Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30908695›Full record

ArticleRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2019

A Definition and Categorization System for Advanced Materials: The Foundation for Risk-Informed Environmental Health and Safety Testing.

Alan Kennedy, Jonathon Brame, Taylor Rycroft, Matthew Wood, Valerie Zemba, Charles Weiss, Matthew Hull, Cary Hill, Charles Geraci, Igor Linkov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Nanomaterial Inhalation During Pregnancy Alters Systemic Vascular Function in a Cyclooxygenase-Dependent Manner.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2022
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

10 authors.

Alan KennedyEnvironmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, USA.
Jonathon BrameEnvironmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, USA.
Taylor RycroftEnvironmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, USA.
Matthew WoodEnvironmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, USA.
Valerie ZembaContractor to the Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Concord, MA, USA.
Charles WeissGeotechnical and Structures Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, USA.
Matthew HullNanoSafe, Inc., Blacksburg, VA, USA.
Cary HillNanoSafe, Inc., Blacksburg, VA, USA.
Charles GeraciThe National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Igor LinkovEnvironmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, USA.

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Novel materials with unique or enhanced properties relative to conventional materials are being developed at an increasing rate. These materials are often referred to as advanced materials (AdMs) and they enable technological innovations that can benefit society. Despite their benefits, however, the unique characteristics of many AdMs, including many nanomaterials, are poorly understood and may pose environmental safety and occupational health (ESOH) risks that are not readily determined by traditional risk assessment methods. To assess these risks while keeping up with the pace of development, technology developers and risk assessors frequently employ risk-screening methods that depend on a clear definition for the materials that are to be assessed (e.g., engineered nanomaterial) as well as a method for binning materials into categories for ESOH risk prioritization. The term advanced material lacks a consensus definition and associated categorization or grouping system for risk screening. In this study, we aim to establish a practitioner-driven definition for AdMs and a practitioner-validated framework for categorizing AdMs into conceptual groupings based on material characteristics. Results from multiple workshops and interviews with practitioners provide consistent differentiation between AdMs and conventional materials, offer functional nomenclature for application science, and provide utility for future ESOH risk assessment prioritization. The definition and categorization framework established here serve as a first step in determining if and when there is a need for specific ESOH and regulatory screening for an AdM as well as the type and extent of risk-related information that should be collected or generated for AdMs and AdM-enabled technologies.

Indexed as

Environmental HealthMaterials TestingRisk AssessmentSafetyAdvanced materialsdefinition and categorizationenvironmental safety and occupational healthgroupingrisk prioritization

Identifiers

PMID30908695
PMCPMC6675647

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.