Abstract
n/a
Highlights
To be consistent, researchers should only use well-accepted definitions
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. It is often used as a group name for metals and metalloids that are associated with contamination and potential toxicity
Summary
Researchers should only use well-accepted definitions. In the case of “heavy metal”, this term should be replaced by “metal”, “metalloid”, or “trace metal”. As a reviewer and 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].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
