4.8 Review

Assessing and Mitigating the Hazard Potential of Two-Dimensional Materials

期刊

ACS NANO
卷 12, 期 7, 页码 6360-6377

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.8b02491

关键词

transition metal dichalcogenide; hexagonal boron nitride; black phosphorus; toxicity; environmental fate; 2D material; risk assessment; nanotoxicology; safety

资金

  1. National Science Foundation
  2. Environmental Protection Agency [DBI-1266377]
  3. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health [RO1ES022698]
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES [R01ES022698] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The family of two-dimensional (2D) materials is comprised of a continually expanding palette of unique compositions and properties with potential applications in electronics, optoelectronics, energy capture and storage, catalysis, and nanomedicine. To accelerate the implementation of 2D materials in widely disseminated technologies, human health and environmental implications need to be addressed. While extensive research has focused on assessing the toxicity and environmental fate of graphene and related carbon nanomaterials, the potential hazards of other 2D materials have only recently begun to be explored. Herein, the toxicity and environmental fate of postcarbon 2D materials, such as transition metal dichalcogenides, hexagonal boron nitride, and black phosphorus, are reviewed as a function of their preparation methods and surface functionalization. Specifically, we delineate how the hazard potential of 2D materials is directly related to structural parameters and physicochemical properties and how experimental design is critical to the accurate elucidation of the underlying toxicological mechanisms. Finally, a multidisciplinary approach for streamlining the hazard assessment of emerging 2D materials is outlined, thereby providing a pathway for accelerating their safe use in a range of technologically relevant contexts.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据