noble metal ions. Chem. Eng. J. 2019, 373, 1168–1178. [CrossRef] 35. Zhu, S.; Zhao, F.; Deng, M.; Zhang, T.; Lü, C. Construction of -cyclodextrin derived CDs-coupled block copolymer micelles loaded with CdSe/ZnS QDs via host-guest interaction for ratiometric fluorescence sensing of metal ions. Dye. Pigment. 2019, 168, 369–380. [CrossRef] 36. Asadi, F.; Azizi, S.N.; Chaichi, M.J. Green synthesis of fluorescent PEG-ZnS QDs encapsulated into Co-MOFs as an eective sensor for ultrasensitive detection of copper ions in tap water. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2019, 105, 110058. [CrossRef] 37. Yang, L.; Zhang, X.; Wang, J.; Sun, H.; Jiang, L. Double-decrease of the fluorescence of CdSe/ZnS quantum dots for the detection of zinc (II) dimethyldithiocarbamate (ziram) based on its interaction with gold nanoparticles. Microchim. Acta 2018, 185, 472. [CrossRef] 38. Worms, I.A.M.; Boltzman, J.; Garcia, M.; Slaveykova, V.I. Cell-wall-dependent eect of carboxyl-CdSe/ZnS quantum dots on lead and copper availability to green microalgae. Environ. Pollut. 2012, 167, 27–33. [CrossRef] 39. Slaveykova, V.I.; Pinheiro, J.P.; Floriani, M.; Garcia, M. Interactions of core–shell quantum dots with metal resistant bacterium Cupriavidus metallidurans: Consequences for Cu and Pb removal. J. Hazard. Mater. 2013, 261, 123–129. [CrossRef] Environments 2020, 7, 27 15 of 20 40. Cumbal, L.; SenGupta, A.K. Arsenic removal using polymer-supported hydrated iron (III) oxide nanoparticles: Role of Donnan membrane eect. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39, 6508–6515. [CrossRef] 41. Qiao, R.; Yang, C.; Gao, M. Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles: From preparations to in vivo MRI applications. J. Mater. Chem. 2009, 19, 6274–6293. [CrossRef] 42. Lucas, E.; Decker, S.; Khaleel, A.; Seitz, A.; Fultz, S.; Ponce, A.; Li, W.; Carnes, C.; Klabunde, K.J. Nanocrystalline metal oxides as unique chemical reagents/sorbents. Chem. A Eur. J. 2001, 7, 2505–2510. [CrossRef] 43. Deiana, C.; Fois, E.; Coluccia, S.; Martra, G. Surface structure of TiO P25 nanoparticles: Infrared study of hydroxy groups on coordinative defect sites. J. Phys. Chem. C 2010, 114, 21531–21538. [CrossRef] 44. Wang, C.-Y.; Groenzin, H.; Shultz, M.J. Molecular species on nanoparticulate anatase TiO film detected by sum frequency generation: Trace hydrocarbons and hydroxyl groups. Langmuir 2003, 19, 7330–7334. [CrossRef] 45. Pavlovic, ´ V.P.; Vujancevi ˇ c, ´ J.D.; Maškovic, ´ P.; Cirkovic, ´ J.; Papan, J.M.; Kosanovic, ´ D.; Dramicanin, ´ M.D.; Petrovic, ´ P.B.; Vlahovic, ´ B.; Pavlovic, ´ V.B. Structure and enhanced antimicrobial activity of mechanically activated nano TiO . J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2019, 102, 7735–7745. [CrossRef] 46. Jhang, J.-H.; Chang, S.-J.; Pedaballi, S.; Li, C.-C. A new porous structure with dispersed nano-TiO in a three-dimensional carbon skeleton for achieving high photocatalytic activity. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2019, 276, 62–67. [CrossRef] 47. Galiano, F.; Song, X.; Marino, T.; Boerrigter, M.; Saoncella, O.; Simone, S.; Faccini, M.; Chaumette, C.; Drioli, E.; Figoli, A. Novel photocatalytic PVDF/nano-TiO hollow fibers for environmental remediation. Polymers 2018, 10, 1134. [CrossRef] 48. Li, H.; Ding, S.; Zhang, L.; Ouyang, J.; Han, B. Eects of particle size, crystal phase and surface treatment of nano-TiO on the rheological parameters of cement paste. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 239, 117897. [CrossRef] 49. Sun, H.; Zhang, X.; Niu, Q.; Chen, Y.; Crittenden, J.C. Enhanced accumulation of arsenate in carp in the presence of titanium dioxide nanoparticles. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2007, 178, 245–254. [CrossRef] 50. Lopez-Munoz, M.J.; Arencibia, A.; Cerro, L.; Pascual, R.; Melgar, A. Adsorption of Hg (II) from aqueous solutions using TiO and titanate nanotube adsorbents. