Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38251120›Full record

ReviewNanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Computational Nanotoxicology Models for Environmental Risk Assessment of Engineered Nanomaterials.

Weihao Tang, Xuejiao Zhang, Huixiao Hong, Jingwen Chen, Qing Zhao, Fengchang Wu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Nanotoxicology: developments and new insights.Nanomedicine (London, England) · 2025
    Review
  10. Advances in nanomedicine and delivery systems for gastric cancer research.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
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.

Weihao TangNational-Regional Joint Engineering Research Center for Soil Pollution Control and Remediation in South China, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Integrated Agro-Environmental Pollution Control and Management, Institute of Eco-Environmental and Soil Sciences, Guangdong Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou 510650, China.
Xuejiao ZhangNational-Regional Joint Engineering Research Center for Soil Pollution Control and Remediation in South China, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Integrated Agro-Environmental Pollution Control and Management, Institute of Eco-Environmental and Soil Sciences, Guangdong Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou 510650, China.
Huixiao HongNational Center for Toxicological Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 3900 NCTR Rd., Jefferson, AR 72079, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8087-3968
Jingwen ChenKey Laboratory of Industrial Ecology and Environmental Engineering (Ministry of Education), Dalian Key Laboratory on Chemicals Risk Control and Pollution Prevention Technology, School of Environmental Science and Technology, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China.ORCID 0000-0002-5756-3336
Qing ZhaoNational-Regional Joint Engineering Research Center for Soil Pollution Control and Remediation in South China, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Integrated Agro-Environmental Pollution Control and Management, Institute of Eco-Environmental and Soil Sciences, Guangdong Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou 510650, China.ORCID 0000-0003-2250-5571
Fengchang WuState Key Laboratory of Environmental Criteria and Risk Assessment, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing 100012, China.

Funding

GDAS' Project of Science and Technology Development 2022GDASZH-2022010105, 2020GDASYL-20200101002National Natural Science Foundation of China 42192574,42022056
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) have tremendous potential to generate technological benefits in numerous sectors, uncertainty on the risks of ENMs for human health and the environment may impede the advancement of novel materials. Traditionally, the risks of ENMs can be evaluated by experimental methods such as environmental field monitoring and animal-based toxicity testing. However, it is time-consuming, expensive, and impractical to evaluate the risk of the increasingly large number of ENMs with the experimental methods. On the contrary, with the advancement of artificial intelligence and machine learning, in silico methods have recently received more attention in the risk assessment of ENMs. This review discusses the key progress of computational nanotoxicology models for assessing the risks of ENMs, including material flow analysis models, multimedia environmental models, physiologically based toxicokinetics models, quantitative nanostructure-activity relationships, and meta-analysis. Several challenges are identified and a perspective is provided regarding how the challenges can be addressed.

Indexed as

computational nanotoxicologyengineered nanomaterialsexposure modelshazard models

Identifiers

PMID38251120
PMCPMC10819018

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.