4.7 Review

Measurement Methods for the Oral Uptake of Engineered Nanomaterials from Human Dietary Sources: Summary and Outlook

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1541-4337.12080

关键词

characterization; detection; food safety; measurement methods; nanomaterials; nanotechnology; nanotoxicology

资金

  1. Pew Charitable Trusts
  2. US Food and Drug Administration, Health Canada, ILSI North America
  3. Coca-Cola Company
  4. Illinois Inst. of Technology's Inst. for Food Safety and Health
  5. ILSI Research Foundation
  6. USDA Natl. Research Initiative Agriculture and Food Research Initiative
  7. US Environmental Protection Agency
  8. Natl. Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article is one of a series of 4 that report on a task of the NanoRelease Food Additive (NRFA) project of the International. Life Science Institute Center for Risk Science Innovation and Application. The project aims are to identify, evaluate, and develop methods that are needed to confidently detect, characterize, and quantify intentionally produced engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) released from food along the alimentary tract. This particular article offers an overview of the NRFA project, describing the project scope and goals, as well as the strategy by which the task group sought to achieve these goals. A condensed description of the general challenge of detecting ENMs in foods and a brief review of available and emerging methods for ENM detection is provided here, paying particular attention to the kind of information that might be desired from an analysis and the strengths and weaknesses of the various approaches that might be used to attain this information. The article concludes with an executive summary of the task group's broad findings related to the 3 topic areas, which are covered in more detail in 3 subsequent articles in this series. The end result is a thorough evaluation of the state of ENM measurement science specifically as it applies to oral uptake of ENMs from human dietary sources.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据