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2016, 367, 91–100. [CrossRef] 51. Ghasemi, Z.; Seif, A.; Ahmadi, T.S.; Zargar, B.; Rashidi, F.; Rouzbahani, G.M. Thermodynamic and kinetic studies for the adsorption of Hg (II) by nano-TiO from aqueous solution. Adv. Powder Technol. 2012, 23, 148–156. [CrossRef] 52. Afshar, E.; Mohammadi-Manesh, H.; Khavidaki, H.D. Removal of Hg (I) and Hg (II) ions from aqueous solutions, using TiO nanoparticles. Pollution 2017, 3, 505–516. [CrossRef] 53. Zhan, H.; Jiang, Y.; Ma, Q. Determination of adsorption characteristics of metal oxide nanomaterials: Application as adsorbents. Anal. Lett. 2014, 47, 871–884. [CrossRef] 54. Islam, A.; Awual, R.; Angove, M.J. A review on nickel (II) adsorption in single and binary component systems and future path. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2019, 103305. [CrossRef] 55. Ma, Y.; Mu, B.; Zhang, X.; Yuan, D.; Ma, C.; Xu, H.; Qu, Z.; Fang, S. Graphene enhanced Mn-Ce binary metal oxides for catalytic oxidation and adsorption of elemental mercury from coal-fired flue gas. Chem. Eng. J. 2019, 358, 1499–1506. [CrossRef] 56. Zheng, L.; Peng, D.; Meng, P. Corncob-supported aluminium-manganese binary oxide composite enhanced removal of cadmium ions. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2019, 561, 109–119. [CrossRef] 57. Beduk, F. Superparamagnetic nanomaterial Fe O –TiO for the removal of As (V) and As (III) from aqueous 3 4 2 solutions. Environ. Technol. 2016, 37, 1790–1801. [CrossRef] 58. Zhang, G.; Qu, J.; Liu, H.; Liu, R.; Wu, R. Preparation and evaluation of a novel Fe–Mn binary oxide adsorbent for eective arsenite removal. Water Res. 2007, 41, 1921–1928. [CrossRef] 59. Liang, M.; Xu, S.; Zhu, Y.; Chen, X.; Deng, Z.; Yan, L.; He, H. Preparation and characterization of Fe-Mn binary oxide/mulberry stem biochar composite adsorbent and adsorption of Cr (VI) from aqueous solution. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 676. [CrossRef] 2+ + 60. Lanas, S.G.; Valiente, M.; Tolazzi, M.; Melchior, A. Thermodynamics of Hg and Ag adsorption by 3-mercaptopropionic acid-functionalized superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 2019, 136, 1153–1162. [CrossRef] 61. Tong, T.; Wilke, C.M.; Wu, J.; Binh, C.T.T.; Kelly, J.J.; Gaillard, J.-F.O.; Gray, K.A. Combined toxicity of nano-ZnO and nano-TiO : From single-to multinanomaterial systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 8113–8123. [CrossRef] Environments 2020, 7, 27 16 of 20 62. Hartmann, N.B.; Baun, A. The nano cocktail: Ecotoxicological eects of engineered nanoparticles in chemical mixtures. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2010, 6, 311. [CrossRef] 63. Peng, C.; Zhang, W.; Gao, H.; Li, Y.; Tong, X.; Li, K.; Zhu, X.; Wang, Y.; Chen, Y. Behavior and potential impacts of metal-based engineered nanoparticles in aquatic environments. Nanomaterials 2017, 7. [CrossRef] 64. Ma, S.; Zhou, K.; Yang, K.; Lin, D. Heteroagglomeration of oxide nanoparticles with algal cells: Eects of particle type, ionic strength and pH. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 49, 932–939. [CrossRef] 65. Nur, Y.; Lead, J.; Baalousha, M. Evaluation of charge and agglomeration behavior of TiO nanoparticles in ecotoxicological media. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 535, 45–53. [CrossRef] 66. Raza, G.; Amjad, M.; Kaur, I.; Wen, D. Stability and aggregation kinetics of Titania nanomaterials under environmentally realistic conditions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 8462–8472. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 67. Hartmann, N.I.B.; Skjolding, L.M.; Hansen, S.F.; Baun, A.; Kjølholt, J.; Gottschalk, F. Environmental Fate and Behaviour of Nanomaterials: New Knowledge on Important Transfomation Processes; Environmental Project; Miljøministeriet: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2014. 