Cultured cells exposed to nano-TiO2 can respond to various mechanisms that differ in the level of cell damage, and we accumulated 27 studies from cell models on the relationship between nano-TiO2 and biological system toxicity. Based on the different endpoints, we selleck chemical calculated the combined toxic effects of exposure to nano-TiO2. The results suggested that the percentage of positive studies is more than 50%, except in the apoptotic group. The cytotoxicity click here was dose-dependent but not clearly size-dependent. We summarized that the cytotoxicity of different nano-TiO2 dimensions at

24 h and the percentage of positive studies is higher at the 10 to 40 nm than other groups. It is possible that nano-TiO2 causes cell damage related to the size and dose in different endpoints. Exposure to toxins can occur through inhalation, skin contact, TSA HDAC cost ingestion, and injection; and we found that different exposure routes can lead to the higher percentage of positive studies from vivo

study. After entering the blood by absorption or various exposure routes, nano-TiO2 was detained in the several important organs such as the liver, spleen, kidney, and brain, but the coefficient of target organ was changed slightly. The liver and kidney have a high capacity for binding many chemicals. These two organs probably concentrate more toxicants than all the other organs combined, and in most cases, active transport or binding to tissue components are likely to be involved. In our study, we also found that the liver and kidney had a higher percentage of positive studies when exposed to nano-TiO2. Standard problems related to meta-analytic approaches, including

publication bias, variable quality, and unrecognized confounding, might have affected our results. We also recognize that our study has a possible bias. Firstly, the limitation of this meta-analysis stems from the languages chosen. Secondly, our conclusions could be biased due ADP ribosylation factor to the fact that positive results obtained from experiments with identical experimental design to those with negative results are not published finally. Another reason for bias in our study is the fact that the articles included in this meta-analysis were only from in vitro or animal experiment. Despite these limitations, to our knowledge, this meta-analysis represents the largest and most comprehensive effort to assess the safety of nano-TiO2. At the nanometer scale, certain materials exhibited new properties that do not exhibit in macroscale. These new size-dependent properties of nanomaterials represent both the promise of nanotechnology and the concern about the potential adverse health effects on workers, consumers, and environment. Epidemiologic studies have the potential to be quite valuable in determining links between different types of occupational exposure to nanomaterials and the development of health problems.