Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26903124›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2017

Environmental benefits and concerns on safety: communicating latest results on nanotechnology safety research-the project DaNa

D Kühnel, C Marquardt, K Nau, H F Krug, F Paul, C Steinbach

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

D KühnelDepartment of Bioanalytical Ecotoxicology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Leipzig, Germany. dana.kuehnel@ufz.de.
C MarquardtInstitute for Applied Computer Sciences (IAI), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany.
K NauInstitute for Applied Computer Sciences (IAI), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany.
H F KrugInternational Research Cooperations, Empa - Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
F PaulSociety for Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology (DECHEMA), Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
C SteinbachSociety for Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology (DECHEMA), Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of nanotechnology and advanced materials promises to revolutionise many areas of technology and improve our daily life. In that respect, many positive effects on the environment are expected, either directly, by developing new technologies for remediation, filtering techniques or energy generation, or indirectly, by e.g. saving resources due to lower consumption of raw materials, or lower energy and fuel consumption due to reduced weight of vehicles. However, such beneficial effects of new technologies are often confronted by concerns regarding the safety of novel substances or materials. During the past 10 years, great effort has been put into research on potential hazards of nanomaterials towards environmental organisms. As the methodology for reliable assessment of nanomaterials was immature, many studies reporting contradictory results have been published, hindering both risk assessment for nanomaterials, as well as the knowledge communication to all involved stakeholders. Thus, DaNa

Indexed as

EnvironmentNanostructuresNanotechnologyResearchRisk AssessmentEnvironmental impactKnowledge baseKnowledge disseminationNano ecotoxicityNanomaterialsNanoobjectsScience communication

Identifiers

PMID26903124
PMCPMC5393291

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.