68. Lin, D.; Story, S.D.; Walker, S.L.; Huang, Q.; Cai, P. Influence of extracellular polymeric substances on the aggregation kinetics of TiO nanoparticles. Water Res. 2016, 104, 381–388. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 69. Yu, R.; Wu, J.; Liu, M.; Chen, L.; Zhu, G.; Lu, H. Physiological and transcriptional responses of Nitrosomonas europaea to TiO and ZnO nanoparticles and their mixtures. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 13023–13034. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 70. Huynh, K.A.; McCaery, J.M.; Chen, K.L. Heteroaggregation reduces antimicrobial activity of silver nanoparticles: Evidence for nanoparticle–cell proximity eects. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2014, 1, 361–366. [CrossRef] 71. Yu, R.; Wu, J.; Liu, M.; Zhu, G.; Chen, L.; Chang, Y.; Lu, H. Toxicity of binary mixtures of metal oxide nanoparticles to Nitrosomonas europaea. Chemosphere 2016, 153, 187–197. [CrossRef] 72. Singh, S.; Barick, K.C.; Bahadur, D. Surface engineered magnetic nanoparticles for removal of toxic metal ions and bacterial pathogens. J. Hazard Mater. 2011, 192, 1539–1547. [CrossRef] 2+ 2+ 2+ 2+ 73. Ge, F.; Li, M.-M.; Ye, H.; Zhao, B.-X. Eective removal of heavy metal ions Cd , Zn , Pb , Cu from aqueous solution by polymer-modified magnetic nanoparticles. J. Hazard. Mater. 2012, 211, 366–372. [CrossRef] 74. Verma, A.; Uzun, O.; Hu, Y.; Hu, Y.; Han, H.-S.; Watson, N.; Chen, S.; Irvine, D.J.; Stellacci, F. Surface-structure-regulated cell-membrane penetration by monolayer-protected nanoparticles. Nat. Mater. 2008, 7, 588. [CrossRef] 75. Liu, W.; Worms, I.A.; Slaveykova, V.I. Interactions of metal-containing nanomaterials with microorganisms. In Interfaces Between Nanomaterials and Microbes; Khare, S.K., Gupta, M.N., Sinha, R., Eds.; SCIENCE PUBLISHERS (An Imprint of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group): London, UK, 2020. 76. Rodea-Palomares, I.; Boltes, K.; Fernandez-Pinas, F.; Leganes, F.; Garcia-Calvo, E.; Santiago, J.; Rosal, R. Physicochemical characterization and ecotoxicological assessment of CeO nanoparticles using two aquatic microorganisms. Toxicol. Sci. 2011, 119, 135–145. [CrossRef] 77. Wang, Y.; Zhu, X.; Lao, Y.; Lv, X.; Tao, Y.; Huang, B.; Wang, J.; Zhou, J.; Cai, Z. TiO nanoparticles in the marine environment: Physical eects responsible for the toxicity on algae Phaeodactylum tricornutum. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 565, 818–826. [CrossRef] 78. Cheloni, G.; Marti, E.; Slaveykova, V.I. Interactive eects of copper oxide nanoparticles and light to green alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Aquat. Toxicol. 2016, 170, 120–128. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 79. Yue, Y.; Li, X.M.; Sigg, L.; Suter, M.J.F.; Pillai, S.; Behra, R.; Schirmer, K. Interaction of silver nanoparticles with algae and fish cells: A side by side comparison. J. Nanobiotechnology 2017, 15, s12951–s13017. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 80. Botha, T.L.; Boodhia, K.; Wepener, V. Adsorption, uptake and distribution of gold nanoparticles in Daphnia magna following long term exposure. Aquat. Toxicol. 2016, 170, 104–111. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 81. Fan, X.; Wang, P.; Wang, C.; Hu, B.; Wang, X. Lead accumulation (adsorption and absorption) by the freshwater bivalve Corbicula fluminea in sediments contaminated by TiO nanoparticles. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 231, 712–721. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 82. Yang, W.-W.; Miao, A.-J.; Yang, L.-Y. Cd + toxicity to a green alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii as influenced by its adsorption on TiO engineered nanoparticles. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e32300. