Special Issue on Nanomaterials: Measurement, Fate, and Future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".