Article

 

How should the completeness and quality of curated nanomaterial data be evaluated? Public Deposited

https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/articles/bk128g10d

To the best of our knowledge, one or more authors of this paper were federal employees when contributing to this work. This is the publisher’s final pdf. The published article is copyrighted by the Royal Society of Chemistry and can be found at:  http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Journals/JournalIssues/NR#!recentarticles&adv

Descriptions

Attribute NameValues
Creator
Abstract
  • Nanotechnology is of increasing significance. Curation of nanomaterial data into electronic databases offers opportunities to better understand and predict nanomaterials’ behaviour. This supports innovation in, and regulation of, nanotechnology. It is commonly understood that curated data need to be sufficiently complete and of sufficient quality to serve their intended purpose. However, assessing data completeness and quality is non-trivial in general and is arguably especially difficult in the nanoscience area, given its highly multidisciplinary nature. The current article, part of the Nanomaterial Data Curation Initiative series, addresses how to assess the completeness and quality of (curated) nanomaterial data. In order to address this key challenge, a variety of related issues are discussed: the meaning and importance of data completeness and quality, existing approaches to their assessment and the key challenges associated with evaluating the completeness and quality of curated nanomaterial data. Considerations which are specific to the nanoscience area and lessons which can be learned from other relevant scientific disciplines are considered. Hence, the scope of this discussion ranges from physicochemical characterisation requirements for nanomaterials and interference of nanomaterials with nanotoxicology assays to broader issues such as minimum information checklists, toxicology data quality schemes and computational approaches that facilitate evaluation of the completeness and quality of (curated) data. This discussion is informed by a literature review and a survey of key nanomaterial data curation stakeholders. Finally, drawing upon this discussion, recommendations are presented concerning the central question: how should the completeness and quality of curated nanomaterial data be evaluated?
License
Resource Type
DOI
Date Available
Date Issued
Citation
  • Robinson Marchese, R. L., Lynch, I., Peijnenburg, W., Rumble, J., Klaessig, F., Marquardt, C., ... & Harper, S. L. (2016). How should the completeness and quality of curated nanomaterial data be evaluated?. Nanoscale, 8(19), 9919-9943. doi:10.1039/c5nr08944a
Journal Title
Series
Rights Statement
Funding Statement (additional comments about funding)
  • RLMR is grateful for funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement # 309837 (NanoPUZZLES project). IL is grateful for funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement # 310451 (NanoMILE project). RP is grateful for funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement # 309666 (PreNanoTox - Predictive toxicology of engineered nanoparticles - project). PH and HV are grateful for funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement # 310715 (MOD-ENP-TOX project). WP is grateful for the support obtained within the RIVM sponsored project "IRAN". COH would like to acknowledge the Center for the Environmental Implications of NanoTechnology (CEINT) funding from National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under NSF Cooperative Agreement DBI-1266252 and EF-0830093. SLH would like to acknowledge support provided by the National Institute of Health (grant # ES017552). TP acknowledges the financial support of the Foundation for Polish Science (FOCUS Programme). Christoph Steinbach (DECHEMA) and the caNanoLab team are thanked for acting as additional liaisons for the DaNa2.0 Project (funded by the BMBF, Grant No. 03X0131) and caNanoLab (funded in whole or in part with Federal funds from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, under Contract No. HHSN261200800001E) databases respectively.
Publisher
Peer Reviewed
Language
Replaces
Additional Information
  • description.provenance : Submitted by Patricia Black (patricia.black@oregonstate.edu) on 2016-06-14T14:23:08Z No. of bitstreams: 4 license_rdf: 1370 bytes, checksum: cd1af5ab51bcc7a5280cf305303530e9 (MD5) MarcheseRobinsonHowShouldCompleteness.pdf: 999284 bytes, checksum: 2cdb4157ce4b11136d27b49949fb6af0 (MD5) MarcheseRobinsonHowShouldCompletenessSuppInfo.pdf: 1370149 bytes, checksum: 7d263e8b16a5af437762b270c85586a9 (MD5) MarcheseRobinsonHowShouldCompletenessSupp.zip: 308780 bytes, checksum: 9bc0c6be0e1062a3c8de4390de68d993 (MD5)
  • description.provenance : Approved for entry into archive by Patricia Black(patricia.black@oregonstate.edu) on 2016-06-14T14:24:44Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 4 license_rdf: 1370 bytes, checksum: cd1af5ab51bcc7a5280cf305303530e9 (MD5) MarcheseRobinsonHowShouldCompleteness.pdf: 999284 bytes, checksum: 2cdb4157ce4b11136d27b49949fb6af0 (MD5) MarcheseRobinsonHowShouldCompletenessSuppInfo.pdf: 1370149 bytes, checksum: 7d263e8b16a5af437762b270c85586a9 (MD5) MarcheseRobinsonHowShouldCompletenessSupp.zip: 308780 bytes, checksum: 9bc0c6be0e1062a3c8de4390de68d993 (MD5)
  • description.provenance : Made available in DSpace on 2016-06-14T14:24:44Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 4 license_rdf: 1370 bytes, checksum: cd1af5ab51bcc7a5280cf305303530e9 (MD5) MarcheseRobinsonHowShouldCompleteness.pdf: 999284 bytes, checksum: 2cdb4157ce4b11136d27b49949fb6af0 (MD5) MarcheseRobinsonHowShouldCompletenessSuppInfo.pdf: 1370149 bytes, checksum: 7d263e8b16a5af437762b270c85586a9 (MD5) MarcheseRobinsonHowShouldCompletenessSupp.zip: 308780 bytes, checksum: 9bc0c6be0e1062a3c8de4390de68d993 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016

Relationships

Parents:

This work has no parents.

Items