Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37268899›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2023

Human and environmental impacts of nanoparticles: a scoping review of the current literature.

Elizabeth Adjoa Kumah, Raoul Djou Fopa, Saeed Harati, Paul Boadu, Fatemeh Vida Zohoori, Tannaz Pak

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 90 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
90citing papers in PubMed
32.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

90 citing papers in PubMed, 337 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

30 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Elizabeth Adjoa KumahDepeartment of International Public Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
Raoul Djou FopaSchool of Computing, Engineering & Digital Technologies, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, TS1 3BX, UK.
Saeed HaratiSchool of Computing, Engineering & Digital Technologies, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, TS1 3BX, UK.
Paul BoaduDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Fatemeh Vida ZohooriSchool of Health and Life Sciences, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK.
Tannaz PakSchool of Computing, Engineering & Digital Technologies, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, TS1 3BX, UK. T.Pak@tees.ac.uk.
Teesside University · GBLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Use of nanoparticles have established benefits in a wide range of applications, however, the effects of exposure to nanoparticles on health and the environmental risks associated with the production and use of nanoparticles are less well-established. The present study addresses this gap in knowledge by examining, through a scoping review of the current literature, the effects of nanoparticles on human health and the environment. We searched relevant databases including Medline, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Scopus, CINAHL, Embase, and SAGE journals, as well as Google, Google Scholar, and grey literature from June 2021 to July 2021. After removing duplicate articles, the title and abstracts of 1495 articles were first screened followed by the full-texts of 249 studies, and this resulted in the inclusion of 117 studies in the presented review.In this contribution we conclude that while nanoparticles offer distinct benefits in a range of applications, they pose significant threats to humans and the environment. Using several biological models and biomarkers, the included studies revealed the toxic effects of nanoparticles (mainly zinc oxide, silicon dioxide, titanium dioxide, silver, and carbon nanotubes) to include cell death, production of oxidative stress, DNA damage, apoptosis, and induction of inflammatory responses. Most of the included studies (65.81%) investigated inorganic-based nanoparticles. In terms of biomarkers, most studies (76.9%) used immortalised cell lines, whiles 18.8% used primary cells as the biomarker for assessing human health effect of nanoparticles. Biomarkers that were used for assessing environmental impact of nanoparticles included soil samples and soybean seeds, zebrafish larvae, fish, and Daphnia magna neonates.From the studies included in this work the United States recorded the highest number of publications (n = 30, 25.64%), followed by China, India, and Saudi Arabia recording the same number of publications (n = 8 each), with 95.75% of the studies published from the year 2009. The majority of the included studies (93.16%) assessed impact of nanoparticles on human health, and 95.7% used experimental study design. This shows a clear gap exists in examining the impact of nanoparticles on the environment.

Indexed as

NanoparticlesNanotubes, CarbonAnimalsBiomarkersEnvironmentHumansInfant, NewbornZebrafishBiomarkersNanotubes, CarbonBiomarkersCytotoxicity; Environmental healthGenotoxicityHuman healthImpactNanoparticlesScoping reviewToxicity

Identifiers

PMID37268899
PMCPMC10239112
OpenAlexW4379184990

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.