Jump to content

Talk:Nanotoxicology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Z.atom.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

This page was blatantly plagiarized from the first link. Someone needs to fix it. Zoffoperskof 06:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removed text

[edit]

user:Igor Pineu added 2 paragraphs that had some problems. I'm putting it here so people can maybe edit and use in the article- Bhny (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The studies concerning cytotoxicity of nanomaterials are increasing exponantially.[1] Due to this fact many are the views defining these studies. Ng[2] summarize it as a study of potencial ill-effects of nanomaterials in Humans, Suh[3] in a very interesting study stats that nanotoxicology is the examination of the bioeffects of nanomaterials. Perhaps an even more complete, or more comprehensive, definition is the one given by Kunzmann and his colleagues[4] were they admit that nanotoxicology is an interdisciplinary field were experts in material, biological and toxicological sciences need to work together in order to understand adverse nano-bio interactions. It should be notice that these last definitions are wider in scope. Nanotoxicology does not refer merely to the effects of nanoparticles in Humans, in fact, there are also many literature concerning potencial Ecotoxicity by nanoparticles.

There have been quite many, and exciting, studies concerning new biomedical applications of nanomaterials, some of them are: bioimaging, diagnosis, neuronal system studies, drug delivery, therapeutic and follow-up [5].[6]

  1. ^ Geys, J. Nemery, B.Hoet, P. (2009) Assay conditions can influence the outcome of cytotoxicity tests of nanomaterials: Better assay characterization is needed to compare studies. Toxicology in Vitro 24 (2010) 620-629
  2. ^ Ng, W. K. et al (2011) The role of the tumor suppressor p53 pathway in the cellular DNA damage response to zinc oxide nanoparticles. Biomaterials 32 (2011) 8218-8225
  3. ^ Suh, W. H. Suslick, S. K. Stucky G. D. Suh Y. (2008) Nanotechnology, nanotoxicology, and neuroscience. Progress in Neurobiology 87 (2009) 133–170
  4. ^ Kunzmann, A. Andersson, B. Thurnherr, T. Krug, H. Scheynius, A. Fadeel B. (2010) Toxicology of engineered nanomaterials: Focus on biocompatibility, biodistribution and biodegradation. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1810 (2011) 361–373
  5. ^ Suh, W. H. Suslick, S. K. Stucky G. D. Suh Y. (2008) Nanotechnology, nanotoxicology, and neuroscience. Progress in Neurobiology 87 (2009) 133–170
  6. ^ Kunzmann, A. Andersson, B. Thurnherr, T. Krug, H. Scheynius, A. Fadeel B. (2010) Toxicology of engineered nanomaterials: Focus on biocompatibility, biodistribution and biodegradation. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1810 (2011) 361–373

Required: General revamp, removal of bias, removal of explicit statements

[edit]

Just a student here, but this page is not entirely streamlined or clear. For instance, the first paragraph speaks of nanomaterials in general and not nanomaterials in the context of toxicology. It mentions "quantum size effects" in the context of nano-toxicology as if it is a deterministic property to nanotoxicity, even though nanomaterials in the environment (i.e. where toxicity is most applicable) will undergo transformations (e.g. aggregation) or surface modifications (e.g. adsorption of humic substances, etc) that will most likely enlarge the particles to sizes orders beyond that of the exciton Bohr radius, and thus no confinement-regime effects will be observed. The introduction of parameters should mention nanomaterial-specific toxicity parameters, e.g. reactivity, bio-compatibility, bio-persistence, ineffective immune response, photo-dissolution, competitive ion uptake potential, etc, and in respects to the size, surface area, composition, defect density and type, and surface modifications (including coatings and functionalization), etc.

Also, only Nanoscience authorities (e.g. researchers, regulators, upper-level students, instructors, etc) should be doing edits and adding content at this point. The state of nano-toxicology theory is in its infancy, and the data are filled with contradictions. That being said, there should be a general vagueness and openness to statements which can accommodate the need for the uncertainties in research at this point. A good example of being too needy is expressed in the discussion section preceding this one, in which someone is trying to attack the definitions of nano-toxicology, when there is no internally-recognized definition of "nano-material"!

This is a new science, that needs input from all realms of science. This also brings up the fact that using old toxicological methods for organic pollutants may not be completely adaptable. One of the unforeseen issues in the science is the human capital involved, mostly chemists attempting to adapt experimental procedures and models to nanomaterials, which in many cases pose little relevance. For example, some chemists are attempting to prove carbon nanotubes are harmless as graphene is harmless and shares the same bond energies - a rather dangerous stupidity it is, as legislation may allow nanotubes to be marketed as much as pencils, then we will all be suffering from pulmonary fibrosis! The point is, the nature of the science requires multidisciplinary input, and the amount of contradictory data substantiates that experimental methods and models are missing something. Nanotubes are actually dangerous to the respiratory system due to an ineffective immune response in trying to depurate a material the body is not designed to handle (or more particularly, the macrophages in your lungs), which is due to the structure of the material, nothing to due with the chemistry other than being hard to digest and breakdown (e.g why it causes frustrated phagocytosis), so the people doing work on this should have experience in macro-structure effects, and not jump to "bond strengths" as this will only cause more confusion.

Some millions of dollars have likely been spent on research that cannot be compared to other research due to lack of standardizations, lack of understanding of the effects of the testing media, lack of respect and compromise for the approaches of other disciplines (e.g. physics), and personal arrogance built upon years of repeatedly testing organic pollutants in a standardized manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebnobla (talk • contribs) 18:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genotoxicity needs work

[edit]

This subsection currently deals with only one of thousands of different kinds of nanoparticles. It's like saying "chemicals are known to be harmful" and then citing a case of poisoning from a chemical.

There is a general sense that nanoparticles are likely to be genotoxic when they have the following characteristics:

1. relatively inert metal such as gold or platinum

2. very small particle size, <2 nm

3. the particles are "naked" (i.e., not coated)

When these criteria are satisfied, the particles tend to form a wide variety of compounds as soon as they come in contact with body fluids such as saliva, blood, etc. The molecules they form will come in a variety of sizes. Some usually get into the nuclei and mitochondria, causing about 20 different effects on the DNA. The result is genotoxicity.

Medical researchers usually go to great lengths to avoid this whenever possible. For example, using other substances, larger particle sizes, coating the particles, etc.

Nanoparticles are generally defined as particles below 100 nm. Zyxwv99 (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3D Printers

[edit]

Heard that 3D printers create UFPs, see Ultrafine particle. Needs to be added here! Charlieb000 (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nanotoxicology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nanotoxicology&oldid=1204185410"