Closing gaps for environmental risk screening of engineered nanomaterials
NanoImpact, ISSN: 2452-0748, Vol: 15, Page: 100173
2019
- 23Citations
- 30Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Engineered nanomaterials (ENM) have a widespread presence in human life and are components of many products and applications. This warrants an easy and fast evaluation of potential environmental risks. However, so far this is hampered by the multitude of different nanomaterials on the markets in addition to the many variations in form, size and surface modifications. Testing of each variation of ENM is not manageable, and hence the development and application of fast risk screening tools for ENMs is discussed. Here, we present the development of a scoring scheme with regard to ENM environmental risks under consideration of the two compartments water and soil. It allows for the ranking of ENM according to their environmental fate and hazard by taking into account criteria that are meaningful and relevant for ENM. The selection of the criteria is based on conceptual considerations, existing knowledge, and experimental work including transport and transformation studies as well as aquatic and terrestrial toxicity tests. The allocation of the ENM to the scores informs on the potential for transport and transformation and the hazard potential. Fate and hazard scores are subsequently combined into one risk score (1–10 for aquatic compartment, 1–7 for terrestrial compartment). The risk score has the intention to indicate which ENM may need prioritization for further action, i.e. with regard to the degree of detail for further testing or modelling. The applicability and consistency of the scoring schemes were assessed by taking different chemical species (e.g. of Ag, TiO 2, SiO 2, Cu, Fe) of ENM in various modifications (e.g. different shapes and coatings) into account. In conclusion, the established scoring schemes were found to be applicable to rank ENM according to their environmental fate and hazard potential, and thus to their environmental risk potential.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452074818301885; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2019.100173; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85066791225&origin=inward; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2452074818301885; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2019.100173
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know