Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 244

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Identification and Avoidance of Potential Artifacts and Misinterpretations in Nanomaterial Ecotoxicity Measurements

Open access
Petersen, Elijah J., Henry, Theodore B., Zhao, Jian, MacCuspie, Robert I., Kirschling, Teresa L., Dobrovolskaia, Marina A., Hackley, Vincent, Xing, Baoshan, White, Jason C.·2014·Environmental Science & Technology

Abstract

Novel physicochemistries of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) offer considerable commercial potential for new products and processes, but also the possibility of unforeseen and negative consequences upon ENM release into the environment. Investigations of ENM ecotoxicity have revealed that the unique properties of ENMs and a lack of appropriate test methods can lead to results that are inaccurate or not reproducible. The occurrence of spurious results or misinterpretations of results from ENM toxicity tests that are unique to investigations of ENMs (as opposed to traditional toxicants) have been reported, but have not yet been systemically reviewed. Our objective in this manuscript is to highlight artifacts and misinterpretations that can occur at each step of ecotoxicity testing: procurement or synthesis of the ENMs and assessment of potential toxic impurities such as metals or endotoxins, ENM storage, dispersion of the ENMs in the test medium, direct interference with assay reagents and unacknowledged indirect effects such as nutrient depletion during the assay, and assessment of the ENM biodistribution in organisms. We recommend thorough characterization of initial ENMs including measurement of impurities, implementation of steps to minimize changes to the ENMs during storage, inclusion of a set of experimental controls (e.g., to assess impacts of nutrient depletion, ENM specific effects, impurities in ENM formulation, desorbed surface coatings, the dispersion process, and direct interference of ENM with toxicity assays), and use of orthogonal measurement methods when available to assess ENMs fate and distribution in organisms.

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/es4052999

Cites

6 of 6 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

Cited by

See all 244

Metadata

Authors
Petersen, E. J., Henry, T. B., Zhao, J., MacCuspie, R. I., Kirschling, T. L., Dobrovolskaia, M. A., Hackley, V., Xing, B., & White, J. C.
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2014-03-27
Volume
48
Issue
8
Pages
4226-4246
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
OpenAlex
W2014530598
Cited by
244
References
6
FWCI
18.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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.