CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 32

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Towards a Consensus View on Understanding Nanomaterials Hazards and Managing Exposure: Knowledge Gaps and Recommendations

Hunt, Geoffrey, Lynch, Iseult, Cassee, Flemming, Handy, Richard, Fernandes, Teresa, Berges, Markus, Kuhlbusch, Thomas, Dusinska, Maria, Riediker, Michael·2013·Materials
DOI 10.3390/ma6031090PMC PMC5512966
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The aim of this article is to present an overview of salient issues of exposure, characterisation and hazard assessment of nanomaterials as they emerged from the consensus-building of experts undertaken within the four year European Commission coordination project NanoImpactNet. The approach adopted is to consolidate and condense the findings and problem-identification in such a way as to identify knowledge-gaps and generate a set of interim recommendations of use to industry, regulators, research bodies and funders. The categories of recommendation arising from the consensual view address: significant gaps in vital factual knowledge of exposure, characterisation and hazards; the development, dissemination and standardisation of appropriate laboratory protocols; address a wide range of technical issues in establishing an adequate risk assessment platform; the more efficient and coordinated gathering of basic data; greater inter-organisational cooperation; regulatory harmonization; the wider use of the life-cycle approaches; and the wider involvement of all stakeholders in the discussion and solution-finding efforts for nanosafety.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/ma6031090

