↓ Skip to main content

Modelling the Toxicity of Nanoparticles

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 2: Assessment of Human Exposure to ENMs.
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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.
Chapter title
Assessment of Human Exposure to ENMs.
Chapter number 2
Book title
Modelling the Toxicity of Nanoparticles
Published in
Advances in experimental medicine and biology, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-47754-1_2
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-31-947752-7, 978-3-31-947754-1
Authors

Araceli Sánchez Jiménez, Martie van Tongeren, Jiménez, Araceli Sánchez, van Tongeren, Martie

Editors

Lang Tran, Miguel A. Bañares, Robert Rallo

Abstract

Human exposure assessment of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) is hampered, among other factors, by the difficulty to differentiate ENM from other nanomaterials (incidental to processes or naturally occurring) and the lack of a single metric that can be used for health risk assessment. It is important that the exposure assessment is carried out throughout the entire life-cycle as releases can occur at the different stages of the product life-cycle, from the synthesis, manufacture of the nano-enable product (occupational exposure) to the professional and consumer use of nano-enabled product (consumer exposure) and at the end of life.Occupational exposure surveys should follow a tiered approach, increasing in complexity in terms of instruments used and sampling strategy applied with higher tiers in order tailor the exposure assessment to the specific materials used and workplace exposure scenarios and to reduce uncertainty in assessment of exposure. Assessment of consumer exposure and of releases from end-of-life processes currently relies on release testing of nano-enabled products in laboratory settings.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 41%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 12%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Lecturer 1 6%
Student > Master 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 4 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 3 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 12%
Chemical Engineering 1 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Other 3 18%
Unknown 6 35%
Attention Score in Context

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 05 October 2017.
All research outputs
#8,958,383
of 26,451,184 outputs
Outputs from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#1,427
of 5,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,785
of 431,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#140
of 508 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,451,184 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,281 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 431,469 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 508 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.