Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27594804›Full record

ArticleJournal of nanoparticle research : an interdisciplinary forum for nanoscale science and technology2016

Taking stock of the occupational safety and health challenges of nanotechnology: 2000-2015.

P A Schulte, G Roth, L L Hodson, V Murashov, M D Hoover, R Zumwalde, E D Kuempel, C L Geraci, A B Stefaniak, V Castranova and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of nanoparticle research : an interdisciplinary forum for nanoscale science and technology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Potential occupational hazards of additive manufacturing.Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene · 2019
    Article
  4. The asbestos-carbon nanotube analogy: An update.Toxicology and applied pharmacology · 2018
    Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

P A SchulteNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morgantown, WV, USA.
G RothNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morgantown, WV, USA.
L L HodsonNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morgantown, WV, USA.
V MurashovNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morgantown, WV, USA.
M D HooverNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morgantown, WV, USA.
R ZumwaldeNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morgantown, WV, USA.
E D KuempelNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morgantown, WV, USA.
C L GeraciNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morgantown, WV, USA.
A B StefaniakNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morgantown, WV, USA.
V CastranovaSchool of Pharmacy, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA.
J HowardNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morgantown, WV, USA.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USWest Virginia University · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Engineered nanomaterials significantly entered commerce at the beginning of the 21st century. Concerns about serious potential health effects of nanomaterials were widespread. Now, approximately 15 years later, it is worthwhile to take stock of research and efforts to protect nanomaterial workers from potential risks of adverse health effects. This article provides and examines timelines for major functional areas (toxicology, metrology, exposure assessment, engineering controls and personal protective equipment, risk assessment, risk management, medical surveillance, and epidemiology) to identify significant contributions to worker safety and health. The occupational safety and health field has responded effectively to identify gaps in knowledge and practice, but further research is warranted and is described. There is now a greater, if imperfect, understanding of the mechanisms underlying nanoparticle toxicology, hazards to workers, and appropriate controls for nanomaterials, but unified analytical standards and exposure characterization methods are still lacking. The development of control-banding and similar strategies has compensated for incomplete data on exposure and risk, but it is unknown how widely such approaches are being adopted. Although the importance of epidemiologic studies and medical surveillance is recognized, implementation has been slowed by logistical issues. Responsible development of nanotechnology requires protection of workers at all stages of the technological life cycle. In each of the functional areas assessed, progress has been made, but more is required.

Indexed as

Engineered nanomaterialsEpidemiologyHistorySocietal implications of nanotechnologyToxicology

Identifiers

PMID27594804
PMCPMC5007006
OpenAlexW2437256515

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.