Harald F Krug1. 1. International Reserach Cooperations Manager, Empa, Lerchenfeldstrasse 5, St. Gallen, 9014 (Switzerland). harald.krug@empa.ch.
Abstract
The number of studies that have been published on the topic of nanosafety speaks for itself. We have seen an almost exponential rise over the past 15 years or so in the number of articles on nanotoxicology. Although only a couple of hundred papers had appeared on the topic of "Nanomaterials: environmental and health effects" before 2000, this number has exploded to over 10 000 since 2001. Most of these studies, however, do not offer any kind of clear statement on the safety of nanomaterials. On the contrary, most of them are either self-contradictory or arrive at completely erroneous conclusions. Three years ago in this Journal we underscored the deficiencies in the way these studies were designed and pointed out the sources of error in the methods used. Now, on the basis of a comprehensive review of the literature and with the help of selected toxicological end points, we attempt to indicate where the significant weaknesses of these studies lie and what we must improve in the future.
The number of studies that have been published on the topic of nanosafety speaks for itself. We have seen an almost exponential rise over the past 15 years or so in the number of articles on nanotoxicology. Although only a couple of hundred papers had appeared on the topic of "Nanomaterials: environmental and health effects" before 2000, this number has exploded to over 10 000 since 2001. Most of these studies, however, do not offer any kind of clear statement on the safety of nanomaterials. On the contrary, most of them are either self-contradictory or arrive at completely erroneous conclusions. Three years ago in this Journal we underscored the deficiencies in the way these studies were designed and pointed out the sources of error in the methods used. Now, on the basis of a comprehensive review of the literature and with the help of selected toxicological end points, we attempt to indicate where the significant weaknesses of these studies lie and what we must improve in the future.
Authors: J Lebedová; L Bláhová; Z Večeřa; P Mikuška; B Dočekal; M Buchtová; I Míšek; J Dumková; A Hampl; K Hilscherová Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int Date: 2016-09-16 Impact factor: 4.223
Authors: Hamideh Parhiz; Makan Khoshnejad; Jacob W Myerson; Elizabeth Hood; Priyal N Patel; Jacob S Brenner; Vladimir R Muzykantov Journal: Adv Drug Deliv Rev Date: 2018-07-03 Impact factor: 15.470
Authors: Richard L Marchese Robinson; Iseult Lynch; Willie Peijnenburg; John Rumble; Fred Klaessig; Clarissa Marquardt; Hubert Rauscher; Tomasz Puzyn; Ronit Purian; Christoffer Åberg; Sandra Karcher; Hanne Vriens; Peter Hoet; Mark D Hoover; Christine Ogilvie Hendren; Stacey L Harper Journal: Nanoscale Date: 2016-05-04 Impact factor: 7.790
Authors: Irina Guseva Canu; Paul A Schulte; Michael Riediker; Liliya Fatkhutdinova; Enrico Bergamaschi Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2017-12-04 Impact factor: 3.710