Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 332

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Review: Do engineered nanoparticles pose a significant threat to the aquatic environment?

Scown, T. M., van Aerle, R., Tyler, C. R.·2010·Critical Reviews in Toxicology

Abstract

Nanotechnology is a rapidly growing industry of global economic importance, exploiting the novel characteristics of materials manufactured at the nanoscale. The properties of engineered nanoparticles (ENPs) that make them useful in a wide range of industrial applications, however, have led to concerns regarding their potential impact on human and environmental health. The aquatic environment is particularly at risk of exposure to ENPs, as it acts as a sink for most environmental contaminants. This paper critically evaluates what is currently known about sources and discharge of ENPs to the aquatic environment and how the physicochemical characteristics of ENPs affect their fate and behaviour and thus availability for uptake into aquatic organisms, and assesses reported toxicological effects. Having reviewed the ecotoxicological information, the conclusion is that whilst there are data indicating some nanoparticles have the potential to induce harm in exposed aquatic organisms, there is insufficient evidence for harm, for known/modelled environmental concentrations for almost all ENPs considered. This conclusion, however, must be balanced by the fact that there are significant gaps in our understanding on the fate and behaviour of ENPs in the aquatic environment. Greater confidence in the assessments on ENP impacts in aquatic systems to enable effective comparisons across studies urgently requires more standardised approaches for ENP hazard identification, and critically, more thorough characterisations on the exposed particles. There is also an urgent need for the advancement of tools and techniques that can accurately quantify and visualise uptake of nanoparticles into biological tissues.

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 · 10.3109/10408444.2010.494174

Cites

7 of 7 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 7 references

Cited by

See all 332

Metadata

Authors
Scown, T. M., van Aerle, R., & Tyler, C. R.
Venue
Critical Reviews in Toxicology
Published
2010-07-21
Volume
40
Issue
7
Pages
653-670
ISSN
  • 0045-6446 (ISSN-L)
  • 1040-8444
  • 1547-6898
OpenAlex
W2074013606
Cited by
332
References
7
FWCI
12.66
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: Review: Do engineered nanoparticles pose a significant threat to the aquatic environment? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3109/10408444.2010.494174
The paper
Scown, T. M., van Aerle, R., & Tyler, C. R. (2010). Review: Do engineered nanoparticles pose a significant threat to the aquatic environment? Critical Reviews in Toxicology. https://doi.org/10.3109/10408444.2010.494174

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.