24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

clwang87

金虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 434.1
散金: 47
红花: 6
帖子: 130
在线: 228小时
虫号: 1229115
注册: 2011-03-11

[交流] Angew综述：Nanosafety Research—Are We on the Right Track? 已有3人参与

新一期的Angew Chem刊登了由Krug教授独立撰写的观点类综述性文章“Nanosafety Research—Are We on the Right Track?”，文章对纳米材料的制备尤其是纳米材料的安全和毒性的探究作了总结，并探讨了纳米毒性研究的重要性，发来与虫友们赏析，希望对大家有所帮助。。。。
Contents：
1. Summary
2. Introduction
3. Quality Criteria and Their Significance
4. Analyzing the Studies: The Pros and Cons of Standardization
5. Specific Consideration of Two End Points (In Vivo Uptake Pathways and Lung Exposure Methods)
6. What Do We Expect from Nanotoxicology as a Discipline?
7. Recommendations: International Harmonization and the Rules of Toxicology
8. Quo Vadis Nanotoxicology? A Critical Forecast for the Discipline

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 10000 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.

PZ%E8~~NUMWVT(WLS)MRDJK.png

回复此楼

» 本帖附件资源列表

欢迎监督和反馈：小木虫仅提供交流平台，不对该内容负责。
本内容由用户自主发布，如果其内容涉及到知识产权问题，其责任在于用户本人，如对版权有异议，请联系邮箱：xiaomuchong@tal.com
附件 1 : Nanosafety_Research—Are_We_on_the_Right_Track.pdf

2014-10-13 21:16:49, 5.21 M