Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31579514›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental science. Nano2019

Strategies for robust and accurate experimental approaches to quantify nanomaterial bioaccumulation across a broad range of organisms.

Elijah J Petersen, Monika Mortimer, Robert M Burgess, Richard Handy, Shannon Hanna, Kay T Ho, Monique Johnson, Susana Loureiro, Henriette Selck, Janeck J Scott-Fordsmand and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental science. Nano, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. RSC advances · 2022
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Fertility and Iron Bioaccumulation inMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
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

16 authors.

Elijah J PetersenMaterial Measurement Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
Monika MortimerBren School of Environmental Science and Management, Earth Research Institute and University of California Center for the Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology (UC CEIN), University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106, United States.
Robert M BurgessUS Environmental Protection Agency, Atlantic Ecology Division, 27 Tarzwell Dr., Narragansett, RI 02882.
Richard HandyPlymouth University, School of Biological Sciences, United Kingdom.
Shannon HannaMaterial Measurement Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
Kay T HoUS Environmental Protection Agency, Atlantic Ecology Division, 27 Tarzwell Dr., Narragansett, RI 02882.
Monique JohnsonMaterial Measurement Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
Susana LoureiroDepartment of Biology & CESAM, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal.
Henriette SelckRoskilde University, Dept. of Science and Environment, Denmark.
Janeck J Scott-FordsmandDepartment of Bioscience, Aarhus University, Vejlsoevej 25, DK-8600 Silkeborg, Denmark.
David SpurgeonCentre for Ecology and Hydrology, Maclean Building, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, OX10 8BB, United Kingdom.
Jason UnrineDepartment of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546, USA.
Nico van den BrinkDepartment of Toxicology, Wageningen University, Stippeneng 4, 6708 WE Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Ying WangBren School of Environmental Science and Management, Earth Research Institute and University of California Center for the Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology (UC CEIN), University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106, United States.
Jason WhiteDepartment of Analytical Chemistry, The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven, CT 06504, United States.
Patricia HoldenBren School of Environmental Science and Management, Earth Research Institute and University of California Center for the Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology (UC CEIN), University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106, United States.

Funding

Intramural NIST DOC 9999-NIST
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the key components for environmental risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) is data on bioaccumulation potential. Accurately measuring bioaccumulation can be critical for regulatory decision making regarding material hazard and risk, and for understanding the mechanism of toxicity. This perspective provides expert guidance for performing ENM bioaccumulation measurements across a broad range of test organisms and species. To accomplish this aim, we critically evaluated ENM bioaccumulation within three categories of organisms: single-celled species, multicellular species excluding plants, and multicellular plants. For aqueous exposures of suspended single-celled and small multicellular species, it is critical to perform a robust procedure to separate suspended ENMs and small organisms to avoid overestimating bioaccumulation. For many multicellular organisms, it is essential to differentiate between the ENMs adsorbed to external surfaces or in the digestive tract and the amount absorbed across epithelial tissues. For multicellular plants, key considerations include how exposure route and the role of the rhizosphere may affect the quantitative measurement of uptake, and that the efficiency of washing procedures to remove loosely attached ENMs to the roots is not well understood. Within each organism category, case studies are provided to illustrate key methodological considerations for conducting robust bioaccumulation experiments for different species within each major group. The full scope of ENM bioaccumulation measurements and interpretations are discussed including conducting the organism exposure, separating organisms from the ENMs in the test media after exposure, analytical methods to quantify ENMs in the tissues or cells, and modeling the ENM bioaccumulation results. One key finding to improve bioaccumulation measurements was the critical need for further analytical method development to identify and quantify ENMs in complex matrices. Overall, the discussion, suggestions, and case studies described herein will help improve the robustness of ENM bioaccumulation studies.

Identifiers

PMID31579514
PMCPMC6774209

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.