Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 760

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Understanding the Toxicity of Carbon Nanotubes

Liu, Ying, Zhao, Yuliang, Sun, Baoyun, Chen, Chunying·2013·Accounts of Chemical Research

Abstract

Because of their unique physical, chemical, electrical, and mechanical properties, carbon nanotubes (CNTs) have attracted a great deal of research interest and have many potential applications. As large-scale production and application of CNTs increases, the general population is more likely to be exposed to CNTs either directly or indirectly, which has prompted considerable attention about human health and safety issues related to CNTs. Although considerable experimental data related to CNT toxicity at the molecular, cellular, and whole animal levels have been published, the results are often conflicting. Therefore, a systematic understanding of CNT toxicity is needed but has not yet been developed. In this Account, we highlight recent investigations into the basis of CNT toxicity carried out by our team and by other laboratories. We focus on several important factors that explain the disparities in the experimental results of nanotoxicity, such as impurities, amorphous carbon, surface charge, shape, length, agglomeration, and layer numbers. The exposure routes, including inhalation, intravenous injection, or dermal or oral exposure, can also influence the in vivo behavior and fate of CNTs. The underlying mechanisms of CNT toxicity include oxidative stress, inflammatory responses, malignant transformation, DNA damage and mutation (errors in chromosome number as well as disruption of the mitotic spindle), the formation of granulomas, and interstitial fibrosis. These findings provide useful insights for de novo design and safe application of carbon nanotubes and their risk assessment to human health. To obtain reproducible and accurate results, researchers must establish standards and reliable detection methods, use standard CNT samples as a reference control, and study the impact of various factors systematically. In addition, researchers need to examine multiple types of CNTs, different cell lines and animal species, multidimensional evaluation methods, and exposure conditions. To make results comparable among different institutions and countries, researchers need to standardize choices in toxicity testing such as that of cell line, animal species, and exposure conditions. The knowledge presented here should lead to a better understanding of the key factors that can influence CNT toxicity so that their unwanted toxicity might be avoided.

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 · 10.1021/ar300028m

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 760

Metadata

Authors
Liu, Y., Zhao, Y., Sun, B., & Chen, C.
Venue
Accounts of Chemical Research
Published
2012-09-21
Volume
46
Issue
3
Pages
702-713
ISSN
  • 0001-4842 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-4898
OpenAlex
W2013211632
Cited by
760
References
4
FWCI
27.73
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: Understanding the Toxicity of Carbon Nanotubes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/ar300028m
The paper
Liu, Y., Zhao, Y., Sun, B., & Chen, C. (2013). Understanding the Toxicity of Carbon Nanotubes. Accounts of Chemical Research. https://doi.org/10.1021/ar300028m

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.