Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34518657›Full record

ReviewNature nanotechnology2021

Comprehensive framework for human health risk assessment of nanopesticides.

Melanie Kah, Linda J Johnston, Rai S Kookana, Wendy Bruce, Andrea Haase, Vera Ritz, Jordan Dinglasan, Shareen Doak, Hemda Garelick, Vladimir Gubala

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature nanotechnology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

10 authors.

Melanie KahSchool of Environment, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. melanie.kah@auckland.ac.nz.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8705-9229
Linda J JohnstonMetrology Research Centre, National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9136-4920
Rai S KookanaCSIRO, Glen Osmond, South Australia, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0477-3284
Wendy BruceHealth Evaluation Directorate, Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Andrea HaaseDepartment of Chemical and Product Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5288-7876
Vera RitzDepartment of Pesticides Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
Jordan DinglasanVive Crop Protection, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.
Shareen DoakInstitute of Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK.
Hemda GarelickDepartment of Natural Science, Faculty of Technology, Middlesex University, London, UK.
Vladimir GubalaMedway School of Pharmacy, University of Kent, Chatham Maritime, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nanopesticides are not only in an advanced state of research and development but have started to appear on the market. Industry and regulatory agencies need a consolidated and comprehensive framework and guidance for human health risk assessments. In this perspective we develop such a comprehensive framework by exploring two case studies from relevant product types: an active ingredient delivered with a nanocarrier system, and a nanoparticle as an active ingredient. For a nanocarrier system, three entities are tracked during the assessment: the nanocarrier-active ingredient complex, the empty nanocarrier remaining after the complete release of the active ingredient, and the released active ingredient. For the nanoparticle of pure active ingredient, only two entities are relevant: the nanoparticle and the released ions. We suggest important adaptations of the existing pesticide framework to determine the relevant nanopesticide entities and their concentrations for toxicity testing. Depending on the nature of the nanopesticides, additional data requirements, such as those pertaining to durability in biological media and potential for crossing biological barriers, have also been identified. Overall, our framework suggests a tiered approach for human health risk assessment, which is applicable for a range of nanopesticide products to support regulators and industry in making informed decisions on nanopesticide submissions. Brief summaries of suitable methods including references to existing standards (if available) have been included together with an analysis of current knowledge gaps. Our study is an important step towards a harmonized approach accepted by regulatory agencies for assessing nanopesticides.

Indexed as

Risk AssessmentHumansNanoparticlesPesticidesToxicity TestsPesticides

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.