Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 422

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cytotoxicity of Exfoliated Transition‐Metal Dichalcogenides (MoS2, WS2, and WSe2) is Lower Than That of Graphene and its Analogues

Teo, Wei Zhe, Chng, Elaine Lay Khim, Sofer, Zdeněk, Pumera, Martin·2014·Chemistry – A European Journal

Abstract

Studies involving transition‐metal dichalcogenides (TMDs) have been around for many decades and in recent years, many were focused on using TMDs to synthesize inorganic analogues of carbon nanotubes, fullerene, as well as graphene and its derivatives with the ultimate aim of employing these materials into consumer products. In view of this rising trend, we investigated the cytotoxicity of three common exfoliated TMDs (exTMDs), namely MoS 2, WS 2, and WSe 2, and compared their toxicological effects with graphene oxides and halogenated graphenes to find out whether these inorganic analogues of graphenes and derivatives would show improved biocompatibility. Based on the cell viability assessments using methylthiazolyldiphenyl‐tetrazolium bromide (MTT) and water‐soluble tetrazolium salt (WST‐8) assays on human lung carcinoma epithelial cells (A549) following a 24 h exposure to varying concentrations of the three exTMDs, it was concluded that MoS 2 and WS 2 nanosheets induced very low cytotoxicity to A549 cells, even at high concentrations. On the other hand, WSe 2 exhibited dose‐dependent toxicological effects on A549 cells, reducing cell viability to 31.8 % at the maximum concentration of 400 μg mL−1; the higher cytotoxicity displayed by WSe 2 might be linked to the identity of the chalcogen. In comparison with graphene oxides and halogenated graphenes, MoS 2 and WS 2 were much less hazardous, whereas WSe 2 showed similar degree of cytotoxicity. Future in‐depth studies should be built upon this first work on the in vitro cytotoxicity of MoS 2 and WS 2 to ensure that they do not pose acute toxicity. Lastly, nanomaterial‐induced interference control experiments revealed that exTMDs were capable of reacting with MTT assay viability markers in the absence of cells, but not with WST‐8 assay. This suggests that the MTT assay is not suitable for measuring the cytotoxicity of exTMDs because inflated results will be obtained, giving false impressions that the materials are less toxic.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/chem.201402680

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 422

Metadata

Authors
Teo, W. Z., Chng, E. L. K., Sofer, Z., & Pumera, M.
Venue
Chemistry – A European Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-06-26
Volume
20
Issue
31
Pages
9627-9632
ISSN
  • 0947-6539 (ISSN-L)
  • 1521-3765
OpenAlex
W2141471352
Cited by
422
References
5
FWCI
15.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cytotoxicity of Exfoliated Transition‐Metal Dichalcogenides (MoS2, WS2, and WSe2) is Lower Than That of Graphene and its Analogues. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/chem.201402680
The paper
Teo, W. Z., Chng, E. L. K., Sofer, Z., & Pumera, M. (2014). Cytotoxicity of Exfoliated Transition‐Metal Dichalcogenides (MoS2, WS2, and WSe2) is Lower Than That of Graphene and its Analogues. Chemistry – A European Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/chem.201402680

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.