| Title |
Test strategy for assessing the risks of nanomaterials in the environment considering general regulatory procedures
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Sciences Europe, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12302-015-0053-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kerstin Hund-Rinke, Monika Herrchen, Karsten Schlich, Kathrin Schwirn, Doris Völker |
| Abstract |
Engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) are marketed as a substance or mixtures and are additionally used due to their active agent properties in products such as pesticides or biocides, for which specific regulations apply. Currently, there are no specific testing strategies for environmental fate and effects of ENMs within the different regulations. An environmental test and risk assessment strategy for ENMs have been developed considering the general principles of chemical assessment. The test strategy has been developed based on the knowledge of national and international discussions. It also takes into account the conclusions made by the OECD WPMN which held an expert meeting in January 2013. For the test strategy development, both conventional and alternative endpoints were discussed and environmental fate and effects were addressed separately. A tiered scheme as commonly used in the context of precautionary environmental risk assessment was suggested including the use of mathematical models and trigger values to either stop the procedure or proceed to the next tier. There are still several gaps which have to be filled, especially with respect to fate, to develop the test strategy further. The test strategy features a general approach. It is not specified to fulfil the information requirements of certain legislation (e.g. plant protection act, biocide regulation, REACH). However, the adaption of single elements of the strategy to the specific needs of certain legislation will provide a valuable contribution in relation to the testing of nanomaterials. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 10% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 6 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 8 | 27% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 20% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 7% |
| Engineering | 2 | 7% |
| Materials Science | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 29 August 2018.
All research outputs
#7,468,281
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Sciences Europe
#206
of 583 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,723
of 277,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Sciences Europe
#7
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 583 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 277,994 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.