A methodology for the automatic evaluation of data quality and completeness of nanomaterials for risk assessment purposes

10Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

This manuscript proposes a methodology to assess the completeness and quality of physicochemical and hazard datasets for risk assessment purposes. The approach is also specifically applicable to similarity assessment as a basis for grouping of (nanoforms of) chemical substances as well as for classification of the substances according to the Classification, Labeling and Packaging regulation. The unique goal of this approach is to assess data quality in such a way that all the steps are automatized, thus reducing reliance on expert judgment. The analysis starts from available (meta)data as provided in the data entry templates developed by the NanoSafety community and used for import into the eNanoMapper database. The methodology is implemented in the templates as a traffic light system—the providers of the data can see in real time the completeness scores calculated by the system for their datasets in green, yellow, or red. This is an interactive feedback feature that is intended to provide an incentive for anyone inserting data into the database to deliver more complete and higher quality datasets. The users of the data can also see this information both in the data entry templates and on the database interface, which enables them to select better datasets for their assessments. The proposed methodology has been partially implemented in the eNanoMapper database and in a Weight of Evidence approach for the regulatory classification of nanomaterials. It was fully implemented in a publicly available online R tool.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Basei, G., Rauscher, H., Jeliazkova, N., & Hristozov, D. (2022). A methodology for the automatic evaluation of data quality and completeness of nanomaterials for risk assessment purposes. Nanotoxicology, 16(2), 195–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/17435390.2022.2065222

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free