Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35559977›Full record

ArticleNanoImpact2021

Survey of industrial perceptions for the use of nanomaterials for in-home drinking water purification devices.

Justin Kidd, Paul Westerhoff, Andrew Maynard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NanoImpact, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Emerging Field of Nanotechnology in Environment.Indian journal of microbiology · 2023
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Public Perceptions and Willingness-to-Pay for Nanopesticides.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

3 authors.

Justin KiddNanosystems Engineering Research Center for Nanotechnology Enabled Water Treatment, School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-3005, United States; Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL), Aiken, SC 29808, United States. Electronic address: justin.kidd@srnl.doe.gov.
Paul WesterhoffNanosystems Engineering Research Center for Nanotechnology Enabled Water Treatment, School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-3005, United States.
Andrew MaynardSchool for the Future of Innovation in Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-3005, United States.

Funding

Spatial patterns of metals and metal mixtures in drinking waterP42ES030990 · NIEHS · HARVARD UNIVERSITY D/B/A HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI LU, QUAN · 2020 to 2024
$8.3M
NIEHS NIH HHS P42 ES030990
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As businesses, specifically technology developers and industrial suppliers, strive to meet growing demand for higher quality drinking water, the use of engineered nanomaterials in commercial point-of-use (POU) in-home water purification devices are becoming an increasingly important option. Anecdotally, some businesses appear wary of developing and marketing nanomaterial-enabled devices because of concerns that they will face onerous regulation and consumer pushback. However, little of substance is known about business perceptions of and attitudes toward the use of engineered nanomaterials in POU water purification devices, or how these compare with consumer perceptions. To address this knowledge-gap, we administered a 14-question survey among 65 participants from US-based industrial companies focused on drinking water purification. Our results indicate that the dominant concerns for businesses are costs and public perceptions associated with nanomaterial-enabled POU devices for drinking water purification. Cost-specific barriers include competition from more conventional technologies, and tensions between operational versus capital costs. 57% of respondents were concerned or very concerned that public perceptions will influence the long-term viability of nanomaterial-enabled POU devices for drinking water purification. 49% of respondents stated that government regulation of nanomaterials would be the preferred approach to ensure public safety, followed by the certification of POU devices (28%). When asked about specific nanomaterials and their potential use in POU devices for drinking water purification, respondents ranked carbon nanotubes as the nanomaterial with highest concern for environmental health and safety, followed by silver, titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, and copper. Respondents ranked nanoclays as the nanomaterial with highest likelihood for public acceptance, followed by silica, cerium oxide, titanium dioxide, and aluminum oxide.

Indexed as

Drinking WaterNanostructuresNanotubes, CarbonWater PurificationHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesDrinking WaterNanotubes, CarbonDrinking waterIndustry perceptionNanomaterialsPoint-of-usePublic perceptionWater treatment

Identifiers

PMID35559977
PMCPMC9106971

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.