Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37424745›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in toxicology2023

How safe are nanoscale metal-organic frameworks?

Dhruv Menon, Swaroop Chakraborty

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in toxicology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
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

2 authors.

Dhruv MenonCavendish Laboratory, Department of Physics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Swaroop ChakrabortySchool of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Owing to the size scales that can be accessed, the nanoscale has opened doors to new physical and chemical properties, not seen in the bulk. These properties are leveraged by nanomaterials (NMs) across a plethora of applications. More recently, nanoscale metal-organic frameworks (nMOFs) have witnessed explosive growth due to the modularity of their chemical constituents, the ability to modify their composition and structure, and exceptional properties such as permanent porosity and high surface areas. These properties have prompted the investigation of these materials for applications in biological and environmental contexts. However, one aspect that is often ignored in these discussions is their safety at a nanoscale. In this mini review, we aim to initiate a discussion on the safety and toxicity of nMOFs, drawing parallels with the existing guidelines and literature on the safety of inorganic NMs. We first describe why nMOFs are of considerable interest to the scientific community followed by a discussion on routes through which they can be exposed to the environment and living organisms, particularly shedding light on their transformation mechanisms. The review also discusses the factors affecting toxicity of nMOFs, such as their size, shape, morphology, and composition. We briefly highlight potential mechanisms of toxicity and conclude with describing the need to transition towards data-intensive computational approaches such as machine learning to establish nMOFs as credible materials for their envisioned applications.

Indexed as

machine learningmetal organic framework (MOF)nanosafetysafe by designtoxicology

Identifiers

PMID37424745
PMCPMC10326718

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.