Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31935671›Full record

ReviewIET nanobiotechnology2020

Toxicity of copper oxide nanoparticles: a review study.

Sania Naz, Ayesha Gul, Muhammad Zia

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in IET nanobiotechnology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 124 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
124citing 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

124 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Visible-light-responsive FeRSC advances · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. International journal of microbiology · 2026
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

64 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Sania NazDepartment of Biotechnology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Ayesha GulDepartment of Biotechnology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Muhammad ZiaDepartment of Biotechnology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan. ziachaudhary@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Copper oxide nanoparticles (CuO NPs) use has exponentially increased in various applications (such as industrial catalyst, gas sensors, electronic materials, biomedicines, environmental remediation) due to their flexible properties, i.e. large surface area to volume ratio. These broad applications, however, have increased human exposure and thus the potential risk related to their short- and long-term toxicity. Their release in environment has drawn considerable attention which has become an eminent area of research and development. To understand the toxicological impact of CuO NPs, this review summarises the in-vitro and in-vivo toxicity of CuO NPs subjected to species (bacterial, algae, fish, rats, human cell lines) used for toxicological hazard assessment. The key factors that influence the toxicity of CuO NPs such as particle shape, size, surface functionalisation, time-dose interaction and animal and cell models are elaborated. The literature evidences that the CuO NPs exposure to the living systems results in reactive oxygen species generation, oxidative stress, inflammation, cytotoxicity, genotoxicity and immunotoxicity. However, the physio-chemical characteristics of CuO NPs, concentration, mode of exposure, animal model and assessment characteristics are the main perspectives that define toxicology of CuO NPs.

Indexed as

AnimalsCell LineCells, CulturedCell SurvivalCopperHumansMetal NanoparticlesTissue DistributionToxicity TestsCoppercupric oxide

Identifiers

PMID31935671
PMCPMC8676634

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.