Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29575127›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental toxicology and chemistry2018

Assessing the release of copper from nanocopper-treated and conventional copper-treated lumber into marine waters II: Forms and bioavailability.

Ashley N Parks, Mark G Cantwell, David R Katz, Michaela A Cashman, Todd P Luxton, Justin G Clar, Monique M Perron, Lisa Portis, Kay T Ho, Robert M Burgess

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental toxicology and chemistry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Floating particles with high copper concentration in the sea-surface microlayer.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Ashley N ParksSouthern California Coastal Water Research Project, Costa Mesa, California, USA.
Mark G CantwellOffice of Research and Development/National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Atlantic Ecology Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett, Rhode Island, USA.
David R KatzOffice of Research and Development/National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Atlantic Ecology Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett, Rhode Island, USA.
Michaela A CashmanDepartment of Geosciences, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island, USA.
Todd P LuxtonOffice of Research and Development/National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Land and Materials Management Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Justin G ClarElon University, Elon, North Carolina, USA.
Monique M PerronOffice of Pesticide Programs, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA.
Lisa PortisLifespan Ambulatory Care Center, East Greenwich, Rhode Island, USA.
Kay T HoOffice of Research and Development/National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Atlantic Ecology Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett, Rhode Island, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6750-4487
Robert M BurgessOffice of Research and Development/National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Atlantic Ecology Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett, Rhode Island, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4504-5125

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One application of nanocopper is as a wood-preserving pesticide in pressure-treated lumber. Recent research has shown that pressure-treated lumber amended with micronized copper azole (MCA), which contains nanosized copper, releases copper under estuarine and marine conditions. The form of copper released (i.e., ionic, nanocopper [1-100 nm in size]) is not fully understood but will affect the bioavailability and toxicity of the metal. In the present study, multiple lines of evidence, including size fractionation, ion-selective electrode electrochemistry, comparative toxicity, and copper speciation were used to determine the form of copper released from lumber blocks and sawdust. The results of all lines of evidence supported the hypothesis that ionic copper was released from MCA lumber and sawdust, with little evidence that nanocopper was released. For example, copper concentrations in size fractionations of lumber block aqueous leachates including unfiltered, 0.1 μm, and 3 kDa were not significantly different, suggesting that the form of copper released was in the size range operationally defined as dissolved. These results correlated with the ion-selective electrode data which detects only ionic copper. In addition, comparative toxicity testing resulted in a narrow range of median lethal concentrations (221-257 μg/L) for MCA lumber blocks and CuSO

Indexed as

Biological AvailabilityCopperIon-Selective ElectrodesNanoparticlesSeawaterToxicity TestsWater Pollutants, ChemicalWoodX-Ray Absorption SpectroscopyCopperWater Pollutants, ChemicalBioavailabilityCopper nanomaterialsIonicNanomaterialsPressure-treated lumberSpeciation

Identifiers

PMID29575127
PMCPMC6038930

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.