Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31500229›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2019

An Exploratory Assessment of Applying Risk Management Practices to Engineered Nanomaterials.

Ivo Iavicoli, Veruscka Leso, Marco Piacci, Dante Luigi Cioffi, Irina Guseva Canu, Paul A Schulte

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Results of the 2019 Survey of Engineered Nanomaterial Occupational Health and Safety Practices.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Transplantation for work-related lung disease in the USA.Occupational and environmental medicine · 2020
    Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

Ivo IavicoliDepartment of Public Health, Section of Occupational Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, Via S. Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy. ivo.iavicoli@unina.it.ORCID 0000-0003-0444-3792
Veruscka LesoDepartment of Public Health, Section of Occupational Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, Via S. Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy. veruscka.leso@unina.it.
Marco PiacciDepartment of Public Health, Section of Occupational Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, Via S. Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy. marcopiacci@hotmail.com.
Dante Luigi CioffiDepartment of Public Health, Section of Occupational Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, Via S. Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy. danteluigicioffi@hotmail.com.
Irina Guseva CanuInstitute for Health and Work (IST), Biopole, Route de la Corniche 2, CH-1066 Epalinges-Lausanne, Switzerland. Irina.Guseva-Canu@chuv.ch.
Paul A SchulteNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1150 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-14, Cincinnati, OH 45226, USA. pas4@cdc.gov.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The widespread industrial application of nanotechnology has increased the number of workers exposed to engineered nanomaterials (ENMs), but it is not clear to what extent prevention guidance is practiced. Our aim was to explore the extent that companies manufacturing and/or using ENMs apply risk assessment and management measures. Thirty-four companies were surveyed with an international 35-item questionnaire investigating company and workforce features, types of ENM handled, and risk evaluation and preventive measures adopted. Among participating companies, 62% had a maximum of 10 employees. Metal-based nanomaterials were most frequently identified (73%). Environmental monitoring was performed by 41% of the companies, while engineering exposure controls were approximately reported by 50%. Information and training programs were indicated by 85% of the sample, only 9% performed specific health surveillance for ENM workers. Personal protective equipment primarily included gloves (100%) and eye/face protection (94%). This small-scale assessment can contribute to the limited amount of published literature on the topic. Future investigations should include a greater number of companies to better represent ENM workplaces and a direct access to industrial settings to collect information on site. Finally, deeper attention should be paid to define standardized frameworks for ENM risk assessment that may guide nano-specific preventive actions.

Indexed as

AdultEnvironmental MonitoringFemaleHumansMaleManufacturing and Industrial FacilitiesMiddle AgedNanostructuresOccupational ExposurePersonal Protective EquipmentRisk AssessmentRisk Managementindustrynanomaterialspreventive measuresrisk assessmentrisk managementsurvey

Identifiers

PMID31500229
PMCPMC6765890

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.