The physicochemical properties of nanobiomaterials, such as their small size and high surface area ratio, make them attractive, novel drug-carriers, with increased cellular interaction and increased permeation through several biological barriers. However, these same properties hinder any extrapolation of knowledge from the toxicity of their raw material. Though, as suggested by the Safe-by-Design (SbD) concept, the hazard assessment should be the starting point for the formulation development. This may enable us to select the most promising candidates of polymeric nanobiomaterials for safe drug-delivery in an early phase of innovation. Nowadays the majority of reports on polymeric nanomaterials are focused in optimizing the nanocarrier features such as size, physical stability and drug loading efficacy, and in performing preliminary cytocompatibility testing and proving effectiveness of the drug loaded formulation, using the most diverse cell lines. Toxicological studies exploring the biological effects of the polymeric nanomaterials, particularly regarding immune system interaction are often disregarded. The objective of this review is to illustrate what is known about the biological effects of polymeric nanomaterials and to see if trends in toxicity and general links between physicochemical properties of nanobiomaterials and their effects may be derived. For that, data on chitosan, polylactic acid (PLA), polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA), poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) and policaprolactone (PCL) nanomaterials will be evaluated regarding acute and repeated dose toxicity, inflammation, oxidative stress, genotoxicity, toxicity on reproduction and hemocompatibility. We further intend to identify the analytical and biological tests described in the literature used to assess polymeric nanomaterials toxicity, to evaluate and interpret the available results and to expose the obstacles and challenges related to the nanomaterial testing. At the present time, considering all the information collected, the hazard assessment and thus also the SbD of polymeric nanomaterials is still dependent on a case-by-case evaluation. The identified obstacles prevent the identification of toxicity trends and the generation of an assertive toxicity database. In the future, in vitro and in vivo harmonized toxicity studies using unloaded polymeric nanomaterials, extensively characterized regarding their intrinsic and extrinsic properties should allow to generate such database. Such a database would enable us to apply the SbD approach more efficiently.

Polylactic acid (PLA), a biodegradable and biocompatible polymer produced from renewable resources, has been widely used as a nanoparticulate platform for antigen and drug delivery. Despite generally regarded as safe, its immunotoxicological profile, when used as a polymeric nanoparticle (NP), is not well-documented. Thus, this study intends to address this gap, by evaluating the toxicity of two different sized PLA NPs (PLA_A NPs and PLA_B NPs), produced by two nanoprecipitation methods and extensively characterized regarding their physicochemical properties in in vitro experimental conditions. After production, PLA_A NPs mean diameter (187.9 ± 36.9 nm) was superior to PLA_B NPs (109.1 ± 10.4 nm). Interestingly, when in RPMI medium, both presented similar mean size (around 100 nm) and neutral zeta potential, possibly explaining the similarity between their cytotoxicity profile in PBMCs. On the other hand, in DMEM medium, PLA_A NPs presented smaller mean diameter (75.3 ± 9.8 nm) when compared to PLA_B NPs (161.9 ± 8.2 nm), which may explain its higher toxicity in RAW 264.7. Likewise, PLA_A NPs induced a higher dose-dependent ROS production. Irrespective of size differences, none of the PLA NPs presented an inflammatory potential (NO production) or a hemolytic activity in human blood. The results herein presented suggest the hypothesis, to be tested in the future, that PLA NPs presenting a smaller sized population possess increased cytotoxicity. Furthermore, this study emphasizes the importance of interpreting results based on adequate physicochemical characterization of nanoformulations in biological medium. As observed, small differences in size triggered by the dispersion in cell culture medium can have repercussions on toxicity, and if not correctly evaluated can lead to misinterpretations, and subsequent ambiguous conclusions.