↓ Skip to main content

Toxicity of carbon nanotubes to freshwater aquatic invertebrates

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Toxicity of carbon nanotubes to freshwater aquatic invertebrates
Published in
Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry, June 2012
DOI 10.1002/etc.1888
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joseph N. Mwangi, Ning Wang, Christopher G. Ingersoll, Doug K. Hardesty, Eric L. Brunson, Hao Li, Baolin Deng

Abstract

Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are hydrophobic in nature and thus tend to accumulate in sediments if released into aquatic environments. As part of our overall effort to examine the toxicity of carbon-based nanomaterials to sediment-dwelling invertebrates, we have evaluated the toxicity of different types of CNTs in 14-d water-only exposures to an amphipod (Hyalella azteca), a midge (Chironomus dilutus), an oligochaete (Lumbriculus variegatus), and a mussel (Villosa iris) in advance of conducting whole-sediment toxicity tests with CNTs. The results of these toxicity tests conducted with CNTs added to water showed that 1.00 g/L (dry wt) of commercial sources of CNTs significantly reduced the survival or growth of the invertebrates. Toxicity was influenced by the type and source of the CNTs, by whether the materials were precleaned by acid, by whether sonication was used to disperse the materials, and by species of the test organisms. Light and electron microscope imaging of the surviving test organisms showed the presence of CNTs in the gut as well as on the outer surface of the test organisms, although no evidence was observed to show penetration of CNTs through cell membranes. The present study demonstrated that both the metals solubilized from CNTs such as nickel and the "metal-free" CNTs contributed to the toxicity.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Czechia 1 1%
Argentina 1 1%
Unknown 75 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 19%
Student > Master 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Other 6 8%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 6 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 27 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 22%
Engineering 7 9%
Chemistry 6 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 10 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 23 August 2012.
All research outputs
#1,323,833
of 13,156,581 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry
#190
of 3,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,649
of 125,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry
#4
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,156,581 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,833 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 125,676 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.