462
Views
13
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
FOCUS ON CHARACTERISATION

Characteristics and classification of nanoparticles: Expert Delphi survey

, , , &
Pages 236-243 | Received 17 May 2010, Accepted 02 Sep 2010, Published online: 30 Sep 2010

References

  • Berube D, Searson E, Morton T, Cummings C. 2010. Project on emerging nanotechnologies – consumer product inventory evaluated. Nanotechnol Law Business 7(2):152–163.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Kendall MG, Smith BB. 1939. The problem of m rankings. Annals Mathemat Stat 10:275–287.
  • 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.
  • Linstone HA, Turoff M, editors. 1975. The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  • Moss SE, Lawrence KG. 1997. The effects of priming on the self-reporting of perceived stressors and strains. J Organizat Behav 18:393–412.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Tsuda H. 2010. Risk assessment studies of nanomaterials in Japan and other countries. Asian Pac J Cancer Prevent 11:13–14.
  • Vishwakarma V, Samal SS, Manoharan N. 2010. Safety and risk associated with nanoparticles – a review. J Minerals Mater Characterizat Engineer 9(5):455–459.
  • Vital DC, Armenakis AA, Field HS. 2008. Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods for organizational diagnosis: Possible priming effects? J Mixed Meth Res 2:92.
  • Warheit DB. 2008. How meaningful are the results of nanotoxicity studies in the absence of adequate material characterization? Toxicolog Sci 101(2):183–185.
  • Winchester MR, Sturgeon RE, Costa-Fernández JM. 2010. Chemical characterization of engineered nanoparticles. Analyt Bioanalyt Chem 396:951–952.
  • Zimmer HVR, Hertel R, Böl GF. 2009. BfR-Delphi-Studie zur nanotechnologie. Berlin: BfR-Wissenschaft.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.