133 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27734061)
1. Is the risk from nanomaterials perceived as different from the risk of 'chemicals' by the Australian public?
Capon A; Rolfe M; Gillespie J; Smith W
Public Health Res Pract; 2016 Apr; 26(2):. PubMed ID: 27734061
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Are Australians concerned about nanoparticles? A comparative analysis with established and emerging environmental health issues.
Capon A; Rolfe M; Gillespie J; Smith W
Aust N Z J Public Health; 2015 Feb; 39(1):56-62. PubMed ID: 25648731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparative assessment of nanomaterial definitions and safety evaluation considerations.
Boverhof DR; Bramante CM; Butala JH; Clancy SF; Lafranconi M; West J; Gordon SC
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2015 Oct; 73(1):137-50. PubMed ID: 26111608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Perceptions of risk from nanotechnologies and trust in stakeholders: a cross sectional study of public, academic, government and business attitudes.
Capon A; Gillespie J; Rolfe M; Smith W
BMC Public Health; 2015 Apr; 15():424. PubMed ID: 25928741
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Evaluation of information in nanomaterial safety data sheets and development of international standard for guidance on preparation of nanomaterial safety data sheets.
Lee JH; Kuk WK; Kwon M; Lee JH; Lee KS; Yu IJ
Nanotoxicology; 2013 May; 7(3):338-45. PubMed ID: 22263625
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Review of achievements of the OECD Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials' Testing and Assessment Programme. From exploratory testing to test guidelines.
Rasmussen K; González M; Kearns P; Sintes JR; Rossi F; Sayre P
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2016 Feb; 74():147-60. PubMed ID: 26603783
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Public awareness and misunderstanding about DrinkWise Australia: a cross-sectional survey of Australian adults.
Brennan E; Wakefield MA; Durkin SJ; Jernigan DH; Dixon HG; Pettigrew S
Aust N Z J Public Health; 2017 Aug; 41(4):352-357. PubMed ID: 28664575
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The hierarchy of environmental health and safety practices in the U.S. nanotechnology workplace.
Engeman CD; Baumgartner L; Carr BM; Fish AM; Meyerhofer JD; Satterfield TA; Holden PA; Harthorn BH
J Occup Environ Hyg; 2013; 10(9):487-95. PubMed ID: 23927041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Scientists versus regulators: precaution, novelty & regulatory oversight as predictors of perceived risks of engineered nanomaterials.
Beaudrie CE; Satterfield T; Kandlikar M; Harthorn BH
PLoS One; 2014; 9(9):e106365. PubMed ID: 25222742
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A critical appraisal of existing concepts for the grouping of nanomaterials.
Arts JH; Hadi M; Keene AM; Kreiling R; Lyon D; Maier M; Michel K; Petry T; Sauer UG; Warheit D; Wiench K; Landsiedel R
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2014 Nov; 70(2):492-506. PubMed ID: 25108058
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The OECD expert meeting on ecotoxicology and environmental fate--towards the development of improved OECD guidelines for the testing of nanomaterials.
Kühnel D; Nickel C
Sci Total Environ; 2014 Feb; 472():347-53. PubMed ID: 24461369
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Nanotechnology: the next big thing, or much ado about nothing?
Maynard AD
Ann Occup Hyg; 2007 Jan; 51(1):1-12. PubMed ID: 17041243
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. National Survey of Workplaces Handling and Manufacturing Nanomaterials, Exposure to and Health Effects of Nanomaterials, and Evaluation of Nanomaterial Safety Data Sheets.
Kim J; Yu IJ
Biomed Res Int; 2016; 2016():8389129. PubMed ID: 27556041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Considerations on the EU definition of a nanomaterial: science to support policy making.
Bleeker EA; de Jong WH; Geertsma RE; Groenewold M; Heugens EH; Koers-Jacquemijns M; van de Meent D; Popma JR; Rietveld AG; Wijnhoven SW; Cassee FR; Oomen AG
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2013 Feb; 65(1):119-25. PubMed ID: 23200793
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The applicability of chemical alternatives assessment for engineered nanomaterials.
Hjorth R; Hansen SF; Jacobs M; Tickner J; Ellenbecker M; Baun A
Integr Environ Assess Manag; 2017 Jan; 13(1):177-187. PubMed ID: 26887668
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Risk perceptions in Australia.
Finucane ML; Maybery MT
Psychol Rep; 1996 Dec; 79(3 Pt 2):1331-8. PubMed ID: 9009790
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Public support for alcohol policies associated with knowledge of cancer risk.
Buykx P; Gilligan C; Ward B; Kippen R; Chapman K
Int J Drug Policy; 2015 Apr; 26(4):371-9. PubMed ID: 25217801
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The carcinogenic potential of nanomaterials, their release from products and options for regulating them.
Becker H; Herzberg F; Schulte A; Kolossa-Gehring M
Int J Hyg Environ Health; 2011 Jun; 214(3):231-8. PubMed ID: 21168363
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Perception of environmental health risk among inhabitants of Katowice Urban Area].
Kowalska M
Wiad Lek; 2002; 55 Suppl 1():260-9. PubMed ID: 15002252
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Risk perception and water fluoridation support and opposition in Australia.
Armfield JM; Akers HF
J Public Health Dent; 2010; 70(1):58-66. PubMed ID: 19694932
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
