↓ Skip to main content

Principles for characterizing the potential human health effects from exposure to nanomaterials: elements of a screening strategy

Overview of attention for article published in Particle and Fibre Toxicology, October 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1646 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
971 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
connotea
2 Connotea
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Principles for characterizing the potential human health effects from exposure to nanomaterials: elements of a screening strategy
Published in
Particle and Fibre Toxicology, October 2005
DOI 10.1186/1743-8977-2-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Günter Oberdörster, Andrew Maynard, Ken Donaldson, Vincent Castranova, Julie Fitzpatrick, Kevin Ausman, Janet Carter, Barbara Karn, Wolfgang Kreyling, David Lai, Stephen Olin, Nancy Monteiro-Riviere, David Warheit, Hong Yang

Abstract

The rapid proliferation of many different engineered nanomaterials (defined as materials designed and produced to have structural features with at least one dimension of 100 nanometers or less) presents a dilemma to regulators regarding hazard identification. The International Life Sciences Institute Research Foundation/Risk Science Institute convened an expert working group to develop a screening strategy for the hazard identification of engineered nanomaterials. The working group report presents the elements of a screening strategy rather than a detailed testing protocol. Based on an evaluation of the limited data currently available, the report presents a broad data gathering strategy applicable to this early stage in the development of a risk assessment process for nanomaterials. Oral, dermal, inhalation, and injection routes of exposure are included recognizing that, depending on use patterns, exposure to nanomaterials may occur by any of these routes. The three key elements of the toxicity screening strategy are: Physicochemical Characteristics, In Vitro Assays (cellular and non-cellular), and In Vivo Assays. There is a strong likelihood that biological activity of nanoparticles will depend on physicochemical parameters not routinely considered in toxicity screening studies. Physicochemical properties that may be important in understanding the toxic effects of test materials include particle size and size distribution, agglomeration state, shape, crystal structure, chemical composition, surface area, surface chemistry, surface charge, and porosity. In vitro techniques allow specific biological and mechanistic pathways to be isolated and tested under controlled conditions, in ways that are not feasible in in vivo tests. Tests are suggested for portal-of-entry toxicity for lungs, skin, and the mucosal membranes, and target organ toxicity for endothelium, blood, spleen, liver, nervous system, heart, and kidney. Non-cellular assessment of nanoparticle durability, protein interactions, complement activation, and pro-oxidant activity is also considered. Tier 1 in vivo assays are proposed for pulmonary, oral, skin and injection exposures, and Tier 2 evaluations for pulmonary exposures are also proposed. Tier 1 evaluations include markers of inflammation, oxidant stress, and cell proliferation in portal-of-entry and selected remote organs and tissues. Tier 2 evaluations for pulmonary exposures could include deposition, translocation, and toxicokinetics and biopersistence studies; effects of multiple exposures; potential effects on the reproductive system, placenta, and fetus; alternative animal models; and mechanistic studies.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 971 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 12 1%
United States 11 1%
United Kingdom 7 <1%
Spain 5 <1%
Australia 4 <1%
Canada 4 <1%
India 4 <1%
Switzerland 3 <1%
Sweden 2 <1%
Other 17 2%
Unknown 902 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 222 23%
Researcher 173 18%
Student > Master 139 14%
Student > Bachelor 97 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 46 5%
Other 168 17%
Unknown 126 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 188 19%
Chemistry 110 11%
Engineering 83 9%
Environmental Science 79 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 66 7%
Other 260 27%
Unknown 185 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 January 2021.
All research outputs
#2,395,570
of 20,573,048 outputs
Outputs from Particle and Fibre Toxicology
#80
of 528 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,328
of 315,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Particle and Fibre Toxicology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,573,048 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 528 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,941 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them