ArticleNanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2023
NanoDefiner Framework and e-Tool Revisited According to the European Commission's Nanomaterial Definition 2022/C 229/01.
Article in Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nanoparticle-Based Approaches for Enhancing In Vitro Fertilization in Animal Reproduction.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Harmfulness Score: A Data-Driven Framework for Ranking Environmental Risks of Microplastics.Macromolecular rapid communications · 2025Article
- Advances in nanomaterial-mediated CRISPR/Cas delivery: from lipid nanoparticles to vesicle-derived systems.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The new recommended definition of a nanomaterial, 2022/C 229/01, adopted by the European Commission in 2022, will have a considerable impact on European Union legislation addressing chemicals, and therefore tools to implement this new definition are urgently needed. The updated NanoDefiner framework and its e-tool implementation presented here are such instruments, which help stakeholders to find out in a straightforward way whether a material is a nanomaterial or not. They are two major outcomes of the NanoDefine project, which is explicitly referred to in the new definition. This work revisits the framework and e-tool, and elaborates necessary adjustments to make these outcomes applicable for the updated recommendation. A broad set of case studies on representative materials confirms the validity of these adjustments. To further foster the sustainability and applicability of the framework and e-tool, measures for the FAIRification of expert knowledge within the e-tool's knowledge base are elaborated as well. The updated framework and e-tool are now ready to be used in line with the updated recommendation. The presented approach may serve as an example for reviewing existing guidance and tools developed for the previous definition 2011/696/EU, particularly those adopting NanoDefine project outcomes.
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.