ArticleToxics2020
Evaluation of the Skin Sensitization Potential of Carbon Nanotubes Using Alternative In Vitro and In Vivo Assays.
Article in Toxics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Bariatric Surgery on Micronutrient Levels: Evidence from NHANES 2015-2018, a Cross-Sectional Study.Obesity surgery · 2026Article
- Waterless Dyeing and In Vitro Toxicological Properties of Biocolorants fromJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Article
- Prediction of Skin Sensitization Potential of Silver and Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles Through the Human Cell Line Activation Test.Frontiers in toxicology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are one of the major types of nanomaterials that have various industrial and biomedical applications. However, there is a risk of accidental exposure to CNTs in individuals involved in their large-scale production and in individuals who use products containing CNTs. This study aimed to evaluate the skin sensitization induced by CNTs using two alternative tests. We selected single-wall carbon nanotubes and multi-walled carbon nanotubes for this study. First, the physiochemical properties of the CNTs were measured, including the morphology, size, and zeta potential, under various conditions. Thereafter, we assessed the sensitization potential of the CNTs using the ARE-Nrf2 Luciferase KeratinoSens™ assay, an in vitro alternative test method. In addition, the CNTs were evaluated for their skin sensitization potential using the LLNA: BrdU-FCM in vivo alternative test method. In this study, we report for the first time the sensitization results of CNTs using the KeratinoSens™ and LLNA: BrdU-FCM test methods in this study. This study found that both CNTs do not induce skin sensitization. These results suggest that the KeratinoSens™ and LLNA: BrdU-FCM assay may be useful as alternative assays for evaluating the potential of some nanomaterials that can induce skin sensitization.
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.