Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30992030›Full record

SynthesisJournal of nanobiotechnology2019

Environmental hazard assessment for polymeric and inorganic nanobiomaterials used in drug delivery.

Marina Hauser, Guangyu Li, Bernd Nowack

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of nanobiotechnology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Nanofiber Carriers of Therapeutic Load: Current Trends.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. A Methodological Safe-by-Design Approach for the Development of Nanomedicines.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020
    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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marina HauserEmpa, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology, Lerchenfeldstrasse 5, 9014, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Guangyu LiEmpa, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology, Lerchenfeldstrasse 5, 9014, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Bernd NowackEmpa, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology, Lerchenfeldstrasse 5, 9014, St. Gallen, Switzerland. nowack@empa.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5676-112X
Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology · CH

Funding

Innosuisse 19267.1 PFNM-NM
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe increasing development and use of nanobiomaterials raises questions about their potential adverse effects on the environment after excretion and release. Published ecotoxicological data was searched for five polymeric nanobiomaterials [chitosan, polylactic acid (PLA), polyacrylonitrile (PAN), polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), and poly(lactic-glycolic acid) (PLGA)] and one inorganic nanobiomaterial [hydroxyapatite (HAP)] to evaluate the environmental hazards for freshwater and soil using a meta-analysis. If enough data was available, a probabilistic species sensitivity distribution (pSSD) and from this a predicted no effect concentration (PNEC) was calculated. If only one data point was available, a PNEC was calculated based on the most sensitive endpoint. Each material was classified either as "nano" or "non-nano", depending on the categorization in the original articles. When the original article specified that the material consisted of nanoparticles, the material was classified as nano; when nothing was mentioned, the material was classified as "non-nano".

resultsFor PLA, PHA and PLGA, no published data on ecotoxicity was found and therefore no hazard assessment could be conducted. In soils, HAP was found to have the lowest PNEC with 0.3 mg/kg, followed by PAN and chitosan. In freshwater, chitosan was found to have the lowest PNEC with 5 µg/l, followed by nano-chitosan, HAP and PAN.

conclusionCompared with other common pollutants, even the most sensitive of the selected nanobiomaterials, chitosan, is less toxic than engineered nanomaterials such as nano-ZnO and nano-Ag, some common antibiotics, heavy metals or organic pollutants such as triclosan. Given the current knowledge, the nanobiomaterials covered in this work therefore pose only little or no environmental hazard.

Indexed as

Biocompatible MaterialsDrug CarriersDrug LiberationDurapatiteFresh WaterHazardous SubstancesHumansModels, StatisticalNanostructuresPolymersSoil PollutantsWater Pollutants, ChemicalBiocompatible MaterialsDrug CarriersDurapatiteHazardous SubstancesPolymersSoil PollutantsWater Pollutants, Chemical

Identifiers

PMID30992030
PMCPMC6466702
OpenAlexW2935809375

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.