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 2 Environments 2020, 7, 27 17 of 20 83. Hartmann, N.B.; Legros, S.; von der Kammer, F.; Hofmann, T.; Baun, A. The potential of TiO nanoparticles as carriers for cadmium uptake in Lumbriculus variegatus and Daphnia magna. Aquat. Toxicol. 2012, 118, 1–8. [CrossRef] 84. Conner, S.D.; Schmid, S.L. Regulated portals of entry into the cell. Nature 2003, 422, 37. [CrossRef] 85. Miao, A.-J.; Luo, Z.; Chen, C.-S.; Chin, W.-C.; Santschi, P.H.; Quigg, A. Intracellular uptake: A possible mechanism for silver engineered nanoparticle toxicity to a freshwater alga Ochromonas danica. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e15196. [CrossRef] 86. Wang, Y.; Miao, A.J.; Luo, J.; Wei, Z.B.; Zhu, J.J.; Yang, L.Y. Bioaccumulation of Cd te quantum dots in a freshwater alga Ochromonas danica: A kinetics study. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 10601–10610. [CrossRef] 87. Cherchi, C.; Chernenko, T.; Diem, M.; Gu, A.Z. Impact of nano titanium dioxide exposure on cellular structure of anabaena variabilis and evidence of internalization. Environ. Toxicol Chem. 2011, 30, 861–869. [CrossRef] 88. Shukla, R.; Bansal, V.; Chaudhary, M.; Basu, A.; Bhonde, R.R.; Sastry, M. Biocompatibility of gold nanoparticles and their endocytotic fate inside the cellular compartment: A microscopic overview. Langmuir 2005, 21, 10644–10654. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 89. Mortimer, M.; Kahru, A.; Slaveykova, V.I. Uptake, localization and clearance of quantum dots in ciliated protozoa Tetrahymena thermophila. Environ. Pollut. 2014, 190, 58–64. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 90. Mortimer, M.; Gogos, A.; Bartolomé, N.; Kahru, A.; Bucheli, T.D.; Slaveykova, V.I. Potential of hyperspectral imaging microscopy for semi-quantitative analysis of nanoparticle uptake by Protozoa. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 8760–8767. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 91. Park, S.; Woodhall, J.; Ma, G.; Veinot, J.G.; Boxall, A.B. Do particle size and surface functionality aect uptake and depuration of gold nanoparticles by aquatic invertebrates? Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2015, 34, 850–859. [CrossRef] 92. Tan, L.-Y.; Huang, B.; Xu, S.; Wei, Z.-B.; Yang, L.-Y.; Miao, A.-J. Aggregation reverses the carrier eects of TiO nanoparticles on cadmium accumulation in the waterflea Daphnia magna. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 932–939. [CrossRef] 93. Dalai, S.; Pakrashi, S.; Bhuvaneshwari, M.; Iswarya, V.; Chandrasekaran, N.; Mukherjee, A. Toxic eect of Cr (VI) in presence of n-TiO and n-Al O particles towards freshwater microalgae. Aquat. Toxicol. 2014, 146, 2 2 3 28–37. [CrossRef] 94. Worms, I.; Simon, D.F.; Hassler, C.S.; Wilkinson, K.J. Bioavailability of trace metals to aquatic microorganisms: Importance of chemical, biological and physical processes on biouptake. Biochimie 2006, 88, 1721–1731. [CrossRef] 95. Tercier Waeber, M.-L.; Stoll, S.; Slaveykova, V.I. Trace metal behavior in surface waters: Emphasis on dynamic speciation, sorption processes and bioavailability. Arch. Des. Sci. 2012, 65, 119–142. 96. Domozych, D. Algal Cell Walls; Wiley Online Library: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006. [CrossRef] 97. Kuhn, A.E. Bacterial Cell Walls and Membranes; Springer Nature: London, UK, 2019. 98. Campbell, P.G.C. Interactions between trace metals and aquatic organisms: A critique of the free-ion activity model. In Metal Speciation and Bioavailability in Aquatic Systems; Tessier, A., Turner, D., Eds.; John Wiley & Son: Chichester, UK, 1995. 99. Blaby-Haas, C.E.; Merchant, S.S. The ins and outs of algal metal transport. Biochim. Biophys. Acta BBA Mol. Cell Res. 2012, 1823, 1531–1552. [CrossRef] 100. Voica, D.M.; Bartha, L.; Banciu, H.L.; Oren, A. Heavy metal resistance in Halophilic bacteria and Archaea. