Heavy metal—music, not science | Cell-phone hazards

Chapman, Peter M.; Holzmann, Matthew

doi:10.1021/es072552o

Cited by 22 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Briefly, GB1 and GB2 were calculated on quite a small number of samples. Moreover, GB1 refers to lacustrine chalk, covering only up to 30% of The first of the local geochemical backgrounds (GB1) was established on the basis of results obtained for five lacustrine chalk samples, taken from the vicinity of the contemporary Wigry Lake and underlying peat dated with 14 C method at 7970 ± 70 years BP [103,127]. The second one (GB2) was implemented as a range of metal concentration values obtained for the bottom layer of five core samples taken from the basin of the Wigry Lake.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ali and Khan [10] recently proposed a new definition of the term "heavy metals" as 'naturally occurring metals having an atomic number (Z) greater than 20 and an elemental density greater than 5 g•cm −3 '; however, this "semantic problem" still seems to be unresolved. The authors therefore decided to avoid the term "heavy metals", using instead some more neutral forms, such as metals, elements, or simply their names, as suggested by Chapman and Holzmann [14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Natural and Anthropogenic Origin of Metals in Lacustrine Sediments; Assessment and Consequences—A Case Study of Wigry Lake (Poland)

Kostka

Leśniak

2021

Minerals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The contamination of aquatic sediments by metals is a worldwide phenomenon and its assessment is a fairly complex issue, as numerous factors affect the distribution of particular contaminants in the environment, as well as their bioavailability. Wigry Lake, as the object of this study, is almost a perfect water body for such considerations. It has been well investigated and densely sampled (up to 459 sediment samples). The quantities of seven metals were determined using the atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS) or inductively coupled plasma (ICP)-MS methods, following previous extraction in a microwave oven. The levels of concentration of the examined elements were as follows (min–max (mg·kg−1)): Cd—0.003–3.060; Cr—0.20–22.61; Cu—0.02–59.70; Fe—80–32,857; Mn—18–1698; Pb—7.0–107.5; Zn—3.1–632.1. Significant differences were also registered in terms of particular metal concentrations in different sediment types found at the lake bottom. Five different geochemical backgrounds and sediment quality guidelines implemented in the study enabled a very scrupulous contamination assessment of the lake sediments’ condition, as well as the evaluation of the natural and anthropogenic contribution to the enrichment of examined sediments in metals. Although Wigry Lake is situated in a pristine region, it is still subject to anthropopressure, which seems to be the lowest in respect to Cr and Mn, while the highest in the case of Pb. The chemoecological state of the lake was ultimately assessed as good. The study highlighted the necessity of an integrated approach to the assessment of contamination or pollution in the course of an environmental research.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Natural and Anthropogenic Origin of Metals in Lacustrine Sediments; Assessment and Consequences—A Case Study of Wigry Lake (Poland)

Kostka

Leśniak

2021

Minerals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In 2004, Hodson [4] considered them as geochemical “bogey men”. In 2007, Chapman [5] first proposed to keep this term for music not for science. In 2010, Hübner et al [6] proposed to move on from semantics to pragmatics, whereas Madrid [7] recalls the long-standing and sometimes forgotten controversy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

It’s Time to Replace the Term “Heavy Metals” with “Potentially Toxic Elements” When Reporting Environmental Research

Pourret

Hursthouse

2019

IJERPH

179

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Even if the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements is relatively well defined, some controversial terms are still in use. Indeed, the term “heavy metal” is a common term used for decades in the natural sciences, and even more in environmental sciences, particularly in studies of pollution impacts. As the use of the term appears to have increased, we highlight the relevance of the use of the term “Potentially Toxic Element(s)”, which needs more explicit endorsement, and we illustrate the chemical elements that need to be considered.

show abstract

“…In the case of "heavy metal", this term should be replaced by "metal", "metalloid", or "trace metal". As proposed by Chapman [7], this term should only be used for musical terminology (i.e., heavy metal is a genre of rock …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Necessity of Banning the Term “Heavy Metal” from the Scientific Literature

Pourret

2018

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Keywords: heavy metal; trace metal elements; metal; metalloid Many terms are increasingly improperly used by scientists. The term "heavy metal" is increasingly used, especially in multidisciplinary studies. Even if a debate exist as recently outlined by Ali and Khan [1] or Pourret and Bollinger [2], in 1980 Nieboer and Richardson [3] had already proposed the replacement of this nondescript term by biologically and chemically significant classification. Moreover, according to the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, the term "heavy metal" is considered imprecise at best, and meaningless and misleading at worst [4]. The Union discourages the use of this term. Indeed, no standardized definition of this term currently exists. Nevertheless, nothing has really changed: the term is still widely used by part of the scientific community. Taking a journal like Sustainability as an illustrative example: 45 articles out of 7849 published that used the term "heavy metal" in their title or keywords were published these last five years (as determined from the mdpi website, using "heavy metal*" search, data accessed on July 26, 2018), including three review papers. Moreover, three special issues considering the "heavy metal" term in their topic were also proposed.As a reviewer and now as an editor of Sustainability, I have the responsibility to spread the word and this letter is an effective demonstration of why this term should be removed from our vernacular. Among the numerous testimonies I collected and exchanges I experienced with colleagues after the publication of the letter co-written with my colleague Jean-Claude Bollinger [2], and more generally with the scientific community, the major reason for the persistence of the use of the term "heavy metal" is mostly due to the ignorance of Nieboer and Richardson's proposition [3]. The term "heavy metal" is based on categorization by density (and some metals have a relatively low density, e.g., zinc). It is often used as a group name for metals and metalloids (i.e., arsenic) that are associated with contamination and potential toxicity. However, the assumption that all so-called "heavy metals" and their compounds have relatively high toxicity are not always supported by facts: chromium and its alloys can be used securely in medicine (e.g., prostheses), even though chromate is recognized as a carcinogen [4]. The "heavy metals" list is not clearly defined and often mixes metals and metalloids without clear definition. Eventually, the pejorative connotation of "heavy" associated with the toxicity of metal induces a kind of fear amongst society. Nonetheless, metals are not always toxic and some are in fact essential: a given metal can be essential and toxic, depending on the dosage and exposure levels and the receiving organism/population. Even the presence of some metals at relatively low levels in the environment are needed for life. Take the examples of zinc and cobalt. Zinc is the second-most abundant metal in organisms and close to half the world population is d...

show abstract

Heavy metal—music, not science | Cell-phone hazards

Cited by 22 publications

References 0 publications

Natural and Anthropogenic Origin of Metals in Lacustrine Sediments; Assessment and Consequences—A Case Study of Wigry Lake (Poland)

Natural and Anthropogenic Origin of Metals in Lacustrine Sediments; Assessment and Consequences—A Case Study of Wigry Lake (Poland)

It’s Time to Replace the Term “Heavy Metals” with “Potentially Toxic Elements” When Reporting Environmental Research

On the Necessity of Banning the Term “Heavy Metal” from the Scientific Literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About