ReviewChemical research in toxicology2020
Neurotoxicology of Nanomaterials.
Review in Chemical research in toxicology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.
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
35 citing papers in PubMed.
- Graphene Quantum Dots in Neurodegeneration: Protein Aggregation and the Microglial State as Therapeutic Targets.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The internalization of three types of carbon nanoparticles by HeLa cells in vitro.Discover nano · 2026Article
- Review
- Silver Nanoparticles and Neurotoxicity: Mechanistic Insights and Recent Experimental Evidence.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
- Neurotoxic and some systemic effects of cadmium oxide nanoparticles following their subchronic intranasal administration to rats: experimental data analysis.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Nasal Microbiota as a Potential Therapeutic Target for Allergic Rhinitis: An Emerging Perspective.Current pharmaceutical design · 2026Review
- The Dual Role of Nanomaterials in Ovarian Cancer and Female Fertility as Anti- and Prooxidants.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Nanotechnology in healthcare, and its safety and environmental risks.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2024Review
- Article
- Recognition and detection technology for microplastic, its source and health effects.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2024Review
- Review
- Application of biomedical materials in the diagnosis and treatment of myocardial infarction.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2023Review
- A Dusty Road for Astronauts.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Risk Assessment of Nanomaterials Toxicity.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Analysis of Experimental Data on Changes in Various Structures and Functions of the Rat Brain following Intranasal Administration of FeInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Editorial: Precision Medicine in Obstetrics: Pregnancy Complication.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- The choroid plexus: a missing link in our understanding of brain development and function.Physiological reviews · 2023Review
- Exosome-based drug delivery systems for the treatment of diabetes and its complications: current opinion.Extracellular vesicles and circulating nucleic acids · 2023Review
- Neurotoxicity of Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles: A Comprehensive Review.International journal of nanomedicine · 2023Review
- Membrane Vesicles Derived from Gut Microbiota and Probiotics: Cutting-Edge Therapeutic Approaches for Multidrug-Resistant Superbugs Linked to Neurological Anomalies.Pharmaceutics · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The remarkable advances coming about through nanotechnology promise to revolutionize many aspects of modern life; however, these advances come with a responsibility for due diligence to ensure that they are not accompanied by adverse consequences for human health or the environment. Many novel nanomaterials (having at least one dimension <100 nm) could be highly mobile if released into the environment and are also very reactive, which has raised concerns for potential adverse impacts including, among others, the potential for neurotoxicity. Several lines of evidence led to concerns for neurotoxicity, but perhaps none more than observations that inhaled nanoparticles impinging on the mucosal surface of the nasal epithelium could be internalized into olfactory receptor neurons and transported by axoplasmic transport into the olfactory bulbs without crossing the blood-brain barrier. From the olfactory bulb, there is concern that nanomaterials may be transported deeper into the brain and affect other brain structures. Of course, people will not be exposed to only engineered nanomaterials, but rather such exposures will occur in a complex mixture of environmental materials, some of which are incidentally generated particles of a similar inhalable size range to engineered nanomaterials. To date, most experimental studies of potential neurotoxicity of nanomaterials have not considered the potential exposure sources and pathways that could lead to exposure, and most studies of nanomaterial exposure have not considered potential neurotoxicity. Here, we present a review of potential sources of exposures to nanoparticles, along with a review of the literature on potential neurotoxicity of nanomaterials. We employ the linked concepts of an aggregate exposure pathway (AEP) and an adverse outcome pathway (AOP) to organize and present the material. The AEP includes a sequence of key events progressing from material sources, release to environmental media, external exposure, internal exposure, and distribution to the target site. The AOP begins with toxicant at the target site causing a molecular initiating event and, like the AEP, progress sequentially to actions at the level of the cell, organ, individual, and population. Reports of nanomaterial actions are described at every key event along the AEP and AOP, except for changes in exposed populations that have not yet been observed. At this last stage, however, there is ample evidence of population level effects from exposure to ambient air particles that may act similarly to engineered nanomaterials. The data give an overall impression that current exposure levels may be considerably lower than those reported experimentally to be neurotoxic. This impression, however, is tempered by the absence of long-term exposure studies with realistic routes and levels of exposure to address concerns for chronic accumulation of materials or damage. Further, missing across the board are "key event relationships", which are quantitative expressions linking the key events of either the AEP or the AOP, making it impossible to quantitatively project the likelihood of adverse neurotoxic effects from exposure to nanomaterials or to estimate margins of exposure for such relationships.
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.