↓ Skip to main content

The potential risks of nanomaterials: a review carried out for ECETOC

Overview of attention for article published in Particle and Fibre Toxicology, August 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#48 of 615)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
3 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
1143 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
816 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
The potential risks of nanomaterials: a review carried out for ECETOC
Published in
Particle and Fibre Toxicology, August 2006
DOI 10.1186/1743-8977-3-11
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul JA Borm, David Robbins, Stephan Haubold, Thomas Kuhlbusch, Heinz Fissan, Ken Donaldson, Roel Schins, Vicki Stone, Wolfgang Kreyling, Jurgen Lademann, Jean Krutmann, David Warheit, Eva Oberdorster

Abstract

During the last few years, research on toxicologically relevant properties of engineered nanoparticles has increased tremendously. A number of international research projects and additional activities are ongoing in the EU and the US, nourishing the expectation that more relevant technical and toxicological data will be published. Their widespread use allows for potential exposure to engineered nanoparticles during the whole lifecycle of a variety of products. When looking at possible exposure routes for manufactured Nanoparticles, inhalation, dermal and oral exposure are the most obvious, depending on the type of product in which Nanoparticles are used. This review shows that (1) Nanoparticles can deposit in the respiratory tract after inhalation. For a number of nanoparticles, oxidative stress-related inflammatory reactions have been observed. Tumour-related effects have only been observed in rats, and might be related to overload conditions. There are also a few reports that indicate uptake of nanoparticles in the brain via the olfactory epithelium. Nanoparticle translocation into the systemic circulation may occur after inhalation but conflicting evidence is present on the extent of translocation. These findings urge the need for additional studies to further elucidate these findings and to characterize the physiological impact. (2) There is currently little evidence from skin penetration studies that dermal applications of metal oxide nanoparticles used in sunscreens lead to systemic exposure. However, the question has been raised whether the usual testing with healthy, intact skin will be sufficient. (3) Uptake of nanoparticles in the gastrointestinal tract after oral uptake is a known phenomenon, of which use is intentionally made in the design of food and pharmacological components. Finally, this review indicates that only few specific nanoparticles have been investigated in a limited number of test systems and extrapolation of this data to other materials is not possible. Air pollution studies have generated indirect evidence for the role of combustion derived nanoparticles (CDNP) in driving adverse health effects in susceptible groups. Experimental studies with some bulk nanoparticles (carbon black, titanium dioxide, iron oxides) that have been used for decades suggest various adverse effects. However, engineered nanomaterials with new chemical and physical properties are being produced constantly and the toxicity of these is unknown. Therefore, despite the existing database on nanoparticles, no blanket statements about human toxicity can be given at this time. In addition, limited ecotoxicological data for nanomaterials precludes a systematic assessment of the impact of Nanoparticles on ecosystems.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 816 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 5 <1%
United Kingdom 5 <1%
Brazil 5 <1%
United States 4 <1%
Netherlands 3 <1%
India 3 <1%
Sweden 3 <1%
Australia 3 <1%
France 2 <1%
Other 14 2%
Unknown 769 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 183 22%
Researcher 134 16%
Student > Master 124 15%
Student > Bachelor 62 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 55 7%
Other 112 14%
Unknown 146 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 129 16%
Chemistry 101 12%
Environmental Science 81 10%
Engineering 62 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 59 7%
Other 199 24%
Unknown 185 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 December 2021.
All research outputs
#1,441,899
of 25,413,176 outputs
Outputs from Particle and Fibre Toxicology
#48
of 615 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,560
of 91,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Particle and Fibre Toxicology
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,413,176 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 615 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 91,678 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.