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. Hunt, 2011, Building expert consensus on uncertainty and complexity in nanomaterial safety, Nanotechnol. Percept., 7, 82, 10.4024/N07HU11A.ntp.07.02 · DOI
  2. Bouwmeester, 2011, Minimal analytical characterization of engineered nanomaterials needed for hazard assessment in biological matrices, Nanotoxicology, 5, 1, 10.3109/17435391003775266 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Riediker, 2012, A road map toward a globally harmonized approach for occupational health surveillance and epidemiology in nanomaterial workers, J. Occup. Environ. Med., 54, 1214, 10.1097/JOM.0b013e31826e27f1 · DOI
  4. Stone, 2010, Nanomaterials for environmental studies: Classification, reference material issues, and strategies for physico-chemical characterization, Sci. Total Environ., 408, 1745, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.10.035 · DOI
  5. Handy, 2012, Practical considerations for conducting ecotoxicity test methods with manufactured nanomaterials: What have we learnt so far?, Ecotoxicology, 21, 933, 10.1007/s10646-012-0862-y · DOI
  6. Som, 2010, The importance of life cycle concepts for the development of safe nanoproducts, Toxicology, 269, 160, 10.1016/j.tox.2009.12.012 · DOI
  7. Murashov, 2009, Essential features for proactive risk management, Nat. Nanotechnol., 4, 467, 10.1038/nnano.2009.205 · DOI
  8. Maynard, 2007, Assessing exposure to airborne nanomaterials; current abilities and future requirements, Nanotoxicology, 1, 26, 10.1080/17435390701314720 · DOI
  9. Asbach, 2009, Comparision of four mobility particle sizers with different time resolution for stationary measurement, J. Nanopart Res., 11, 1593, 10.1007/s11051-009-9679-x · DOI
  10. Fierz, 2002, Real-Time measurement of aerosol size distributions with an electrical diffusion battery, J. Aerosol. Sci., 33, 1049, 10.1016/S0021-8502(02)00057-5 · DOI
  11. Seipenbusch, 2008, Temporal evolution of nanoparticle aerosols in workplace exposure, Ann. Occup. Hyg., 52, 707
  12. Blaser, 2008, Estimation of cumulative aquatic exposure and risk due to silver: Contribution of nano-functionalized plastics and textiles, Sci. Total Environ., 390, 396, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.10.010 · DOI
  13. Mueller, 2008, Exposure modeling of engineered nanoparticles in the environment, Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 4447, 10.1021/es7029637 · DOI
  14. Pelzer, 2010, A structured observational method to assessdermal exposure to manufactured nanoparticles (MNPs): Dream as an initial assessment tool, Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health, 16, 397
  15. Brouwer, 2012, Harmonization of measurement strategies for exposure to manufactured nano-objects; report of a workshop, Ann. Occup. Hyg., 56, 1
  16. Groso, 2010, Management of nanomaterials safety in research environment, Part. Fibre Toxicol., 7, 40, 10.1186/1743-8977-7-40 · DOI
  17. Kuhlbusch, T.A.J., Asbach, C., Fissan, H., Göhler, D., and Stintz, J. (2011). Nanoparticle exposure at nanotechnology workplaces: A review. Part. Fibre Toxicol., 8. · DOI
  18. Sullivan, 2005, Recent advances in our understanding of atmospheric chemistry and climate made possible by on-line aerosol analysis instrumentation, Anal. Chem., 77, 3861, 10.1021/ac050716i · DOI
  19. Val, 2009, Carbon black and titanium dioxide nanoparticles induce pro-inflammatory responses in bronchial epithelial cells: Need for multiparametric evaluation due to adsorption artifacts, Inhal. Toxicol., 21, 115, 10.1080/08958370902942533 · DOI
  20. Napierska, D., Thomassen, L.C.J., Lison, D., Martens, J.A., and Hoet, P.H. (2010). The nanosilica hazard: Another variable entity. Part. Fibre Toxicol., 7. · DOI
  21. Dawson, 2012, The need for in situ characterisation in nanosafety assessment: Funded transnational access via the QNano research infrastructure, Nanotoxicology, 6, 1
  22. Baptista, 2008, Gold nanoparticles for the development of clinical diagnosis methods, Anal. Bioanal Chem., 391, 943, 10.1007/s00216-007-1768-z · DOI
  23. Stefaniak, A.B., Hackley, V.A., Roebben, G., Ehara, K., Hankin, S., Postek, M.T., Lynch, I., Fu, W.E., Linsinger, T.P., and Thünemann, A.F. (2012). Nanoscale reference materials for environmental, health and safety measurements: Needs, gaps and opportunities, Nanotoxicology, Available online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23061887. · DOI
  24. Baun, 2008, Environmental challenges for nanomedicine, Nanomedicine, 3, 605, 10.2217/17435889.3.5.605 · DOI
  25. Klaine, 2008, Nanomaterials in the environment: Behavior, fate, bioavailability, and effects, Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 27, 1825, 10.1897/08-090.1 · DOI
  26. Moore, 2006, Do nanoparticles present ecotoxicological risks for the health of the aquatic environment?, Environ. Int., 32, 967, 10.1016/j.envint.2006.06.014 · DOI
  27. Handy, 2008, The ecotoxicology of nanoparticles and nanomaterials: Current status, knowledge gaps, challenges, and future needs, Ecotoxicology, 17, 315, 10.1007/s10646-008-0206-0 · DOI
  28. Miller, 2010, Impacts of metal oxide nanoparticles on marine phytoplankton, Environ. Sci. Technol., 44, 7329, 10.1021/es100247x · DOI
  29. Miller, R.J., Bennett, S., Keller, A.A., Pease, S., and Lenihan, H.S. (2012). TiO2 nanoparticles are phototoxic to marine phytoplankton. PLoS One, 7. · DOI
  30. Crane, 2008, Ecotoxicity test methods and environmental hazard assessment for engineered nanoparticles, Ecotoxicology, 17, 421, 10.1007/s10646-008-0215-z · DOI
  31. Malkiewicz, K., Pettitt, M., Dawson, K.A., Toikka, A., Hansson, S.O., Hukkinen, J., Lynch, I., and Lead, J. (2011). Nanomaterials in REACH—Project Report, Scientific Knowledge for Environmental Protection. · DOI
  32. Fadeel, B., Pietroiusti, A., and Shvedova, A. (2012). Adverse Effects of Engineered Nanomaterials: Exposure, Toxicology and Impact on Human Health, Academic Press.
  33. Oupicky, D., and Ogris, M. (2012). Nanotechnology for Nucleic Acid Delivery’ Methods in Molecular Biology, Humana Press.
  34. Kaegi, 2008, Synthetic TiO2 nanoparticle emission from exterior facades into the aquatic environment, Environ. Pollut., 156, 233, 10.1016/j.envpol.2008.08.004 · DOI
  35. Gottschalk, 2010, Probabilistic material flow modelling for assessing the environmental exposure to compounds: Methodology and an application to engineered nano-TiO2 particles, Environ. Model. Softw., 25, 320, 10.1016/j.envsoft.2009.08.011 · DOI
  36. Handy, 2012, Ecotoxicity test methods for engineered nanomaterials: Practical experiences and recommendations from the bench, Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 31, 15, 10.1002/etc.706 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 32

Metadata

Authors
Hunt, G., Lynch, I., Cassee, F., Handy, R., Fernandes, T., Berges, M., Kuhlbusch, T., Dusinska, M., & Riediker, M.
Venue
Materials
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2013-03-20
Volume
6
Issue
3
Pages
1090-1117
ISSN
1996-1944
DOI
10.3390/ma6031090
PMC
PMC5512966
Cited by
32
References
2
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ (vor)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review