The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Developmental phytotoxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles to Arabidopsis thaliana
Open accessAbstract
Phytotoxicity is an important consideration to understand the potential environmental impacts of manufactured nanomaterials. Here, we report on the effects of four metal oxide nanoparticles, aluminum oxide (nAl2O3), silicon dioxide (nSiO2), magnetite (nFe3O4), and zinc oxide (nZnO), on the development of Arabidopsis thaliana (Mouse-ear cress). Three toxicity indicators (seed germination, root elongation, and number of leaves) were quantified following exposure to each nanoparticle at three concentrations: 400, 2,000, and 4,000 mg/L. Among these particles, nZnO was most phytotoxic, followed by nFe3O4, nSiO2, and nAl2O3, which was not toxic. Consequently, nZnO was further studied to discern the importance of particle size and zinc dissolution as toxicity determinants. Soluble zinc concentrations in nanoparticle suspensions were 33-fold lower than the minimum inhibitory concentration of dissolved zinc salt (ZnCl2), indicating that zinc dissolution could not solely account for the observed toxicity. Inhibition of seed germination by ZnO depended on particle size, with nanoparticles exerting higher toxicity than larger (micron-sized) particles at equivalent concentrations. Overall, this study shows that direct exposure to nanoparticles significantly contributed to phytotoxicity and underscores the need for eco-responsible disposal of wastes and sludge containing metal oxide nanoparticles. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2010;29:669–675. © 2009 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
Analysis of the genome sequence of the flowering plant Arabidopsis thaliana
Initiative, T. A. G. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35048692 · Cited by 9,301
Immunological properties of engineered nanomaterials
Dobrovolskaia, M. A., & McNeil, S. E. (2007) · Nature Nanotechnology · doi:10.1038/nnano.2007.223 · Cited by 1,823
Cited by
Potentials of engineered nanoparticles as fertilizers for increasing agronomic productions
Liu, R., & Lal, R. (2015) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.01.104 · Cited by 1,379
Phytosynthesis of nanoparticles: concept, controversy and application
Husen, A., & Siddiqi, K. S. (2014) · Nanoscale Research Letters · doi:10.1186/1556-276x-9-229 · Cited by 435
Zuverza-Mena, N., Martínez-Fernández, D., Du, W., Hernandez-Viezcas, J. A., Bonilla-Bird, N., López-Moreno, M. L., Komárek, M., Peralta-Videa, J. R., & Gardea-Torresdey, J. L. (2017) · Plant Physiology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.plaphy.2016.05.037 · Cited by 426
Cytogenetic and genotoxic effects of zinc oxide nanoparticles on root cells of Allium cepa
Kumari, M., Khan, S. S., Pakrashi, S., Mukherjee, A., & Chandrasekaran, N. (2011) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.03.095 · Cited by 401
Effects of Magnetite Nanoparticles on Soybean Chlorophyll
Ghafariyan, M. H., Malakouti, M. J., Dadpour, M. R., Stroeve, P., & Mahmoudi, M. (2013) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es402249b · Cited by 401
Metadata
- Authors
- Lee, C. W., Mahendra, S., Zodrow, K., Li, D., Tsai, Y.-C., Braam, J., & Alvarez, P. J. J.
- Venue
- Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-11-09
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 669-675
- ISSN
- 0730-7268 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8618
- OpenAlex
- W2171424157
- Cited by
- 527
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 6.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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.