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2016, 363. [CrossRef] 101. Rosenzweig, A.C.; Arguello, J.M. Toward a molecular understanding of metal transport by P-1B-type ATPases. In Metal Transporters; Lutsenko, S., Arguello, J.M., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2012; Volume 69, pp. 113–136. 102. Nelson, N. Metal ion transporters and homeostasis. EMBO J. 1999, 18, 4361–4371. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 103. Li, X.; Ma, Q.; Liu, T.; Dong, Z.; Fan, W. Eect of TiO -nanoparticles on copper toxicity to bacteria: Role of bacterial surface. RSC Adv. 2020, 10, 5058–5065. [CrossRef] 104. Yi, X.; Chi, T.; Liu, B.; Liu, C.; Feng, G.; Dai, X.; Zhang, K.; Zhou, H. Eect of nano zinc oxide on the acute and reproductive toxicity of cadmium and lead to the marine copepod Tigriopus japonicus. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part C Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2019, 222, 118–124. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Environments 2020, 7, 27 18 of 20 105. Fan, W.; Liang, D.; Wang, X.; Ren, J.; Xiao, S.; Zhou, T. Two-generational eects and recovery of arsenic and arsenate on Daphnia magna in the presence of nano-TiO . Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 172, 136–143. [CrossRef] 106. Vale, G.; Franco, C.; Diniz, M.S.; Santos, M.M.C.D.; Domingos, R.F. Bioavailability of cadmium and biochemical responses on the freshwater bivalve Corbicula fluminea—The role of TiO nanoparticles. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2014, 109, 161–168. [CrossRef] 107. Balbi, T.; Smerilli, A.; Fabbri, R.; Ciacci, C.; Montagna, M.; Grasselli, E.; Brunelli, A.; Pojana, G.; Marcomini, A.; 2+ Gallo, G. Co-exposure to n-TiO and Cd results in interactive eects on biomarker responses but not in increased toxicity in the marine bivalve M. galloprovincialis. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 493, 355–364. [CrossRef] 108. Yu, Z.; Hao, R.; Zhang, L.; Zhu, Y. Eects of TiO , SiO , Ag and CdTe/CdS quantum dots nanoparticles on 2 2 toxicity of cadmium towards Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 156, 75–86. [CrossRef] 109. Brunelli, A.; Pojana, G.; Callegaro, S.; Marcomini, A. Agglomeration and sedimentation of titanium dioxide nanoparticles (n-TiO ) in synthetic and real waters. J. Nanoparticle Res. 2013, 15, 1684. [CrossRef] 110. Hu, J.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, C.; Liu, S.; Zhang, H.; Li, D.; Zhao, J.; Han, Z.; Liu, X.; Pan, J. Al O nanoparticle 2 3 impact on the toxic eect of Pb on the marine microalga Isochrysis galbana. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 161, 92–98. [CrossRef] 111. Li, M.; Pei, J.; Tang, X.; Guo, X. Eects of surfactants on the combined toxicity of TiO nanoparticles and cadmium to Escherichia coli. J. Environ. Sci. 2018, 74, 126–133. [CrossRef] 112. Hu, S.; Han, J.; Yang, L.; Li, S.; Guo, Y.; Zhou, B.; Wu, H. Bioconcentration, depuration and toxicity of Pb in the presence of titanium dioxide nanoparticles in zebrafish larvae. Aquat. Toxicol. 2019, 214, 105257. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 113. Wang, J.; Dai, H.; Nie, Y.; Wang, M.; Yang, Z.; Cheng, L.; Liu, Y.; Chen, S.; Zhao, G.; Wu, L. TiO nanoparticles enhance bioaccumulation and toxicity of heavy metals in Caenorhabditis elegans via modification of local concentrations during the sedimentation process. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 162, 160–169. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 114. Liu, S.; Cui, M.; Li, X.; Thuyet, D.Q.; Fan, W. Eects of hydrophobicity of titanium dioxide nanoparticles and exposure scenarios on copper uptake and toxicity in Daphnia magna. Water Res. 2019, 154, 162–170. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 115. Fajardo, C.; Costa, G.; Nande, M.; Martín, C.; Martín, M.; Sánchez-Fortún, S. Heavy metals immobilization capability of two iron-based nanoparticles (nZVI and Fe O ): Soil and freshwater bioassays to assess 3 4 ecotoxicological impact. