Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34511108›Full record

ReviewLife sciences, society and policy2021

Investigating the effectiveness of nanotechnologies in environmental health with an emphasis on environmental health journals.

Zahra Aghalari, Hans-Uwe Dahms, Mika Sillanpää

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Life sciences, society and policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Zahra AghalariFaculty of Public Health, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran. z.aghalari@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9629-1433
Hans-Uwe DahmsDepartment of Biomedical Science and Environment Biology, College of Life Science, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Mika SillanpääDepartment of Biological and Chemical Engineering, Aarhus University, Nørrebrogade 44, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe use of nanotechnologies is important to reduce environmental health problems in Iran, so the present study was conducted to determine the effectiveness of nanotechnologies in environmental health. This is a cross-sectional descriptive study for 11-year periods (2008-2018) on all articles published in three specialized journals of environmental health with emphasis on the use of nanotechnologies in various fields of environmental health (water, air, sewage, waste, food, radiation, etc).

resultsIn this study, 774 articles related to 114 issues of 3 specialized environmental health journals were reviewed. A review of 774 articles showed that 80 articles (10.3%) were published in the field of nanotechnologies. Out of 80 articles published in the field of nanotechnology, 66 articles (82.5%) were published on the subject of water, 9 articles (11.3%) on wastewater and 5 articles (6.2%) on air pollution. Subject review of articles showed that articles using carbon nanotubes to remove natural organic pollutants, surfactants, hydroxybenzenes, phenol, dimethyl phthalates, use of titanium dioxide nanoparticles, iron-magnesium nanoparticles for wastewater treatment, Silver nanoparticles were used to remove air pollution. The results showed that published articles on nanotechnology in the field of environmental health were few.

Indexed as

Metal NanoparticlesNanotubes, CarbonPeriodicals as TopicCross-Sectional StudiesEnvironmental HealthHumansNanotechnologySilverNanotubes, CarbonSilverArticlesEnvironmental healthJournalsNanotechnology

Identifiers

PMID34511108
PMCPMC8436489

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.