Evaluating the use of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide nanoparticles in a metalworking fluid from a toxicological perspective

摘要

Adding nanoparticles (NPs) to metalworking fluids (MWFs) has been shown to improve performance in metal cutting. Zinc oxide nanoparticles (ZnO NPs) and titanium dioxide nanoparticles (TiO2 NPs), for example, have exhibited the ability to improve lubricant performance, decrease the heat created by machining operations, reduce friction and wear, and enhance thermal conductivity. ZnO and TiO2 NPs are also relatively inexpensive compared to many other NPs. Precautionary concerns of human health risks and environmental impacts, however, are especially important when adding NPs to MWFs. The goal of this research is to investigate the potential environmental and human health effects of these nanoenabled products during early design and development. This research builds on a prior investigation of the stability and toxicity characteristics of NPs used in metalworking nanofluids (MWnF (TM)). The previous study only investigated one type of NP at one level of concentration. This research expands on the previous investigations through the valuation of three different types of NPs that vary in morphology (size and shape) and was conducted over a wide range of concentrations in the base fluid. In the presented work, mixtures of a microemulsion (TRIM (R) MicroSol (R) 585XT), two different types of TiO2 NPs (referred to as TiO(2)A and TiO2B) and one type of ZnO NP were used to evaluate MWnF (TM) stability and toxicity. Dynamic light scattering was used to assess stability over time and an embryonic zebrafish assay was used to assess toxicological impacts. The results reveal that, in general, the addition of these NPs increased toxicity relative to the NP-free formulation. The lowest rate of zebrafish malformations occurred at 5 g/L TiO(2)A NP, which was even lower than for the base fluid. This result is particularly promising for future MWnF (TM) development, given that the mortality rate for 5 g/L TiO(2)A was not significantly different than for the base fluid.