Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28168664›Full record

ReviewAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2017

Assessment of Human Exposure to ENMs.

Araceli Sánchez Jiménez, Martie van Tongeren

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Araceli Sánchez JiménezCentre for Human Exposure Science (CHES), Institute of Occupational Medicine, Research Avenue North, Riccarton, Edinburgh, EH14 4AP, UK.
Martie van TongerenCentre for Human Exposure Science (CHES), Institute of Occupational Medicine, Research Avenue North, Riccarton, Edinburgh, EH14 4AP, UK. Martie.VanTongeren@iom-world.org.
Institute of Occupational Medicine · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human exposure assessment of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) is hampered, among other factors, by the difficulty to differentiate ENM from other nanomaterials (incidental to processes or naturally occurring) and the lack of a single metric that can be used for health risk assessment. It is important that the exposure assessment is carried out throughout the entire life-cycle as releases can occur at the different stages of the product life-cycle, from the synthesis, manufacture of the nano-enable product (occupational exposure) to the professional and consumer use of nano-enabled product (consumer exposure) and at the end of life.Occupational exposure surveys should follow a tiered approach, increasing in complexity in terms of instruments used and sampling strategy applied with higher tiers in order tailor the exposure assessment to the specific materials used and workplace exposure scenarios and to reduce uncertainty in assessment of exposure. Assessment of consumer exposure and of releases from end-of-life processes currently relies on release testing of nano-enabled products in laboratory settings.

Indexed as

Environmental PollutantsHumansNanostructuresOccupational ExposureRisk AssessmentEnvironmental PollutantsConsumer exposureEngineered nanomaterialsOccupational exposureTiered approach

Identifiers

PMID28168664
OpenAlexW2586188771

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.