Department Environmental Toxicology

array(2 items)
   publications => '18359' (5 chars)
   libraryUrl => '' (0 chars)

array(1 item)
   0 => Snowflake\Publications\Domain\Model\Publicationprototypepersistent entity (uid=18359, pid=124)
      originalId => protected18359 (integer)
      authors => protected'Sørensen, S. N.; Baun, A.; Burkard, M.; Dal Maso, 
         M.; Foss Hansen, S.; Harrison, S.; Hjorth, R.; Lofts, S.
         ; Matzke, M.; Nowack, B.; Peijnenburg, W.; Poikkimäki, 
         M.; Quik, J. T. K.; Schirmer, K.; Verschoor, A.; Wi
         gger, H.; Spurgeon, D. J.' (344 chars)
      title => protected'Evaluating environmental risk assessment models for nanomaterials according 
         to requirements along the product innovation Stage-Gate process' (139 chars)
      journal => protected'Environmental Science: Nano' (27 chars)
      year => protected2019 (integer)
      volume => protected6 (integer)
      issue => protected'' (0 chars)
      startpage => protected'505' (3 chars)
      otherpage => protected'518' (3 chars)
      categories => protected'' (0 chars)
      description => protected'Nanomaterial risk governance requires models to estimate the material flow, 
         fate and transport as well as uptake/bioavailability, hazard and risk in the
          environment. This study assesses the fit of such available models to differ
         ent stages during the innovation of nano-enabled products. Through stakehold
         er consultations, criteria were identified for each innovation stage from id
         ea conception to market launch and monitoring. In total, 38 models were scor
         ed against 41 criteria concerning model features, applicability, resource de
         mands and outcome parameters. A scoring scheme was developed to determine ho
         w the models fit the criteria of each innovation stage. For each model, the 
         individual criteria scores were added, yielding an overall fit score to each
          innovation stage. Three criteria were critical to stakeholders and incorpor
         ated as multipliers in the scoring scheme; the required time/costs and level
          of expertise needed to use the model, and for risk assessment models only, 
         the option to compare PEC and PNEC. Regulatory compliance was also identifie
         d as critical, but could not be incorporated, as a nanomaterial risk assessm
         ent framework has yet to be developed and adopted by legislators. In conclus
         ion, the scoring approach underlined similar scoring profiles across stages 
         within model categories. As most models are research tools designed for use 
         by experts, their score generally increased for later stages where most reso
         urces and expertise are committed. In contrast, stakeholders need relatively
          simple models to identify potential hazards and risk management measures at
          early product development stages to ensure safe use of nanomaterials withou
         t costs and resource needs hindering innovation.' (1720 chars)
      serialnumber => protected'2051-8153' (9 chars)
      doi => protected'10.1039/C8EN00933C' (18 chars)
      uid => protected18359 (integer)
      _localizedUid => protected18359 (integer)modified
      _languageUid => protectedNULL
      _versionedUid => protected18359 (integer)modified
      pid => protected124 (integer)