Gold jewelry and fertility issues

  • Thread starter Thread starter rtx1985
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gold Issues
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Gold nanoparticles have been shown to negatively impact male fertility by reducing sperm motility, as evidenced by studies such as Liu et al. (2020) and Nazar et al. (2016). However, the absorption of gold from wearing gold jewelry is insufficient to produce spermatotoxic effects, as gold is extremely inert and does not readily form nanoparticles under normal conditions. Historical usage of gold in dental applications further supports its safety in jewelry. The discussion emphasizes that while nanoparticles can be harmful, the bulk material of gold used in jewelry poses minimal risk to fertility.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of gold nanoparticles and their properties
  • Knowledge of spermatotoxicity and its implications
  • Familiarity with historical applications of gold in dentistry
  • Basic grasp of scientific research methodologies and study analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the effects of gold nanoparticles on male reproductive health
  • Explore the historical use of gold in dental applications
  • Investigate the differences between bulk materials and nanoparticles in toxicity
  • Learn about the methodologies used in studies on nanotoxicology
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for researchers in nanomedicine, healthcare professionals concerned with fertility issues, and individuals interested in the safety of materials used in jewelry and dental applications.

rtx1985
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hello!
According to recent studies, gold nanoparticles play a negative role on male fertility (reducing the motility of sperm cells, among other things),
So, the question is, is the amount of gold absorded from donning gold jewerly enough to have noticeable spermatotoxic effects?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
Probably not.
The dangers/properties of nanoparticles are very different from that of bulk materials. Carbon nanotubes are very nasty and need to be handled very carefully whereas a lump of charcoal is not nearly as bad. It is not the material itself that is dangerous: it is the combination of size and shape.
Another example is asbestos which is a silicate material which is the most common class of materials on earth. Fortunately, most of them are not nearly as dangerous as asbestos.

Also, making gold nanoparticles is not straightforward even in the lab; I doubt any could spontaneously form from a piece of jewellery under normal circumstances.
Gold is extremely inert and should be one of the safest materials to use for jewellery.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pinball1970, jim mcnamara, berkeman and 1 other person
Gold has been used in dental applications a long time: since 1530, for example. The Etruscans used gold wire to hold replacement teeth in place.

https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=5018

What is your source for this comment? 'Recent studies' is not an acceptable answer. Please give us a link. I am going to close the thread otherwise - per PF rules. We do not debunk oddball scientific claims.
 
jim mcnamara said:
Gold has been used in dental applications a long time
And in jewelry for an even longer time. And there are billions of people here today.
 
I can’t really add too much. I know there’s been a fair amount of work linking nanoparticles of many materials with varying degrees of cytotoxicity, so it’s not much of a stretch to believe that gold nanoparticles could affect fertility. But as others have pointed out, gold jewelry is not a source of gold nanoparticles, so there’s not much to worry about there.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jim mcnamara
jim mcnamara said:
Gold has been used in dental applications a long time: since 1530, for example. The Etruscans used gold wire to hold replacement teeth in place.

https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=5018

What is your source for this comment? 'Recent studies' is not an acceptable answer. Please give us a link. I am going to close the thread otherwise - per PF rules. We do not debunk oddball scientific claims.

1681398198162.png

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...IQFnoECB8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0uqX4k_fYhhngtje-1AhIS
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
7K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
7K
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
10K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
24
Views
8K