Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31233238›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental toxicology and chemistry2019

Toward the Development and Application of an Environmental Risk Assessment Framework for Microplastic.

Todd Gouin, Richard A Becker, Anne-Gaelle Collot, John W Davis, Brett Howard, Kunifumi Inawaka, Mark Lampi, Blanca Serrano Ramon, Jay Shi, Philipp W Hopp

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental toxicology and chemistry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 115 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 7 institutions in 3 countries.

Todd GouinTG Environmental Research, Sharnbrook, United Kingdom.
Richard A BeckerAmerican Chemistry Council, Washington, DC.
Anne-Gaelle CollotPlasticsEurope, Brussels, Belgium.
John W DavisDOW Chemical Company, Midland, Michigan, USA.
Brett HowardAmerican Chemistry Council, Washington, DC.
Kunifumi InawakaJapan Chemical Industry Association, Tokyo, Japan.
Mark LampiExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Annandale, New Jersey, USA.
Blanca Serrano RamonCEFIC, Brussels, Belgium.
Jay ShiProcter & Gamble, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Philipp W HoppBASF Personal Care and Nutrition, Duesseldorf, Germany.
American Chemistry Council · USDow Chemical (United States) · USEuropean Chemical Industry Council · BEExxonMobil (United States) · USJapan Chemical Industry Association · JPPlasticsEurope · BEProcter & Gamble (United States) · US

Funding

International Council of Chemistry Associations
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Emissions of plastic waste to the environment and the subsequent degradation into microplastic particles that have the potential to interact with biological organisms represent a concern for global society. Current understanding of the potential impacts on aquatic and terrestrial population stability and ecosystem structure and function associated with emissions of microplastic particles is limited and insufficient to fully assess environmental risks. Multistakeholder discussions can provide an important element in helping to identify and prioritize key knowledge gaps in assessing potential risks. In the present review, we summarize multistakeholder discussions from a 1-d International Council of Chemical Associations-sponsored symposium, which involved 39 scientists from 8 countries with representatives from academia, industry, and government. Participants were asked to consider the following: discuss the scientific merits and limitations of applying a proposed conceptual environmental risk assessment (ERA) framework for microplastic particles and identify and prioritize major research needs in applying ERA tools for microplastic particles. Multistakeholder consensus was obtained with respect to the interpretation of the current state of the science related to effects and exposure to microplastic particles, which implies that it is unlikely that the presence of microplastic in the environment currently represents a risk. However, the quality and quantity of existing data require substantial improvement before conclusions regarding the potential risks and impacts of microplastic particles can be fully assessed. Research that directly addresses the development and application of methods that strengthen the quality of data should thus be given the highest priority. Activities aimed at supporting the development of and access to standardized reference material were identified as a key research need. Environ Toxicol Chem 2019;38:2087-2100. © 2019 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC.

Indexed as

BioaccumulationEnvironmental MonitoringEnvironmental Restoration and RemediationMicroplasticsParticle SizeRisk AssessmentMicroplasticsEffectsEnvironmental FateExposureMicroplasticRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID31233238
PMCPMC6852392
OpenAlexW2955525296

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.