Characteristics and classification of nanoparticles: Expert Delphi survey

Nanotoxicology

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 236-243

  Berube, David ^a   Cummings, Christopher ^a   Cacciatore, Michael ^b   Scheufele, Dietram ^b   Kalin, Jason ^a  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

Delphi; EHS; expert; nanoparticles; risk assessment; toxicology

Indexed keywords

NANOPARTICLE;

ARTICLE; CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; CHEMISTRY; CLASSIFICATION; DELPHI STUDY; ENGINEERING; FORECASTING; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESEARCH; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICOLOGY;

CONSENSUS; DELPHI TECHNIQUE; HUMANS; NANOPARTICLES; SAFETY MANAGEMENT;

EID: 79957793175     PISSN: 17435390     EISSN: 17435404     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/17435390.2010.521633     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Berube D, Searson E, Morton T, Cummings C. 2010. Project on emerging nanotechnologies - consumer product inventory evaluated. Nanotechnol Law Business 7(2):152-163.
2. Corley EA, Scheufele DA, Hu Q. 2009. Of risks and regulations: How leading U.S. nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 11(7):1573-1585.
3. Glaser BG, Strauss AL. 1967. The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. In: The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Co. pp 101-115.
4. Hassellöv M, Readman JW, Ranville JF, Tiede K. 2008. Nanoparticle analysis and characterization methodologies in environmental risk assessment of engineered nanoparticles. Ecotoxicology 17:344-361.
5. Jiang J, Oberdörster G, Biswas P. 2009. Characterization of size, surface charge, and agglomeration state of nanoparticle dispersions for toxicological studies. J Nanopart Res 11:77-89.
6. Kendall MG, Smith BB. 1939. The problem of m rankings. Annals Mathemat Stat 10:275-287.
7. Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Monica JC Jr, Foss Hansen S, Davis TA. 2009. Nano risk governance: Current developments and future perspectives. Nanotechnol Law Business 6(203): 203-220.
8. Linstone HA, Turoff M, editors. 1975. The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
9. Moss SE, Lawrence KG. 1997. The effects of priming on the self-reporting of perceived stressors and strains. J Organizat Behav 18:393-412.
10. Savolainen K, Aleniusa H, Norppaa H, Pylkkänena L, Tuomia T, Kasperb G. 2010. Risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials and nanotechnologies - a review. Toxicology 269:92-104.
11. Seyed-Razavi A, Snooka IK, Barnard AS. 2010. Origin of nanomorphology: Does a complete theory of nanoparticle evolution exist? J Mater Chem 20(3):401-421.
12. Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Dunwoody S, Shih T-J, Hillback E, Guston DH. 2007. Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nature Nanotechnol 2(12):732-734. (Pubitemid 350223352)
13. Tervonen T, Linkov I, Figueira JR, Steevens J, Chappell M, Merad M. 2009. Risk-based classification system of nanomaterials. J Nanopart Res 11(4):757-766.
14. Tsuda H. 2010. Risk assessment studies of nanomaterials in Japan and other countries. Asian Pac J Cancer Prevent 11:13-14.
15. Vishwakarma V, Samal SS, Manoharan N. 2010. Safety and risk associated with nanoparticles - a review. J Minerals Mater Characterizat Engineer 9(5):455-459.
16. Vital DC, Armenakis AA, Field HS. 2008. Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods for organizational diagnosis: Possible priming effects? J Mixed Meth Res 2:92.
17. Warheit DB. 2008. How meaningful are the results of nanotoxicity studies in the absence of adequate material characterization? Toxicolog Sci 101(2):183-185.
18. Winchester MR, Sturgeon RE, Costa-Fernández JM. 2010. Chemical characterization of engineered nanoparticles. Analyt Bioanalyt Chem 396:951-952.
19. Zimmer HVR, Hertel R, Böl GF. 2009. BfR-Delphi-Studie zur nanotechnologie. Berlin: BfR-Wissenschaft.