中文摘要：

目的 以微米氧化铝、纳米碳做对照,通过不同的细胞活力检测方法 观察纳米氧化铝对神经细胞活力的影响.方法 体外原代培养小鼠神经细胞,将纳米氧化铝、微米氧化铝、纳米碳均按正常对照组、62.5 μmol/L、125.0 μmol/L、250.0μmoL/L、500.0 μmol/L、1.0 mmol/L、2.0 mmol/L共7个剂量组分别染毒神经细胞,用细胞计数试剂（CCK-8）、噻唑蓝（MTT）及乳酸脱氢酶试剂（LDH）等方法 检测细胞活力[570 nm波长处的吸光度值（A570值）]的变化.结果 （1）CCK-8法检测结果 显示,250.0 μmol/L～2.0 mmol/L纳米氧化铝染毒组细胞活力（A570值分别为0.878±0.009、0.823±0.016、0.647±0.008、0.594 ±0.013）小于微米氧化铝染毒组（A570值分别为0.960±0.008、0.951±0.036、0.833 ±0.008、0.708±0.012）和纳米碳染毒组（A570值分别为0.977±0.003、0.973±0.002、0.924±0.006、0.891±0.023）,差异具有统计学意义（同剂量组纳米氧化铝与微米氧化铝比较,t值分别为-0.082、-0.128、-0.186、-0.114,P值均〈0.01;与纳米碳比较,t值分别为-0.099、-0.150、-0.277、-0.297,P值均〈0.01）.（2）MTT法检测结果 显示,在500.0 μmol/L、1.0 mmol/L剂量下,纳米氧化铝染毒组细胞活力（A570值分别为0.648±0.095、0.575±0.061）小于微米氧化铝染毒组（A570值分别为0.830±0.044、0.816±0.014）和纳米碳染毒组（A570值分别为0.889±0.009、0.765±0.049）,差异具有统计学意义（同剂量组纳米氧化铝与微米氧化铝比较,t值分别为-0.183、-0.242,P值均〈0.01;与纳米碳比较,t值分别为-0.241、-0.190,P值均〈0.01）.（3）LDH法检测的结果 显示,纳米氧化铝染毒组在125.0 μmol/L～2.0 mmol/L剂量下的细胞LDH释放量（A570值分别为1.862±0.102、1.905±0.066、1.930±0.037、1.946±0.033、1.967±0.068）高于纳米碳染毒组（A570值分别为1.484±0.110、1.559 ±0.039、1.663±0.014、1.732±0.076、1.765 ±0.073）,差异具有统计学意义（t值分别?

英文摘要：

Objective To observe the effect of nano-alumina on nerve cell viability through different detection kits of cell viability, using micro-alumina and nano-carbon as controls. Methods Primary culturing nerve cells of mouse in vitro, which were exposed to 7 doses of 0 μmol/L, 62.5 μmol/L,125.0 μmol/L,250. 0 μmol/L,500. 0 μmol/L, 1.0 mmol/L,2. 0 mmol/L concentrations of nano-alumina （nano-Al） ,micro alumina （micro-Al） and nano-carbon （nano-C）,detecting cell viability （A570 values） with CCK-8, MTT and LDH methods. Results （1） The results of CCK-8 kit showed that, in doses of 250. 0 μmol/L-2. 0 mmol/L,the cell viability values of nano-alumina （the values of A570 were 0. 878 ±0. 009,0. 823 ±0. 016,0. 647 ± 0. 008,0. 594 ± 0. 013, respectively） were significantly lower than that of micro-Al （the values of A570 were 0. 960 ± 0. 008,0. 951 ± 0. 036,0. 833 ± 0. 008,0. 708 ± 0. 012,respectively） and nano-C （the values of A570 were 0. 977 ± 0. 003,0. 973 ± 0. 002,0. 924 ± 0. 006,0. 891 ±0. 023, respectively）. While, comparing nano-Al with the same dose of micro-Al, there was significant difference （the t values were - 0. 082, - 0. 128, - 0. 186, - 0. 114, respectively, P 〈 0. 01）, and so as to the comparison of nano-Al with the same dose of nano-C （the t values were - 0. 099, - 0. 150, - 0. 277,-0. 297, respectively, P 〈 0. 01）. （2） MTT results showed that in the doses of 500. 0 μmol/L and 1.0 mmol/L, the cell viability of nano-Al （the values of A570 were 0. 648 ± 0. 095 and 0. 575 ± 0. 061） were lower than that of micro-Al （the values of A570 were 0. 830 ± 0. 044 and 0. 816 ± 0. 014） and nano-C （the values of A570 were 0. 889 ± 0. 009 and 0. 765 ± 0. 049）, and the differences were significant （nano-Al compared with the same dose of micro-Al, the t values were -0. 183 and -0.242,P〈0.01; nano-Al compared with the same dose of nano-C,the t values were -0.241 and -0. 190,P〈0.01）. （3） LDH results showed that in the dose from 125.0 μmo