The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Toxicity of various silver nanoparticles compared to silver ions in Daphnia magna
Open accessAbstract
Background: To better understand the potential ecotoxicological impacts of silver nanoparticles released into freshwater environments, the Daphnia magna 48-hour immobilization test was used. Methods: The toxicities of silver nitrate, two types of colloidal silver nanoparticles, and a suspension of silver nanoparticles were assessed and compared using standard OECD guidelines. Also, the swimming behavior and visible uptake of the nanoparticles by Daphnia were investigated and compared. The particle suspension and colloids used in the toxicity tests were well-characterized. Results: The results obtained from the exposure studies showed that the toxicity of all the silver species tested was dose and composition dependent. Plus, the silver nanoparticle powders subsequently suspended in the exposure water were much less toxic than the previously prepared silver nanoparticle colloids, whereas the colloidal silver nanoparticles and AgNO 3 were almost similar in terms of mortality. The silver nanoparticles were ingested by the Daphnia and accumulated under the carapace, on the external body surface, and connected to the appendages. All the silver species in this study caused abnormal swimming by the D. magna. Conclusion: According to the present results, silver nanoparticles should be classified according to GHS (Globally Harmonized System of classification and labeling of chemicals) as "category acute 1" to Daphnia neonates, suggesting that the release of nanosilver into the environment should be carefully considered.
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
Cites
Kittler, S., Greulich, C., Diendorf, J., Köller, M., & Epple, M. (2010) · Chemistry of Materials · doi:10.1021/cm100023p · Cited by 1,126
Dabrunz, A., Duester, L., Prasse, C., Seitz, F., Rosenfeldt, R., Schilde, C., Schaumann, G. E., & Schulz, R. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020112 · Cited by 208
Cited by
Innovations in nanotechnology for water treatment
Gehrke, I., Geiser, A., & Somborn-Schulz, A. (2015) · Nanotechnology, Science and Applications · doi:10.2147/nsa.s43773 · Cited by 649
Egorova, K. S., & Ananikov, V. P. (2014) · ChemSusChem · doi:10.1002/cssc.201300459 · Cited by 441
Carbon-based sustainable nanomaterials for water treatment: State-of-art and future perspectives
Nasrollahzadeh, M., Sajjadi, M., Iravani, S., & Varma, R. S. (2021) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128005 · Cited by 367
Gutierrez, M. F., Ale, A., Andrade, V., Bacchetta, C., Rossi, A., & Cazenave, J. (2021) · Water Environment Research · doi:10.1002/wer.1637 · Cited by 29
Metadata
- Authors
- Asghari, S., Johari, S. A., Lee, J. H., Kim, Y. S., Jeon, Y. B., Choi, H. J., Moon, M. C., & Yu, I. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Nanobiotechnology
- Published
- 2012-04-02
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 14-14
- ISSN
- 1477-3155 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2145511700
- Cited by
- 318
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 13.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Toxicity of various silver nanoparticles compared to silver ions in Daphnia magna. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1477-3155-10-14
- The paper
- Asghari, S., Johari, S. A., Lee, J. H., Kim, Y. S., Jeon, Y. B., Choi, H. J., Moon, M. C., & Yu, I. J. (2012). Toxicity of various silver nanoparticles compared to silver ions in Daphnia magna. Journal of Nanobiotechnology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-3155-10-14
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.