IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i11p5768-d563705.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of the Toxicity of Quantum Dots through Biliometric Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Lishi Zhong

    (Key Laboratory of Environmental Medicine and Engineering, Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Southeast University, Nanjing 210009, China
    The authors contributed equally to the work.)

  • Lili Zhang

    (Key Laboratory of Environmental Medicine and Engineering, Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Southeast University, Nanjing 210009, China
    The authors contributed equally to the work.)

  • Yimeng Li

    (Key Laboratory of Environmental Medicine and Engineering, Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Southeast University, Nanjing 210009, China
    The authors contributed equally to the work.)

  • Xue Liang

    (School of Public Health, Shandong First Medical University (Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences), Jinan 250117, China)

  • Lu Kong

    (Key Laboratory of Environmental Medicine and Engineering, Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Southeast University, Nanjing 210009, China)

  • Xiaobing Shen

    (Key Laboratory of Environmental Medicine and Engineering, Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Southeast University, Nanjing 210009, China)

  • Tianshu Wu

    (Key Laboratory of Environmental Medicine and Engineering, Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Southeast University, Nanjing 210009, China)

Abstract

Along with the rapid development of nanotechnology, the biosafety of quantum dots (QDs), a widely used kind of nanoparticles, has grabbed the attentions of researchers, because QDs have excellent and unique optical properties that other commonly used nanoparticles, like walled carbon nanotubes, do not have. The understanding of the toxicity of QDs is an important premise for their application in wider fields, including biology and medicine. This study sought to analyze scientific publications on the toxicity of QDs and to construct a bibliometric model for qualitative and quantitative evaluation of these publications over the past decade, which visually presented the status quo and future development trend on the toxicological study of QDs. A search for data using the triple blind method revealed that, as of 31 December 2018, there were 5269 papers published on the toxicity of QDs. RSC ADVANCES (5-year IF, 3.096) ranked first in the number of publications. China had the largest number of publications (2233) and the highest H-index (119), but the United States was still the leading country with regards to the quality of the research. LIU Y (106 publications) published the most papers, while Hardman R (304 co-citations) had the most co-citations. The keyword “walled carbon nanotube” ranked first in the research frontier. The findings not only determine a development trend of the toxicological study of QDs, but also identify further research directions in this field.

Suggested Citation

  • Lishi Zhong & Lili Zhang & Yimeng Li & Xue Liang & Lu Kong & Xiaobing Shen & Tianshu Wu, 2021. "Assessment of the Toxicity of Quantum Dots through Biliometric Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-15, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:11:p:5768-:d:563705
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/11/5768/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/11/5768/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chaomei Chen, 2006. "CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(3), pages 359-377, February.
    2. Ting Zhang & Yiqing Wang & Lu Kong & Yuying Xue & Meng Tang, 2015. "Threshold Dose of Three Types of Quantum Dots (QDs) Induces Oxidative Stress Triggers DNA Damage and Apoptosis in Mouse Fibroblast L929 Cells," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-20, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yali Chen & Dan Huang & Zhen Liu & Mohamed Osmani & Peter Demian, 2022. "Construction 4.0, Industry 4.0, and Building Information Modeling (BIM) for Sustainable Building Development within the Smart City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-37, August.
    2. Zhen Liu & Zulan Yang & Chang Xiao & Ke Zhang & Mohamed Osmani, 2021. "An Investigation into Art Therapy Aided Health and Well-Being Research: A 75-Year Bibliometric Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-27, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tingcan Ma & Ruinan Li & Guiyan Ou & Mingliang Yue, 2018. "Topic based research competitiveness evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 789-803, November.
    2. Jacob Wood & Gohar Feroz Khan, 2015. "International trade negotiation analysis: network and semantic knowledge infrastructure," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(1), pages 537-556, October.
    3. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    4. Xingwen Chen & Li Zhu & Chao Liu & Chunhua Chen & Jun Liu & Dongxia Huo, 2023. "Workplace Diversity in the Asia-Pacific Region: A Review of Literature and Directions for Future Research," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 1021-1045, September.
    5. Ziwen Wei & Man Yuan, 2023. "Research on the Current Situation and Future Development Trend of Immersive Virtual Reality in the Field of Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-18, May.
    6. Hrosul, Viktoriia & Kruhlova, Olena & Kolesnyk, Alina, 2023. "Digitalization of the agricultural sector: the impact of ICT on the development of enterprises in Ukraine," Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, vol. 9(4), December.
    7. Yucheng Zhang & Zhiling Wang & Lin Xiao & Lijun Wang & Pei Huang, 2023. "Discovering the evolution of online reviews: A bibliometric review," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-22, December.
    8. Gaviria-Marin, Magaly & Merigó, José M. & Baier-Fuentes, Hugo, 2019. "Knowledge management: A global examination based on bibliometric analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 194-220.
    9. Petersen, Alexander M. & Rotolo, Daniele & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2016. "A triple helix model of medical innovation: Supply, demand, and technological capabilities in terms of Medical Subject Headings," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 666-681.
    10. Tong Chen & Mo Wang & Jin Su & Jianjun Li, 2023. "Unlocking the Positive Impact of Bio-Swales on Hydrology, Water Quality, and Biodiversity: A Bibliometric Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-19, May.
    11. Gao, Qiang & Liang, Zhentao & Wang, Ping & Hou, Jingrui & Chen, Xiuxiu & Liu, Manman, 2021. "Potential index: Revealing the future impact of research topics based on current knowledge networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    12. Hailiang Li & M. James C. Crabbe & Haikui Chen, 2020. "History and Trends in Ecological Stoichiometry Research from 1992 to 2019: A Scientometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-21, October.
    13. Nina Sakinah Ahmad Rofaie & Seuk Wai Phoong & Muzalwana Abdul Talib & Ainin Sulaiman, 2023. "Light-emitting diode (LED) research: A bibliometric analysis during 2003–2018," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 173-191, February.
    14. Serhat Burmaoglu & Ozcan Saritas, 2019. "An evolutionary analysis of the innovation policy domain: Is there a paradigm shift?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 823-847, March.
    15. Yanrong Qiu & Kaihuai Liao & Yanting Zou & Gengzhi Huang, 2022. "A Bibliometric Analysis on Research Regarding Residential Segregation and Health Based on CiteSpace," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-21, August.
    16. Yutong Zhang & Wei Zhou & Danxue Luo, 2023. "The Relationship Research between Biodiversity Conservation and Economic Growth: From Multi-Level Attempts to Key Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-19, February.
    17. Yi-Ming Wei & Jin-Wei Wang & Tianqi Chen & Bi-Ying Yu & Hua Liao, 2018. "Frontiers of Low-Carbon Technologies: Results from Bibliographic Coupling with Sliding Window," CEEP-BIT Working Papers 116, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research (CEEP), Beijing Institute of Technology.
    18. Souzanchi Kashani, Ebrahim & Roshani, Saeed, 2019. "Evolution of innovation system literature: Intellectual bases and emerging trends," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 68-80.
    19. Wang Guizhou & Zhang Si & Yu Tao & Ning Yu, 2021. "A Systematic Overview of Blockchain Research," Journal of Systems Science and Information, De Gruyter, vol. 9(3), pages 205-238, June.
    20. Yulei Xie & Ling Ji & Beibei Zhang & Gordon Huang, 2018. "Evolution of the Scientific Literature on Input–Output Analysis: A Bibliometric Analysis of 1990–2017," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-17, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:11:p:5768-:d:563705. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.