Special Issue on Nanomaterials: Measurement, Fate, and Future
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Nanoparticle engineering experienced a development stage between the 1980s and the year 2000. After this period of exploratory research, an enormous spectrum of possibilities was generated, giving rise to thousands of different applications in every imaginable industrial field. This explosion of novel technology, as all previous technical advances, was not in synchronicity with proper knowledge of the possible risks to be monitored and the consequent necessary regulations. An important difference with previous industrial revolutions rests in the fact that different sectors of society learned from past experiences to express their concerns about this issue. In this sense, the world is in an evolutionary period, for the first time, striving to prevent adverse effects of the technological advances to maximize the benefit for the global society by improving the environmental quality at the same time. As in every decision humanity takes, the possible benefits must be weighed against the losses that could be incurred through the introduction of novel materials, but having enough information in time means posing a debate about the future health of society and the environment in the field of ethics and planning before any adverse effect is registered. This is per se a quantum advance when compared with humanity’s previous history of palliative measurements and banning only after discovering the noxiousness of products that were supposed to be a panacea (being the best example the use of chemical pesticides). Therefore, the argument can be made that every publication evaluating the upside or downside of nanotechnology and the development of novel or integrative techniques for testing this materials is a step forward not only from the scientific point of view, but also as an act of collaboration in the progress towards a better global society that integrates sustainable environment aspects. Following the need for discussion and the existing issues, this special issue is an attempt to elicit updated information on • The bioavailability of nanoparticles in soil and the factors that determine their movement and modification as engineered nanoparticle (ENP)-dependent factors, soil properties, and organic matter; • The behavior of cosmetic nanomaterials, mainly titanium dioxide and fullerenes, within wastewater-treatment plants, as well as current research on their characterization and toxicity; • How nanomaterials are characterized in surface water and sediments by newly-developed methods; • Their presence and reactivity in the atmosphere; • Their toxicity on microbial community and technical challenges associated with the nanotoxicity evaluation and data interpretation; • The most common methods used to detect the presence, possible transport routes, mode of transformations, and their reservoirs in the environment; • The analytical approaches for most accurately sampling and profile determination of nanoparticles associated to metabolomics in the environmental matrices; • The use of combined techniques to determine sizes and shapes of a population of nanoparticle (NPs); and • The necessity of special regulations since traditional riskassessment models for conventional chemicals may not apply due to the hyperreactivity of these particles. In this sense, an article of the present issue proposes to modify the existing Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations including nanomaterial (NMs) instead of starting from zero. This issue also presents two articles contrasting the research planning between developed and developing countries and how nanomaterials are being promoted and simultaneously regulated in Brazil while Mexico is seeking to develop this area with increased economical benefits. In short, the present issue provides the reader with a view on the behavior of engineered nanoparticles in the environment, the current methods for their analysis, and regulatory and sociological analyses from different perspectives. All this needs to be evaluated in an integrative manner to improve the environmental quality and life standard for both current and future generations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».