Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31060250›Full record

ArticleNanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2019

Risk Governance of Nanomaterials: Review of Criteria and Tools for Risk Communication, Evaluation, and Mitigation.

Panagiotis Isigonis, Danail Hristozov, Christina Benighaus, Elisa Giubilato, Khara Grieger, Lisa Pizzol, Elena Semenzin, Igor Linkov, Alex Zabeo, Antonio Marcomini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Insights into Nanopesticides for Ticks: The Superbugs of Livestock.Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity · 2022
    Review
  10. 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

10 authors.

Panagiotis IsigonisDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, University Ca' Foscari of Venice, Via Torino 155, 30172 Mestre, Italy. isigonis@unive.it.
Danail HristozovGreenDecision s.r.l.-Via delle Industrie, 21/8, 30175 Venice, Italy. danail.hristozov@greendecision.eu.
Christina BenighausDIALOGIK-Lerchenstraße 22, 70176 Stuttgart, Germany. giubilato@unive.it.
Elisa GiubilatoDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, University Ca' Foscari of Venice, Via Torino 155, 30172 Mestre, Italy. semenzin@unive.it.
Khara GriegerGenetic Engineering and Society Center, North Carolina State University, 1070 Partners Way, 5th floor, Raleigh, NC 27695-7565, USA. marcom@unive.it.
Lisa PizzolGreenDecision s.r.l.-Via delle Industrie, 21/8, 30175 Venice, Italy. lisa.pizzol@greendecision.eu.
Elena SemenzinDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, University Ca' Foscari of Venice, Via Torino 155, 30172 Mestre, Italy. alex.zabeo@greendecision.eu.
Igor LinkovUS Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Boston, MA 01472, USA. benighaus@me.com.
Alex ZabeoGreenDecision s.r.l.-Via delle Industrie, 21/8, 30175 Venice, Italy. kdgriege@ncsu.edu.
Antonio MarcominiDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, University Ca' Foscari of Venice, Via Torino 155, 30172 Mestre, Italy. Igor.Linkov@usace.army.mil.

Funding

Horizon 2020 Framework Programme 686239
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nanotechnologies have been increasingly used in industrial applications and consumer products across several sectors, including construction, transportation, energy, and healthcare. The widespread application of these technologies has raised concerns regarding their environmental, health, societal, and economic impacts. This has led to the investment of enormous resources in Europe and beyond into the development of tools to facilitate the risk assessment and management of nanomaterials, and to inform more robust risk governance process. In this context, several risk governance frameworks have been developed. In our study, we present and review those, and identify a set of criteria and tools for risk evaluation, mitigation, and communication, the implementation of which can inform better risk management decision-making by various stakeholders from e.g., industry, regulators, and the civil society. Based on our analysis, we recommend specific methods from decision science and information technologies that can improve the existing risk governance tools so that they can communicate, evaluate, and mitigate risks more transparently, taking stakeholder perspectives and expert opinion into account, and considering all relevant criteria in establishing the risk-benefit balance of these emerging technologies to enable more robust decisions about the governance of their risks.

Indexed as

decision analysismanufactured nanomaterialsrisk assessmentrisk communicationrisk governancerisk managementrisk perception

Identifiers

PMID31060250
PMCPMC6566360

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.