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 656, 421–432. [CrossRef] 116. Canesi, L.; Fabbri, R.; Gallo, G.; Vallotto, D.; Marcomini, A.; Pojana, G. Biomarkers in Mytilus galloprovincialis exposed to suspensions of selected nanoparticles (Nano carbon black, C60 fullerene, Nano-TiO , Nano-SiO ). 2 2 Aquat. Toxicol. 2010, 100, 168–177. [CrossRef] 117. Kim, I.; Lee, B.-T.; Kim, H.-A.; Kim, K.-W.; Kim, S.D.; Hwang, Y.-S. Citrate coated silver nanoparticles change heavy metal toxicities and bioaccumulation of Daphnia magna. Chemosphere 2016, 143, 99–105. [CrossRef] 118. Nel, A.E.; Mädler, L.; Velegol, D.; Xia, T.; Hoek, E.M.; Somasundaran, P.; Klaessig, F.; Castranova, V.; Thompson, M. Understanding biophysicochemical interactions at the nano–bio interface. Nat. Mater. 2009, 8, 543–557. [CrossRef] 119. Miao, W.; Zhu, B.; Xiao, X.; Li, Y.; Dirbaba, N.B.; Zhou, B.; Wu, H. Eects of titanium dioxide nanoparticles on lead bioconcentration and toxicity on thyroid endocrine system and neuronal development in zebrafish larvae. Aquat. Toxicol. 2015, 161, 117–126. [CrossRef] 120. Tan, C.; Wang, W.-X. Modification of metal bioaccumulation and toxicity in Daphnia magna by titanium dioxide nanoparticles. Environ. Pollut. 2014, 186, 36–42. [CrossRef] 121. Fan, W.; Peng, R.; Li, X.; Ren, J.; Liu, T.; Wang, X. Eect of titanium dioxide nanoparticles on copper toxicity to Daphnia magna in water: Role of organic matter. Water Res. 2016, 105, 129–137. [CrossRef] 122. Yang, W.-W.; Wang, Y.; Huang, B.; Wang, N.-X.; Wei, Z.-B.; Luo, J.; Miao, A.-J.; Yang, L.-Y. TiO nanoparticles act as a carrier of Cd bioaccumulation in the ciliate Tetrahymena thermophila. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 7568–7575. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 123. Hartmann, N.B.; von der Kammer, F.; Hofmann, T.; Baalousha, M.; Ottofuelling, S.; Baun, A. Algal testing of titanium dioxide nanoparticles—Testing considerations, inhibitory eects and modification of cadmium bioavailability. Toxicology 2010, 269, 190–197. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Environments 2020, 7, 27 19 of 20 124. Navarro, E.; Baun, A.; Behra, R.; Hartmann, N.B.; Filser, J.; Miao, A.-J.; Quigg, A.; Santschi, P.H.; Sigg, L. Environmental behavior and ecotoxicity of engineered nanoparticles to algae, plants, and fungi. Ecotoxicology 2008, 17, 372–386. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 125. Chen, P.; Powell, B.A.; Mortimer, M.; Ke, P.C. Adaptive interactions between zinc oxide nanoparticles and Chlorella sp. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 12178–12185. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 2+ 2+ 126. Vinopal, S.; Ruml, T.; Kotrba, P. Biosorption of Cd and Zn by cell surface-engineered Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2007, 60, 96–102. [CrossRef] 127. Aruoja, V.; Dubourguier, H.-C.; Kasemets, K.; Kahru, A. Toxicity of nanoparticles of CuO, ZnO and TiO to microalgae Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata. Sci. Total Environ. 2009, 407, 1461–1468. [CrossRef] 128. Kalman, J.; Paul, K.B.; Khan, F.R.; Stone, V.; Fernandes, T.F. Characterisation of bioaccumulation dynamics of three dierently coated silver nanoparticles and aqueous silver in a simple freshwater food chain. Environ. Chem. 2015, 12, 662–672. [CrossRef] 129. Tang, Y.; Li, S.; Qiao, J.; Wang, H.; Li, L. Synergistic eects of nano-sized titanium dioxide and zinc on the photosynthetic capacity and survival of Anabaena sp. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2013, 14, 14395–14407. [CrossRef] 130. Von Moos, N.; Maillard, L.; Slaveykova, V.I. Dynamics of sub-lethal eects of nano-CuO on the microalga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii during short-term exposure. Aquat. Toxicol. 