Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 478

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Nanopesticides: Guiding Principles for Regulatory Evaluation of Environmental Risks

Open access
Kookana, Rai S., Boxall, Alistair B. A., Reeves, Philip T., Ashauer, Roman, Beulke, Sabine, Chaudhry, Qasim, Cornelis, Geert, Fernandes, Teresa F., Gan, Jay, Kah, Melanie, Lynch, Iseult, Ranville, James, Sinclair, Chris, Spurgeon, David, Tiede, Karen, Van den Brink, Paul J.·2014·Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry

Abstract

Nanopesticides or nano plant protection products represent an emerging technological development that, in relation to pesticide use, could offer a range of benefits including increased efficacy, durability, and a reduction in the amounts of active ingredients that need to be used. A number of formulation types have been suggested including emulsions (e.g., nanoemulsions), nanocapsules (e.g., with polymers), and products containing pristine engineered nanoparticles, such as metals, metal oxides, and nanoclays. The increasing interest in the use of nanopesticides raises questions as to how to assess the environmental risk of these materials for regulatory purposes. Here, the current approaches for environmental risk assessment of pesticides are reviewed and the question of whether these approaches are fit for purpose for use on nanopesticides is addressed. Potential adaptations to existing environmental risk assessment tests and procedures for use with nanopesticides are discussed, addressing aspects such as analysis and characterization, environmental fate and exposure assessment, uptake by biota, ecotoxicity, and risk assessment of nanopesticides in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Throughout, the main focus is on assessing whether the presence of the nanoformulation introduces potential differences relative to the conventional active ingredients. The proposed changes in the test methodology, research priorities, and recommendations would facilitate the development of regulatory approaches and a regulatory framework for nanopesticides.

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/jf500232f

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 478

Metadata

Authors
Kookana, R. S., Boxall, A. B. A., Reeves, P. T., Ashauer, R., Beulke, S., Chaudhry, Q., Cornelis, G., Fernandes, T. F., Gan, J., Kah, M., Lynch, I., Ranville, J., Sinclair, C., Spurgeon, D., Tiede, K., & Van den Brink, P. J.
Venue
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Published
2014-04-30
Volume
62
Issue
19
Pages
4227-4240
ISSN
  • 0021-8561 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5118
OpenAlex
W1974452760
Cited by
478
References
3
FWCI
10.23
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Nanopesticides: Guiding Principles for Regulatory Evaluation of Environmental Risks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/jf500232f
The paper
Kookana, R. S., Boxall, A. B. A., Reeves, P. T., Ashauer, R., Beulke, S., Chaudhry, Q., Cornelis, G., Fernandes, T. F., Gan, J., Kah, M., Lynch, I., Ranville, J., Sinclair, C., Spurgeon, D., Tiede, K., & Van den Brink, P. J. (2014). Nanopesticides: Guiding Principles for Regulatory Evaluation of Environmental Risks. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf500232f

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.