↓ 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 (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

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

Citations

dimensions_citation
1826 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1059 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
connotea
2 Connotea
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, A report from the ILSI Research Foundation/Risk Science Institute Nanomaterial Toxicity Screening Working Group

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,059 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 16 2%
Unknown 991 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 229 22%
Researcher 186 18%
Student > Master 144 14%
Student > Bachelor 98 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 50 5%
Other 174 16%
Unknown 178 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 191 18%
Chemistry 114 11%
Engineering 85 8%
Environmental Science 81 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 68 6%
Other 275 26%
Unknown 245 23%
Attention Score in Context

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 26 January 2024.
All research outputs
#2,699,644
of 22,786,691 outputs
Outputs from Particle and Fibre Toxicology
#90
of 560 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,101
of 59,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Particle and Fibre Toxicology
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,786,691 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 560 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 59,153 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.