SynthesisJournal of nanobiotechnology2019
Environmental hazard assessment for polymeric and inorganic nanobiomaterials used in drug delivery.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Meta-analysis of Ecotoxicological Hazard Data for Nanoplastics in Marine and Freshwater Systems.Environmental toxicology and chemistry · 2020Pooled it
- Meta-Analysis of Pharmacokinetic Studies of Nanobiomaterials for the Prediction of Excretion Depending on Particle Characteristics.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2019Pooled it
- Synergistic adsorption and photocatalysis study of TiOHeliyon · 2024Article
- PLGA and cancer: a comprehensive patent-based review on the present state of art.Pharmaceutical patent analyst · 2024Review
- Organic Nanodelivery Systems as a New Platform in the Management of Breast Cancer: A Comprehensive Review from Preclinical to Clinical Studies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Nanofiber Carriers of Therapeutic Load: Current Trends.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Sonosensitive capsules for brain thrombolysis increase ischemic damage in a stroke model.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2022Article
- Surface-engineered liposomes for dual-drug delivery targeting strategy against methicillin-resistantAsian journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2022Article
- Placing nanoplastics in the context of global plastic pollution.Nature nanotechnology · 2021Review
- Risk Management Framework for Nano-Biomaterials Used in Medical Devices and Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Evaluation of Ecotoxicology Assessment Methods of Nanomaterials and Their Effects.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- A Methodological Safe-by-Design Approach for the Development of Nanomedicines.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.