Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32807878›Full record

ReviewNature nanotechnology2020

Key principles and operational practices for improved nanotechnology environmental exposure assessment.

Claus Svendsen, Lee A Walker, Marianne Matzke, Elma Lahive, Samuel Harrison, Alison Crossley, Barry Park, Stephen Lofts, Iseult Lynch, Socorro Vázquez-Campos and 8 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature nanotechnology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Identification of nanoparticle infiltration in human breast milk: Chemical profiles and trajectory pathways.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Nanotoxicology: developments and new insights.Nanomedicine (London, England) · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

18 authors.

Claus SvendsenUK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK.
Lee A WalkerUK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster, UK.
Marianne MatzkeUK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK.
Elma LahiveUK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK.
Samuel HarrisonUK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8491-4720
Alison CrossleyDepartment of Materials, Oxford University, Begbroke Science Park, Oxford, UK.
Barry ParkGBP Consulting Ltd, Purton, Swindon, UK.
Stephen LoftsUK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3627-851X
Iseult LynchSchool of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4250-4584
Socorro Vázquez-CamposLEITAT Technological Center, Barcelona, Spain.
Ralf KaegiEAWAG, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Dübendorf, Switzerland.
Alexander GogosEAWAG, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Dübendorf, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6233-512X
Christof AsbachDepartment of Air Quality and Filtration, Institut für Energie- und Umwelttechnik e. V. (IUTA), Duisburg, Germany.
Geert CornelisDepartment of Soil and Environment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
Frank von der KammerDepartment of Environmental Geosciences, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Nico W van den BrinkSub-department of Toxicology, Department of Agrotechnology and Food Sciences, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Claire MaysSymlog, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7869-2674
David J SpurgeonUK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK. dasp@ceh.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3264-8760

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nanotechnology is identified as a key enabling technology due to its potential to contribute to economic growth and societal well-being across industrial sectors. Sustainable nanotechnology requires a scientifically based and proportionate risk governance structure to support innovation, including a robust framework for environmental risk assessment (ERA) that ideally builds on methods established for conventional chemicals to ensure alignment and avoid duplication. Exposure assessment developed as a tiered approach is equally beneficial to nano-specific ERA as for other classes of chemicals. Here we present the developing knowledge, practical considerations and key principles need to support exposure assessment for engineered nanomaterials for regulatory and research applications.

Indexed as

Biological AvailabilityEnvironmental ExposureHumansNanostructuresNanotechnologyRisk AssessmentThermodynamics

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.