Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28337404›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental sciences Europe2017

Revising REACH guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment for engineered nanomaterials for aquatic ecotoxicity endpoints: recommendations from the EnvNano project.

Steffen Foss Hansen, Sara Nørgaard Sørensen, Lars Michael Skjolding, Nanna B Hartmann, Anders Baun

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental sciences Europe, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Prior Knowledge for Predictive Modeling: The Case of Acute Aquatic Toxicity.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Safe-by-Design in Engineering: An Overview and Comparative Analysis of Engineering Disciplines.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. 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

5 authors.

Steffen Foss HansenDepartment of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, DTU-building 115, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
Sara Nørgaard SørensenDepartment of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, DTU-building 115, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
Lars Michael SkjoldingDepartment of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, DTU-building 115, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
Nanna B HartmannDepartment of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, DTU-building 115, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
Anders BaunDepartment of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, DTU-building 115, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The European Chemical Agency (ECHA) is in the process of revising its guidance documents on how to address the challenges of ecotoxicological testing of nanomaterials. In these revisions, outset is taken in the hypothesis that ecotoxicological test methods, developed for soluble chemicals, can be made applicable to nanomaterials. European Research Council project EnvNano-Environmental Effects and Risk Evaluation of Engineered, which ran from 2011 to 2016, took another outset by assuming that: "

Indexed as

ECHA guidanceEcotoxicity testingEnvNanoNanomaterials

Identifiers

PMID28337404
PMCPMC5344937

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.