Interactive survey of consumer awareness of nanotechnologies and nanoparticles in consumer products in South Korea

International Journal of Nanomedicine

Volumn 9, Issue , 2014, Pages 11-20

  Kim, Yu Ri ^a   Lee, Eun Jeong ^a   Park, Sung Ha ^b   Kwon, Hyo Jin ^a   An, Seong Soo A ^c   Son, Sang Wook ^d   Seo, Young Rok ^e   Pie, Jae Eun ^f   Yoon, Myoung ^g   Kim, Ja Hei ^g   Kim, Meyoung Kon ^a  

^a Korea University   (South Korea)

^b University of Bath   (United Kingdom)

^c Gachon University   (South Korea)

^d Korea University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

^e Dongguk University   (South Korea)

^f Anyang University   (South Korea)

^g Korea Consumer Agency   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Consumer characteristics; Household income; Nanomaterials; Questionnaire survey

Indexed keywords

NANOMATERIAL; NANOPARTICLE;

ADULT; AGE; ARTICLE; AWARENESS; CONSUMER; EDUCATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; INCOME; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MALE; NANOTECHNOLOGY; SEX; SOUTH KOREA; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CONSUMER ATTITUDE; MIDDLE AGED; QUESTIONNAIRE; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; CONSUMER BEHAVIOR; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; NANOSTRUCTURES; NANOTECHNOLOGY; REPUBLIC OF KOREA; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84905847712     PISSN: 11769114     EISSN: 11782013     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2147/IJN.S57919     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Cobb MD, Macoubrie J. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res. 2004;6:395–405.
2. Choi SJ, Lee J, Jeong J, Choy J-H. Toxicity evaluation of inorganic nanoparticles: considerations and challenges. Mol Cell Toxicol. 2013;9: 205–210.
3. Oberdörster G, Maynard A, Donaldson K, et al; ILSI Research Foundation/Risk Science Institute Nanomaterial Toxicity Screening Working Group. Principles for characterizing the potential human health effects from exposure to nanomaterials: elements of a screening strategy. Part Fibre Toxicol. 2005;2:8.
4. European Commission. Scientific Committee On Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks. Brussels: European Commission; 2006. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/health/archive/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_003b.pdf. Accessed July 15, 2014.
5. National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network. [homepage on the Internet]. Education & Training. Available from: http://www.nnin.org/education-training. Accessed November 4, 2014.
6. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. Have Yourself a Merry “Nano” Christmas. Washington, DC: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies; 2006. Available from: http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/6004/112706nanotechnology_xmasproducts.pdf. Accessed July 15, 2014.
7. http://www.wilsoncenter.org [homepage on the Internet]. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars [updated 2014]. Accessed July 15, 2014.
8. European Commission. Eurobarometer: Europeans, Science and Technology. Brussels: European Commission; 2001. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/research/press/2001/pr0612en-report.pdf. Accessed July 15, 2014.
9. Lee CJ, Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV. Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Sci Commun. 2005;27(2):240–267.
10. Smiley Smith SE, Hosgood HD, Michelson ES, Stowe MH. Americans’ nanotechnology risk perception. J Ind Ecol. 2008;12(3):459–473.
11. Gaskell G, Ten Eyck T, Jackson J, Veltri G. Public attitudes to nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nat Mater. 2004;3(8):496.
12. European Commission. Report on the European Commission’s Public Online Consultation: Towards a Strategic Nanotechnology Action Plan (SNAP) 2010–2015. Brussels: European Commission; 2010. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/snap/report_en.pdf. Accessed July 15, 2014.
13. Currall SC, King EB, Lane N, Madera J, Turner S. What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nat Nanotechnol. 2006;1(3): 153–155.
14. Braman D, Kahan DM, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen GL. Affect, values, and nanotechnology risk perceptions: an experimental investigation [webpage on the Internet]. George Washington University Law Faculty Publications and Other Works. Paper 207; 2007. Available from: http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications/207. Accessed July 15, 2014.
15. Burri RV, Bellucci S. Public perception of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res. 2008;10(3):387–391.
16. Gupta N, Fischer ARH, van der Lans IA, Frewer LJ. Factors influencing societal response of nanotechnology: an expert stakeholder analysis. J Nanopart Res. 2012;14(5):857.
17. Priest S, Greenhalgh T, Kramer V. Risk perceptions starting to shift? US citizens are forming opinions about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res. 2010;12(1):11–20.
18. Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Roosen J. The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain: the hidden role of views on science, technology, and nature. Public Underst Sci. 2011;20(2):195–206.
19. Allum N, Sturgis P, Tabourazi D, Brunton-Smith I. Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis. Public Underst Sci. 2008;17(1):35–54.
20. Sturgis P, Allum N. Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Underst Sci. 2004;13(1):55–74.