The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Evaluation of the ecotoxicity of model nanoparticles
Open accessAbstract
Since society at large became aware of the use of nanomaterials in ever growing quantities in consumer products and their presence in the environment, critical interest in the impact of this emerging technology has grown. The main concern is whether the unknown risks of engineered nanoparticles (NPs), in particular their impact on health and environment, outweighs their established benefits for society. Therefore, a key issue in this field is to evaluate their potential toxicity. In this context we evaluated the effects on plants and microorganisms of model nanoparticles, in particular of a stable metal (Au, 10nm mean diameter), a well-known bactericide (Ag, 2 nm mean diameter) and the broadly used Fe(3)O(4) (7 nm mean diameter). The toxicity of these nanoparticles was assayed using standard toxicity tests. Specifically, germination (cucumber and lettuce), bioluminescent (Photobacterium phosphoreum) and anaerobic toxicity tests were performed. Germination tests were conducted at a NP dose of 62, 100 and 116 microg mL(-1) for Au, Ag, and Fe(3)O(4), respectively. The bioluminscent testing (P. phosphoreum) was conducted at a dose of 28, 45 and 52 microg mL(-1) for Au, Ag, and Fe(3)O(4), respectively. Finally, anaerobic tests were conducted at a NP dose of 10, 16 and 18 microg mL(-1) for Au, Ag, and Fe(3)O(4), respectively. In all cases low or zero toxicity was observed. However, some perturbation of the normal functions with respect to controls in germinating tests was observed, suggesting the necessity for further research in this field. At the same time, the effect of NP-solvents was sometimes more significant than that of the NPs themselves, a point that is of special interest for future nanotoxicological studies.
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
Cited by
Elemike, E. E., Uzoh, I. M., Onwudiwe, D. C., & Babalola, O. O. (2019) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app9030499 · Cited by 499
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
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
Impact of Bulk and Nanosized Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) on Wheat Seed Germination and Seedling Growth
Feizi, H., Rezvani Moghaddam, P., Shahtahmassebi, N., & Fotovat, A. (2012) · Biological Trace Element Research · doi:10.1007/s12011-011-9222-7 · Cited by 355
Metadata
- Authors
- Barrena, R., Casals, E., Colón, J., Font, X., Sánchez, A., & Puntes, V.
- Venue
- Chemosphere
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-05
- Volume
- 75
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 850-857
- ISSN
- 0045-6535 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2095870077
- Cited by
- 562
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Evaluation of the ecotoxicity of model nanoparticles. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.01.078
- The paper
- Barrena, R., Casals, E., Colón, J., Font, X., Sánchez, A., & Puntes, V. (2009). Evaluation of the ecotoxicity of model nanoparticles. Chemosphere. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.01.078
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.