2015, 161, 267–275. [CrossRef] 131. Regier, N.; Cosio, C.; von Moos, N.; Slaveykova, V.I. Eects of copper-oxide nanoparticles, dissolved copper and ultraviolet radiation on copper bioaccumulation, photosynthesis and oxidative stress in the aquatic macrophyte Elodea nuttallii. Chemosphere 2015, 128, 56–61. [CrossRef] 132. Leroueil, P.R.; Hong, S.; Mecke, A.; Baker, J.R., Jr.; Orr, B.G.; Banaszak Holl, M.M. Nanoparticle interaction with biological membranes: Does nanotechnology present a Janus face? Acc. Chem. Res. 2007, 40, 335–342. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 133. Chen, Q.; Hu, X.; Yin, D.; Wang, R. Eect of subcellular distribution on nC60 uptake and transfer eciency from Scenedesmus obliquus to Daphnia magna. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2016, 128, 213–221. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 134. Zouzelka, R.; Cihakova, P.; Ambrozova, J.R.; Rathousky, J. Combined biocidal action of silver nanoparticles and ions against Chlorococcales (Scenedesmus quadricauda, Chlorella vulgaris) and filamentous algae (Klebsormidium sp.). Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 8317–8326. [CrossRef] 135. England, C.G.; Gobin, A.M.; Frieboes, H.B. Evaluation of uptake and distribution of gold nanoparticles in solid tumors. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 2015, 130, 231. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 136. Nambara, K.; Niikura, K.; Mitomo, H.; Ninomiya, T.; Takeuchi, C.; Wei, J.; Matsuo, Y.; Ijiro, K. Reverse size dependences of the cellular uptake of triangular and spherical gold nanoparticles. Langmuir 2016, 32, 12559–12567. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 137. Xia, B.; Chen, B.; Sun, X.; Qu, K.; Ma, F.; Du, M. Interaction of TiO nanoparticles with the marine microalga Nitzschia closterium: Growth inhibition, oxidative stress and internalization. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 508, 525–533. [CrossRef] 138. Simon-Deckers, A.; Loo, S.; Mayne-L’hermite, M.; Herlin-Boime, N.; Menguy, N.; Reynaud, C.; Gouget, B.; Carriere, M. Size-, composition-and shape-dependent toxicological impact of metal oxide nanoparticles and carbon nanotubes toward bacteria. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 8423–8429. [CrossRef] 139. Abdolahpur Monikh, F.; Arenas-Lago, D.; Porcal, P.; Grillo, R.; Zhang, P.; Guo, Z.; Vijver, M.G.; JGM Peijnenburg, W. Do the joint eects of size, shape and ecocorona influence the attachment and physical eco (cyto) toxicity of nanoparticles to algae? Nanotoxicology 2019, 14, 1–16. [CrossRef] 140. Bahador, E.; Einali, A.; Azizian-Shermeh, O.; Sangtarash, M.H. Metabolic responses of the green microalga Dunaliella salina to silver nanoparticles-induced oxidative stress in the presence of salicylic acid treatment. Aquat. Toxicol. 2019, 217, 105356. [CrossRef] 141. Fazelian, N.; Movafeghi, A.; Yousefzadi, M.; Rahimzadeh, M. Cytotoxic impacts of CuO nanoparticles on the marine microalga Nannochloropsis oculata. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 17499–17511. [CrossRef] 2+ 142. Yang, W.-W.; Li, Y.; Miao, A.-J.; Yang, L.-Y. Cd toxicity as aected by bare TiO nanoparticles and their bulk counterpart. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2012, 85, 44–51. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 143. Li, X.; Zhou, S.; Fan, W. Eect of nano-Al O on the toxicity and oxidative stress of copper towards 2 3 Scenedesmus obliquus. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 575. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Environments 2020, 7, 27 20 of 20 144. Nunes, S.M.; Josende, M.E.; Ruas, C.P.; Gelesky, M.A.; da Silva Júnior, F.M.R.; Fattorini, D.; Regoli, F.; Monserrat, J.M.; Ventura-Lima, J. Biochemical responses induced by co-exposition to arsenic and titanium dioxide nanoparticles in the estuarine polychaete Laeonereis acuta. Toxicology 2017, 376, 51–58. