MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170372117 · doi:10.1071/en13221

Aquatic toxicity of manufactured nanomaterials: challenges and recommendations for future toxicity testing

2014· article· en· W2170372117 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Aaron G. Schultz, David Boyle, Danuta Chamot, Kimberly J. Ong, Kevin J. Wilkinson, James C. McGeer, Geoff Sunahara, Greg G. Goss

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Chemistry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNanoparticles: synthesis and applications
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité de MontréalUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Resources CanadaNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesNestecUniversity of British ColumbiaFogarty International CenterAustralian GovernmentUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
KeywordsContext (archaeology)NanotoxicologyAquatic toxicologyNanomaterialsEnvironmental chemistryAquatic ecosystemNanotechnologyEnvironmental scienceChemistryToxicityMaterials scienceNanoparticleBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Environmental context The increased use of nanomaterials in industrial and consumer products requires robust strategies to identify risks when they are released into the environment. Aquatic toxicologists are beginning to possess a clearer understanding of the chemical and physical properties of nanomaterials in solution, and which of the properties potentially affect the health of aquatic organisms. This review highlights the main challenges encountered in aquatic nanotoxicity testing, provides recommendations for overcoming these challenges, and discusses recent studies that have advanced our understanding of the toxicity of three important OECD nanomaterials, titanium dioxide, zinc oxide and silver nanomaterials. Abstract Aquatic nanotoxicologists and ecotoxicologists have begun to identify the unique properties of the nanomaterials (NMs) that potentially affect the health of wildlife. In this review the scientific aims are to discuss the main challenges nanotoxicologists currently face in aquatic toxicity testing, including the transformations of NMs in aquatic test media (dissolution, aggregation and small molecule interactions), and modes of NM interference (optical interference, adsorption to assay components and generation of reactive oxygen species) on common toxicity assays. Three of the major OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) priority materials, titanium dioxide (TiO2), zinc oxide (ZnO) and silver (Ag) NMs, studied recently by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), National Research Council of Canada (NRC) and the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) Nanotechnology Initiative (NNBNI), a Canadian consortium, have been identified to cause both bulk effect, dissolution-based (i.e. free metal), or NM-specific toxicity in aquatic organisms. TiO2 NMs are most toxic to algae, with toxicity being NM size-dependent and principally associated with binding of the materials to the organism. Conversely, dissolution of Zn and Ag NMs and the subsequent release of their ionic metal counterparts appear to represent the primary mode of toxicity to aquatic organisms for these NMs. In recent years, our understanding of the toxicological properties of these specific OECD relevant materials has increased significantly. Specifically, researchers have begun to alter their experimental design to identify the different behaviour of these materials as colloids and, by introducing appropriate controls and NM characterisation, aquatic nanotoxicologists are now beginning to possess a clearer understanding of the chemical and physical properties of these materials in solution, and how these materials may interact with organisms. Arming nanotoxicologists with this understanding, combined with knowledge of the physics, chemistry and biology of these materials is essential for maintaining the accuracy of all future toxicological assessments.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations79
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ChemistrySame topicNanoparticles: synthesis and applicationsFrench-language works237,207