RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      검색결과 좁혀 보기

      선택해제
      • 좁혀본 항목 보기순서

        • 원문유무
        • 원문제공처
        • 등재정보
        • 학술지명
        • 주제분류
        • 발행연도
        • 작성언어
        • 저자
          펼치기

      오늘 본 자료

      • 오늘 본 자료가 없습니다.
      더보기
      • 무료
      • 기관 내 무료
      • 유료
      • SCISCIESCOPUS

        IARC Monographs: 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans

        Pearce, Neil,Blair, Aaron,Vineis, Paolo,Ahrens, Wolfgang,Andersen, Aage,Anto, Josep M.,Armstrong, Bruce K.,Baccarelli, Andrea A.,Beland, Frederick A.,Berrington, Amy,Bertazzi, Pier Alberto,Birnbaum, L U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Publ 2015 Environmental health perspectives Vol.123 No.6

        <P>Background: Recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also for the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that failures of IARC Working Groups to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans.</P><P>Objectives: The authors of this Commentary are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We examined criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. Here, we present the results of that examination, review the history of IARC evaluations, and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed.</P><P>Discussion: We concluded that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various disciplines and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed.</P><P>Conclusions: The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public’s health.</P><P>Citation: Pearce N, Blair A, Vineis P, Ahrens W, Andersen A, Anto JM, Armstrong BK, Baccarelli AA, Beland FA, Berrington A, Bertazzi PA, Birnbaum LS, Brownson RC, Bucher JR, Cantor KP, Cardis E, Cherrie JW, Christiani DC, Cocco P, Coggon D, Comba P, Demers PA, Dement JM, Douwes J, Eisen EA, Engel LS, Fenske RA, Fleming LE, Fletcher T, Fontham E, Forastiere F, Frentzel-Beyme R, Fritschi L, Gerin M, Goldberg M, Grandjean P, Grimsrud TK, Gustavsson P, Haines A, Hartge P, Hansen J, Hauptmann M, Heederik D, Hemminki K, Hemon D, Hertz-Picciotto I, Hoppin JA, Huff J, Jarvholm B, Kang D, Karagas MR, Kjaerheim K, Kjuus H, Kogevinas M, Kriebel D, Kristensen P, Kromhout H, Laden F, Lebailly P, LeMasters G, Lubin JH, Lynch CF, Lynge E, ‘t Mannetje A, McMichael AJ, McLaughlin JR, Marrett L, Martuzzi M, Merchant JA, Merler E, Merletti F, Miller A, Mirer FE, Monson R, Nordby KC, Olshan AF, Parent ME, Perera FP, Perry MJ, Pesatori AC, Pirastu R, Porta M, Pukkala E, Rice C, Richardson DB, Ritter L, Ritz B, Ronckers CM, Rushton L, Rusiecki JA, Rusyn I, Samet JM, Sandler DP, de Sanjose S, Schernhammer E, Seniori Costantini A, Seixas N, Shy C, Siemiatycki J, Silverman DT, Simonato L, Smith AH, Smith MT, Spinelli JJ, Spitz MR, Stallones L, Stayner LT, Steenland K, Stenzel M, Stewart BW, Stewart PA, Symanski E, Terracini B, Tolbert PE, Vainio H, Vena J, Vermeulen R, Victora CG, Ward EM, Weinberg CR, Weisenburger D, Wesseling C, Weiderpass E, Zahm SH. 2015. IARC Monographs: 40 years of evaluating carcinogenic hazards to humans. Environ Health Perspect 123:507–514; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409149</P>

      • KCI등재

        Performances and Biocompatibility of Prepared pH-Sensitive Cotton/Polyamide 6 Medical Dressings Dyed with Halochromic Dyes

        Roberta Peila,Alessio Varesano,Claudia Vineis,Roberta Cavalli,Monica Argenziano,Barbara Cravello,Cinzia Tonetti 한국섬유공학회 2022 Fibers and polymers Vol.23 No.8

        A natural pH-sensitive dye, curcumin, and a synthetic pH-sensitive dye, Bromothymol blue, were successfullyapplied on cotton/polyamide 6 medical dressings. The work addresses two different topics: on the one hand the dyeingprocess of the medical devices; on the other hand, the evaluation of the dyed medical dressing biocompatibility. Differentdye concentrations were tested to find the best dye exhaustion and dye fastness to washing and perspiration. The halochromictest evidenced a pH sensitivity in a range of pH from 5.5 to 8.0 and 8.5. These properties confirmed their possible usage aspotential pH textile sensors in the control of skin diseases. The last sections examine the biocompatibility of the preparedmedical devices with human skin. MTT assay on in vitro cultures of human epithelial cells (HaCaT keratinocytes) wasperformed to test the cytotoxicity. In vitro permeation studies with Franz cells were performed as well to evaluate the dyepotential accumulation in the skin layers. No cytotoxicity was detected as well as no dye permeation through the skin layers.

      • KCI등재

        Effect of the Bleaching on Physical and Mechanical Properties of Different Fabrics

        Giulia Dalla Fontana,Alessio Varesano,Claudia Vineis 한국섬유공학회 2018 Fibers and polymers Vol.19 No.12

        Two different commercial bleaching products containing hypochlorite were used on different fabrics (plain-weave cotton, knitted cotton, plain-weave polyester-cotton and knitted lycra-cotton) to verify possible fibres damages. Bleaching products differ each other for the alkaline formulation. In particular, one of them has an alkaline bleaching formulation and the other has a low-alkaline bleaching formulation. The degree of whiteness, the tensile and bursting strength, and the thermal and surface properties were evaluated after a different number of washing cycles. The obtained results reveal that the alkaline bleaching product is better than the low-alkaline bleaching product in maintaining mechanical properties and in improving optical properties of the fabrics.

      연관 검색어 추천

      이 검색어로 많이 본 자료

      활용도 높은 자료

      해외이동버튼