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 145. Li, M.; Luo, Z.; Yan, Y.; Wang, Z.; Chi, Q.; Yan, C.; Xing, B. Arsenate accumulation, distribution, and toxicity associated with titanium dioxide nanoparticles in Daphnia magna. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 9636–9643. [CrossRef] 146. Ma, H.; Lenz, K.A.; Gao, X.; Li, S.; Wallis, L.K. Comparative toxicity of a food additive TiO , a bulk TiO , and 2 2 a nano-sized P25 to a model organism the nematode C. elegans. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 3556–3568. [CrossRef] 147. He, E.; Qiu, H.; Huang, X.; Van Gestel, C.A.; Qiu, R. Dierent dynamic accumulation and toxicity of ZnO nanoparticles and ionic Zn in the soil sentinel organism Enchytraeus crypticus. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 245, 510–518. [CrossRef] 148. Shang, Y.; Lan, Y.; Liu, Z.; Kong, H.; Huang, X.; Wu, F.; Liu, L.; Hu, M.; Huang, W.; Wang, Y. Synergistic eects of nano-ZnO and low pH of sea water on the physiological energetics of the thick shell mussel Mytilus coruscus. Front. Physiol. 2018, 9, 757. [CrossRef] 149. Zhao, C.-M.; Wang, W.-X. Biokinetic uptake and eux of silver nanoparticles in Daphnia magna. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 7699–7704. [CrossRef] 150. Feswick, A.; Gritt, R.J.; Siebein, K.; Barber, D. Uptake, retention and internalization of quantum dots in Daphnia is influenced by particle surface functionalization. Aquat. Toxicol. 2013, 130, 210–218. [CrossRef] 151. Gu, H.; Chen, X.; Chen, F.; Zhou, X.; Parsaee, Z. Ultrasound-assisted biosynthesis of CuO-NPs using brown alga Cystoseira trinodis: Characterization, photocatalytic AOP, DPPH scavenging and antibacterial investigations. Ultrason. Sonochemistry 2018, 41, 109–119. [CrossRef] 152. Dahoumane, S.A.; Mechouet, M.; Wijesekera, K.; Filipe, C.D.; Sicard, C.; Bazylinski, D.A.; Jeryes, C. Algae-mediated biosynthesis of inorganic nanomaterials as a promising route in nanobiotechnology—A review. Green Chem. 2017, 19, 552–587. [CrossRef] 153. Rahman, A.; Kumar, S.; Nawaz, T. Biosynthesis of nanomaterials using algae. In Microalgae Cultivation for Biofuels Production; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 265–279. 154. Mortimer, M.; Kasemets, K.; Kahru, A. Toxicity of ZnO and CuO nanoparticles to ciliated protozoa Tetrahymena thermophila. Toxicology 2010, 269, 182–189. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 155. Lin, M.S.; Leu, H.J. A Fe O -based chemical sensor for cathodic determination of hydrogen peroxide. 3 4 Electroanal. Int. J. Devoted Fundam. Pract. Asp. Electroanal. 2005, 17, 2068–2073. [CrossRef] 156. Haider, A.J.; Jameel, Z.N.; Al-Hussaini, I.H. Review on: Titanium dioxide applications. Energy Procedia 2019, 157, 17–29. [CrossRef] 157. Baranowska-Wójcik, E.; Szwajgier, D.; Oleszczuk, P.; Winiarska-Mieczan, A. Eects of titanium dioxide nanoparticles exposure on human health—A review. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2020, 193, 118–129. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 158. Zhang, H.; Reynolds, M. Cadmium exposure in living organisms: A short review. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 678, 761–767. [CrossRef] 159. Vijver, M.G.; Zhai, Y.J.; Wang, Z.; Peijnenburg, W. Emerging investigator series: The dynamics of particle size distributions need to be accounted for in bioavailability modelling of nanoparticles. Environ. Sci. Nano 2018, 5, 2473–2481. [CrossRef] 160. Kaushal, S.S.; Gold, A.J.; Bernal, S.; Johnson, T.A.N.; Addy, K.; Burgin, A.; Burns, D.A.; Coble, A.A.; Hood, E.; Lu, Y.H.; et al. Watershed “chemical cocktails”: Forming novel elemental combinations in Anthropocene fresh waters. Biogeochemistry 2018, 141, 281–305. [CrossRef] © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png
Environments
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute/effects-of-mixtures-of-engineered-nanoparticles-and-metallic-0a1DpzcPy1