The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Possibilities and limitations of modeling environmental exposure to engineered nanomaterials by probabilistic material flow analysis
Abstract
Information on environmental concentrations is needed to assess the risks that engineered nanomaterials (ENM) may pose to the environment. In this study, predicted environmental concentrations (PEC) were modeled for nano-TiO2, carbon nanotubes (CNT) and nano-Ag for Switzerland. Based on a life-cycle perspective, the model considered as input parameters the production volumes of the ENMs, the manufacturing and consumption quantities of products containing those materials, and the fate and pathways of ENMs in natural and technical environments. Faced with a distinct scarcity of data, we used a probabilistic material flow analysis model, treating all parameters as probability distributions. The modeling included Monte Carlo and Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulations as well as a sensitivity and uncertainty analysis. The PEC values of the ENMs in the different environmental compartments vary widely due to different ENM production volumes and different life cycles of the nanoproducts. The use of ENM in products with high water relevance leads to higher water and sediment concentrations for nano-TiO2 and nano-Ag, compared to CNTs, where smaller amounts of ENM reach the aquatic compartments. This study also presents a sensitivity analysis and a comprehensive discussion of the uncertainties of the simulation results and the limitations of the used approach. To estimate potential risks, the PEC values were compared to the predicted-no-effect concentrations (PNEC) derived from published data. The risk quotients (PEC/PNEC) for nano-TiO2 and nano-Ag were larger than one for treated wastewater and much smaller for all other environmental compartments (e.g., water, sediments, soils). We conclude that probabilistic modeling is very useful for predicting environmental concentrations of ENMs given the current lack of substantiated data. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2010;29:1036–1048. © 2010 SETAC
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Log-normal distributions across the sciences: keys and clues
LIMPERT, E., STAHEL, W. A., & ABBT, M. (2001) · BioScience · doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0341:lndats]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 2,621
Cited by
Gottschalk, F., Sonderer, T., Scholz, R. W., & Nowack, B. (2009) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es9015553 · Cited by 2,388
Self-citationIndustrial production quantities and uses of ten engineered nanomaterials in Europe and the world
Piccinno, F., Gottschalk, F., Seeger, S., & Nowack, B. (2012) · Journal of Nanoparticle Research · doi:10.1007/s11051-012-1109-9 · Cited by 1,280
Self-citationEnvironmental concentrations of engineered nanomaterials: Review of modeling and analytical studies
Gottschalk, F., Sun, T., & Nowack, B. (2013) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2013.06.003 · Cited by 1,092
Self-citationGogos, A., Knauer, K., & Bucheli, T. D. (2012) · Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jf302154y · Cited by 852
Impacts of Silver Nanoparticles on Plants: A Focus on the Phytotoxicity and Underlying Mechanism
Yan, A., & Chen, Z. (2019) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms20051003 · Cited by 527
Metadata
- Authors
- Gottschalk, F., Sonderer, T., Scholz, R. W., & Nowack, B.
- Venue
- Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-02-01
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1036-1048
- ISSN
- 0730-7268 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8618
- OpenAlex
- W1984454711
- Cited by
- 230
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 11.74
- 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
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.