Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 943

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Safety assessment for nanotechnology and nanomedicine: concepts of nanotoxicology

Open access
Oberdörster, G.·2010·Journal of Internal Medicine

Abstract

Abstract.: Nanotechnology, nanomedicine and nanotoxicology are complementary disciplines aimed at the betterment of human life. However, concerns have been expressed about risks posed by engineered nanomaterials (ENMs), their potential to cause undesirable effects, contaminate the environment and adversely affect susceptible parts of the population. Information about toxicity and biokinetics of nano‐enabled products combined with the knowledge of unintentional human and environmental exposure or intentional delivery for medicinal purposes will be necessary to determine real or perceived risks of nanomaterials. Yet, results of toxicological studies using only extraordinarily high experimental doses have to be interpreted with caution. Key concepts of nanotoxicology are addressed, including significance of dose, dose rate, and biokinetics, which are exemplified by specific findings of ENM toxicity, and by discussing the importance of detailed physico‐chemical characterization of nanoparticles, specifically surface properties. Thorough evaluation of desirable versus adverse effects is required for safe applications of ENMs, and major challenges lie ahead to answer key questions of nanotoxicology. Foremost are assessment of human and environmental exposure, and biokinetics or pharmacokinetics, identification of potential hazards, and biopersistence in cells and subcellular structures to perform meaningful risk assessments. A specific example of multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) illustrates the difficulty of extrapolating toxicological results. MWCNT were found to cause asbestos‐like effects of the mesothelium following intracavitary injection of high doses in rodents. The important question of whether inhaled MWCNT will translocate to sensitive mesothelial sites has not been answered yet. Even without being able to perform a quantitative risk assessment for ENMs, due to the lack of sufficient data on exposure, biokinetics and organ toxicity, until we know better it should be made mandatory to prevent exposure by appropriate precautionary measures/regulations and practicing best industrial hygiene to avoid future horror scenarios from environmental or occupational exposures. Similarly, safety assessment for medical applications as key contribution of nanotoxicology to nanomedicine relies heavily on nano‐specific toxicological concepts and findings and on a multidisciplinary collaborative approach involving material scientists, physicians and toxicologists.

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 · 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2009.02187.x

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 943

Metadata

Authors
Oberdörster, G.
Venue
Journal of Internal Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-12-11
Volume
267
Issue
1
Pages
89-105
ISSN
  • 0954-6820 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2796
OpenAlex
W1594755745
Cited by
943
References
2
FWCI
27.12
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

How to cite

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

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Safety assessment for nanotechnology and nanomedicine: concepts of nanotoxicology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2009.02187.x
The paper
Oberdörster, G. (2010). Safety assessment for nanotechnology and nanomedicine: concepts of nanotoxicology. Journal of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2009.02187.x

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.