ArticleCurrent opinion in chemical engineering2019
SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS FOR END-OF-LIFE CHEMICAL RELEASES AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE.
Article in Current opinion in chemical engineering, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tracking end-of-life stage of chemicals: A scalable data-centric and chemical-centric approach.Resources, conservation, and recycling · 2023Article
- Predicting Chemical End-of-Life Scenarios Using Structure-Based Classification Models.ACS sustainable chemistry & engineering · 2023Article
- A data engineering approach for sustainable chemical end-of-life management.Resources, conservation, and recycling · 2022Article
- A data engineering framework for on-site end-of-life industrial operations.Journal of cleaner production · 2021Article
- Data engineering for tracking chemicals and releases at industrial end-of-life activities.Journal of hazardous materials · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Understanding the chemical risk to environment and human health is an important issue when a waste management strategy and a control risk system is analyzed and selected. This is even more important at the end-of-life (recycling, recovery and disposal) scenario for a chemical due to the uncertainty in respect of the most susceptible receptors (e.g., workers), pathways (e.g., groundwater), routes (e.g., inhalation) and hazard (e.g., cancer) associated to a chemical exposure. Hence, selecting a group of sustainability performance indicators for estimating the chemical risk when evaluating end-of-life scenarios is a crucial task. Therefore, this manuscript focuses on a critical analysis of the sustainability indicators taxonomy which are used to assess chemical risk to the environment and human health during end-of-life scenarios. The insights from performing an extensive literature search in the largest database of peer-reviewed literature provide that chemical intake, hazard quotient, hazard index, and carcinogenic risk have been the most commonly used for human health chemical risk. In addition, previous research has been less focused on environment chemical risk, with ecological risk index being the most widely used indicator for. The most employed human health chemical risk sustainability indicators are part of a methodology suggested by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for chemical risk assessment.
Indexed as
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.