ArticleAnnals of work exposures and health2018
Control Banding Tools for Engineered Nanoparticles: What the Practitioner Needs to Know.
Article in Annals of work exposures and health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- 25 years of research and regulation: Is nanotechnology safe to commercialize?Frontiers in toxicology · 2025Review
- Characteristics and risk assessment of occupational exposure to ultrafine particles generated from cooking in the Chinese restaurant.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Exposure characterization and risk assessment of ultrafine particles from the blast furnace process in a steelmaking plant.Journal of occupational health · 2021Article
- Identification of nanomaterials by the volume specific surface area (VSSA) criterion: application to powder mixes.Nanoscale advances · 2020Article
- Qualitative and quantitative differences between common control banding tools for nanomaterials in workplaces.RSC advances · 2019Article
- Toward an operational methodology to identify industrial-scaled nanomaterial powders with the volume specific surface area criterion.Nanoscale advances · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Control banding (CB) has been widely recommended for the selection of exposure controls for engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) in the absence of ENM-specific occupational exposure limits (OELs). Several ENM-specific CB strategies have been developed but have not been systematically evaluated. In this article, we identify the data inputs and compare the guidance provided by eight CB tools, evaluated on six ENMs, and assuming a constant handling/use scenario. The ENMs evaluated include nanoscale silica, titanium dioxide, silver, carbon nanotubes, graphene, and cellulose. Several of the tools recommended the highest level of exposure control for each of the ENMs in the evaluation, which was driven largely by the hazard banding. Dustiness was a factor in determining the exposure band in many tools, although most tools did not provide explicit guidance on how to classify the dustiness (high, medium, low), and published data are limited on this topic. The CB tools that recommended more diverse control options based on ENM hazard and dustiness data appear to be better equipped to utilize the available information, although further validation is needed by comparison to exposure measurements and OELs for a variety of ENMs. In all CB tools, local exhaust ventilation was recommended at a minimum to control exposures to ENMs in the workplace. Generally, the same or more stringent control levels were recommended by these tools compared with the OELs proposed for these ENMs, suggesting that these CB tools would generally provide prudent exposure control guidance, including when data are limited.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.