↓ Skip to main content

Engineered nanomaterials: toward effective safety management in research laboratories

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Nanobiotechnology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
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
Engineered nanomaterials: toward effective safety management in research laboratories
Published in
Journal of Nanobiotechnology, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12951-016-0169-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amela Groso, Alke Petri-Fink, Barbara Rothen-Rutishauser, Heinrich Hofmann, Thierry Meyer

Abstract

It is still unknown which types of nanomaterials and associated doses represent an actual danger to humans and environment. Meanwhile, there is consensus on applying the precautionary principle to these novel materials until more information is available. To deal with the rapid evolution of research, including the fast turnover of collaborators, a user-friendly and easy-to-apply risk assessment tool offering adequate preventive and protective measures has to be provided. Based on new information concerning the hazards of engineered nanomaterials, we improved a previously developed risk assessment tool by following a simple scheme to gain in efficiency. In the first step, using a logical decision tree, one of the three hazard levels, from H1 to H3, is assigned to the nanomaterial. Using a combination of decision trees and matrices, the second step links the hazard with the emission and exposure potential to assign one of the three nanorisk levels (Nano 3 highest risk; Nano 1 lowest risk) to the activity. These operations are repeated at each process step, leading to the laboratory classification. The third step provides detailed preventive and protective measures for the determined level of nanorisk. We developed an adapted simple and intuitive method for nanomaterial risk management in research laboratories. It allows classifying the nanoactivities into three levels, additionally proposing concrete preventive and protective measures and associated actions. This method is a valuable tool for all the participants in nanomaterial safety. The users experience an essential learning opportunity and increase their safety awareness. Laboratory managers have a reliable tool to obtain an overview of the operations involving nanomaterials in their laboratories; this is essential, as they are responsible for the employee safety, but are sometimes unaware of the works performed. Bringing this risk to a three-band scale (like other types of risks such as biological, radiation, chemical, etc.) facilitates the management for occupational health and safety specialists. Institutes and school managers can obtain the necessary information to implement an adequate safety management system. Having an easy-to-use tool enables a dialog between all these partners, whose semantic and priorities in terms of safety are often different.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 78 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 19%
Student > Master 13 16%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 11%
Professor 3 4%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 20 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 19 24%
Materials Science 7 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 6%
Environmental Science 4 5%
Chemistry 3 4%
Other 17 22%
Unknown 24 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 19 January 2023.
All research outputs
#4,224,783
of 25,192,722 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nanobiotechnology
#159
of 1,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,309
of 305,920 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nanobiotechnology
#4
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,192,722 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,877 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 305,920 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.