Talk:Nanotoxicology

message: This page was blatantly plagiarized from the first link.  Someone needs to fix it. Zoffoperskof 06:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: user:Igor Pineu added 2 paragraphs that had some problems. I'm putting it here so people can maybe edit and use in the article- Bhny (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed text 

message: Just a student here, but this page is not entirely streamlined or clear. For instance, the first paragraph speaks of nanomaterials in general and not nanomaterials in the context of toxicology. It mentions "quantum size effects" in the context of nano-toxicology as if it is a deterministic property to nanotoxicity, even though nanomaterials in the environment (i.e. where toxicity is most applicable) will undergo transformations (e.g. aggregation) or surface modifications (e.g. adsorption of humic substances, etc) that will most likely enlarge the particles to sizes orders beyond that of the exciton Bohr radius, and thus no confinement-regime effects will be observed. The introduction of parameters should mention nanomaterial-specific toxicity parameters, e.g. reactivity, bio-compatibility, bio-persistence, ineffective immune response, photo-dissolution, competitive ion uptake potential, etc, and in respects to the size, surface area, composition, defect density and type, and surface modifications (including coatings and functionalization), etc. 
Also, only Nanoscience authorities (e.g. researchers, regulators, upper-level students, instructors, etc) should be doing edits and adding content at this point. The state of nano-toxicology theory is in its infancy, and the data are filled with contradictions. That being said, there should be a general vagueness and openness to statements which can accommodate the need for the uncertainties in research at this point. A good example of being too needy is expressed in the discussion section preceding this one, in which someone is trying to attack the definitions of nano-toxicology, when there is no internally-recognized definition of "nano-material"!
This is a new science, that needs input from all realms of science. This also brings up the fact that using old toxicological methods for organic pollutants may not be completely adaptable. One of the unforeseen issues in the science is the human capital involved, mostly chemists attempting to adapt experimental procedures and models to nanomaterials, which in many cases pose little relevance. For example, some chemists are attempting to prove carbon nanotubes are harmless as graphene is harmless and shares the same bond energies - a rather dangerous stupidity it is, as legislation may allow nanotubes to be marketed as much as pencils, then we will all be suffering from pulmonary fibrosis! The point is, the nature of the science requires multidisciplinary input, and the amount of contradictory data substantiates that experimental methods and models are missing something. Nanotubes are actually dangerous to the respiratory system due to an ineffective immune response in trying to depurate a material the body is not designed to handle (or more particularly, the macrophages in your lungs), which is due to the structure of the material, nothing to due with the chemistry other than being hard to digest and breakdown (e.g why it causes frustrated phagocytosis), so the people doing work on this should have experience in macro-structure effects, and not jump to "bond strengths" as this will only cause more confusion. 
Some millions of dollars have likely been spent on research that cannot be compared to other research due to lack of standardizations, lack of understanding of the effects of the testing media, lack of respect and compromise for the approaches of other disciplines (e.g. physics), and personal arrogance built upon years of repeatedly testing organic pollutants in a standardized manner.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebnobla (talk • contribs) 18:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Required: General revamp, removal of bias, removal of explicit statements 

message: This subsection currently deals with only one of thousands of different kinds of nanoparticles. It's like saying "chemicals are known to be harmful" and then citing a case of poisoning from a chemical.
There is a general sense that nanoparticles are likely to be genotoxic when they have the following characteristics:
1. relatively inert metal such as gold or platinum
2. very small particle size, <2 nm
3. the particles are "naked" (i.e., not coated)
When these criteria are satisfied, the particles tend to form a wide variety of compounds as soon as they come in contact with body fluids such as saliva, blood, etc. The molecules they form will come in a variety of sizes. Some usually get into the nuclei and mitochondria, causing about 20 different effects on the DNA. The result is genotoxicity.
Medical researchers usually go to great lengths to avoid this whenever possible. For example, using other substances, larger particle sizes, coating the particles, etc.
Nanoparticles are generally defined as particles below 100 nm. Zyxwv99 (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genotoxicity needs work 

message: Heard that 3D printers create UFPs, see Ultrafine particle. Needs to be added here! Charlieb000 (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  3D Printers 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nanotoxicology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511171215/http://ifas.msu.edu/NSWorkshopReport.pdf to http://ifas.msu.edu/NSWorkshopReport.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)