Literature DB >> 23153309

A weight of evidence approach for hazard screening of engineered nanomaterials.

Danail R Hristozov1, Alex Zabeo, Christy Foran, Panagiotis Isigonis, Andrea Critto, Antonio Marcomini, Igor Linkov.   

Abstract

Hazard identification is an important step in assessing nanomaterial risk and is required under multiple regulatory frameworks in the US, Europe and worldwide. Given the emerging nature of the field and complexity of nanomaterials, multiple studies on even basic material properties often result in varying data pointing in different directions when data interpretation is attempted. Weight of evidence (WOE) evaluation has been recommended for nanomaterial risk assessment, but the majority of WOE frameworks are qualitative in nature and do not satisfy the growing needs for objectivity and transparency that are necessary for regulatory decision making. This paper implements a quantitative WOE framework that utilizes multi-criteria decision analysis methodology for integrating individual studies on nanomaterial hazard resulting from physico-chemical and toxicological properties of nanomaterials. For the first time, a WOE approach explicitly integrates expert evaluation of data quality of available information. Application of the framework is illustrated for titanium dioxide nanoparticles (nano-TiO2), but the approach is designed to compare the relative hazard of several nanomaterials as well as emerging stressors in general.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23153309     DOI: 10.3109/17435390.2012.750695

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nanotoxicology        ISSN: 1743-5390            Impact factor:   5.913


  13 in total

1.  A quantitative framework to group nanoscale and microscale particles by hazard potency to derive occupational exposure limits: Proof of concept evaluation.

Authors:  Nathan M Drew; Eileen D Kuempel; Ying Pei; Feng Yang
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  2017-08-05       Impact factor: 3.271

2.  Considerations of Environmentally Relevant Test Conditions for Improved Evaluation of Ecological Hazards of Engineered Nanomaterials.

Authors:  Patricia A Holden; Jorge L Gardea-Torresdey; Fred Klaessig; Ronald F Turco; Monika Mortimer; Kerstin Hund-Rinke; Elaine A Cohen Hubal; David Avery; Damià Barceló; Renata Behra; Yoram Cohen; Laurence Deydier-Stephan; P Lee Ferguson; Teresa F Fernandes; Barbara Herr Harthorn; W Matthew Henderson; Robert A Hoke; Danail Hristozov; John M Johnston; Agnes B Kane; Larry Kapustka; Arturo A Keller; Hunter S Lenihan; Wess Lovell; Catherine J Murphy; Roger M Nisbet; Elijah J Petersen; Edward R Salinas; Martin Scheringer; Monita Sharma; David E Speed; Yasir Sultan; Paul Westerhoff; Jason C White; Mark R Wiesner; Eva M Wong; Baoshan Xing; Meghan Steele Horan; Hilary A Godwin; André E Nel
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2016-06-03       Impact factor: 9.028

3.  A decision analysis framework for estimating the potential hazards for drinking water resources of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids.

Authors:  Erin E Yost; John Stanek; Lyle D Burgoon
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2016-09-22       Impact factor: 7.963

4.  How decision analysis can further nanoinformatics.

Authors:  Matthew E Bates; Sabrina Larkin; Jeffrey M Keisler; Igor Linkov
Journal:  Beilstein J Nanotechnol       Date:  2015-07-22       Impact factor: 3.649

5.  A Tractable Method for Measuring Nanomaterial Risk Using Bayesian Networks.

Authors:  Finbarr Murphy; Barry Sheehan; Martin Mullins; Hans Bouwmeester; Hans J P Marvin; Yamine Bouzembrak; Anna L Costa; Rasel Das; Vicki Stone; Syed A M Tofail
Journal:  Nanoscale Res Lett       Date:  2016-11-15       Impact factor: 4.703

6.  Environmental Risk Assessment Strategy for Nanomaterials.

Authors:  Janeck J Scott-Fordsmand; Willie J G M Peijnenburg; Elena Semenzin; Bernd Nowack; Neil Hunt; Danail Hristozov; Antonio Marcomini; Muhammad-Adeel Irfan; Araceli Sánchez Jiménez; Robert Landsiedel; Lang Tran; Agnes G Oomen; Peter M J Bos; Kerstin Hund-Rinke
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2017-10-19       Impact factor: 3.390

7.  Hazard Screening Methods for Nanomaterials: A Comparative Study.

Authors:  Barry Sheehan; Finbarr Murphy; Martin Mullins; Irini Furxhi; Anna L Costa; Felice C Simeone; Paride Mantecca
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2018-02-25       Impact factor: 5.923

Review 8.  Risk Assessment and Risk Minimization in Nanomedicine: A Need for Predictive, Alternative, and 3Rs Strategies.

Authors:  Lisa Accomasso; Caterina Cristallini; Claudia Giachino
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2018-03-13       Impact factor: 5.810

9.  ITS-NANO--prioritising nanosafety research to develop a stakeholder driven intelligent testing strategy.

Authors:  Vicki Stone; Stefano Pozzi-Mucelli; Lang Tran; Karin Aschberger; Stefania Sabella; Ulla Vogel; Craig Poland; Dominique Balharry; Teresa Fernandes; Stefania Gottardo; Steven Hankin; Mark G J Hartl; Nanna Hartmann; Danial Hristozov; Kerstin Hund-Rinke; Helinor Johnston; Antonio Marcomini; Oliver Panzer; Davide Roncato; Anne T Saber; Håkan Wallin; Janeck J Scott-Fordsmand
Journal:  Part Fibre Toxicol       Date:  2014-02-13       Impact factor: 9.400

Review 10.  Engineered nanoparticles: Revisiting safety concerns in light of ethno medicine.

Authors:  Suhani Palkhiwala; Sonal R Bakshi
Journal:  Ayu       Date:  2014 Jul-Sep
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.