Materials Map

Discover the materials research landscape. Find experts, partners, networks.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Notice
  • Contact

The Materials Map is an open tool for improving networking and interdisciplinary exchange within materials research. It enables cross-database search for cooperation and network partners and discovering of the research landscape.

The dashboard provides detailed information about the selected scientist, e.g. publications. The dashboard can be filtered and shows the relationship to co-authors in different diagrams. In addition, a link is provided to find contact information.

×

Materials Map under construction

The Materials Map is still under development. In its current state, it is only based on one single data source and, thus, incomplete and contains duplicates. We are working on incorporating new open data sources like ORCID to improve the quality and the timeliness of our data. We will update Materials Map as soon as possible and kindly ask for your patience.

To Graph

1.080 Topics available

To Map

977 Locations available

693.932 PEOPLE
693.932 People People

693.932 People

Show results for 693.932 people that are selected by your search filters.

←

Page 1 of 27758

→
←

Page 1 of 0

→
PeopleLocationsStatistics
Naji, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 3
  • 2025
Motta, Antonella
  • 8
  • 52
  • 159
  • 2025
Aletan, Dirar
  • 1
  • 1
  • 0
  • 2025
Mohamed, Tarek
  • 1
  • 7
  • 2
  • 2025
Ertürk, Emre
  • 2
  • 3
  • 0
  • 2025
Taccardi, Nicola
  • 9
  • 81
  • 75
  • 2025
Kononenko, Denys
  • 1
  • 8
  • 2
  • 2025
Petrov, R. H.Madrid
  • 46
  • 125
  • 1k
  • 2025
Alshaaer, MazenBrussels
  • 17
  • 31
  • 172
  • 2025
Bih, L.
  • 15
  • 44
  • 145
  • 2025
Casati, R.
  • 31
  • 86
  • 661
  • 2025
Muller, Hermance
  • 1
  • 11
  • 0
  • 2025
Kočí, JanPrague
  • 28
  • 34
  • 209
  • 2025
Šuljagić, Marija
  • 10
  • 33
  • 43
  • 2025
Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-ArtemiBrussels
  • 14
  • 22
  • 158
  • 2025
Azam, Siraj
  • 1
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2025
Ospanova, Alyiya
  • 1
  • 6
  • 0
  • 2025
Blanpain, Bart
  • 568
  • 653
  • 13k
  • 2025
Ali, M. A.
  • 7
  • 75
  • 187
  • 2025
Popa, V.
  • 5
  • 12
  • 45
  • 2025
Rančić, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 0
  • 2025
Ollier, Nadège
  • 28
  • 75
  • 239
  • 2025
Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro
  • 4
  • 8
  • 25
  • 2025
Landes, Michael
  • 1
  • 9
  • 2
  • 2025
Rignanese, Gian-Marco
  • 15
  • 98
  • 805
  • 2025

Rosenbaum, Ralph K.

  • Google
  • 1
  • 22
  • 45

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (1/1 displayed)

  • 2010The clearwater consensus: the estimation of metal hazard in fresh water45citations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Mcgeer, James C.
1 / 1 shared
Hauschild, Michael Zwicky
1 / 3 shared
Diamond, Miriam L.
1 / 1 shared
Jolliet, Olivier
1 / 3 shared
Gandhi, Nilima
1 / 1 shared
Adams, William J.
1 / 1 shared
Atherton, John
1 / 1 shared
Bhavsar, Satyendra P.
1 / 1 shared
Bulle, Cecile
1 / 1 shared
Campbell, Peter G. C.
1 / 1 shared
Dubreuil, Alain
1 / 1 shared
Fairbrother, Anne
1 / 1 shared
Farley, Kevin
1 / 1 shared
Peijnenburg, Willie J. G. M.
1 / 3 shared
Vijver, Martina G.
1 / 2 shared
Meent, Dik Van De
1 / 1 shared
Guinee, Jeroen
1 / 1 shared
Green, Andrew
1 / 2 shared
Huijbregts, Mark A. J.
1 / 1 shared
Margni, Manuele
1 / 2 shared
Humbert, Sebastien
1 / 1 shared
Jensen, Karen S.
1 / 1 shared
Chart of publication period
2010

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Mcgeer, James C.
  • Hauschild, Michael Zwicky
  • Diamond, Miriam L.
  • Jolliet, Olivier
  • Gandhi, Nilima
  • Adams, William J.
  • Atherton, John
  • Bhavsar, Satyendra P.
  • Bulle, Cecile
  • Campbell, Peter G. C.
  • Dubreuil, Alain
  • Fairbrother, Anne
  • Farley, Kevin
  • Peijnenburg, Willie J. G. M.
  • Vijver, Martina G.
  • Meent, Dik Van De
  • Guinee, Jeroen
  • Green, Andrew
  • Huijbregts, Mark A. J.
  • Margni, Manuele
  • Humbert, Sebastien
  • Jensen, Karen S.
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

The clearwater consensus: the estimation of metal hazard in fresh water

  • Mcgeer, James C.
  • Hauschild, Michael Zwicky
  • Diamond, Miriam L.
  • Jolliet, Olivier
  • Gandhi, Nilima
  • Adams, William J.
  • Atherton, John
  • Bhavsar, Satyendra P.
  • Bulle, Cecile
  • Campbell, Peter G. C.
  • Dubreuil, Alain
  • Fairbrother, Anne
  • Farley, Kevin
  • Peijnenburg, Willie J. G. M.
  • Vijver, Martina G.
  • Rosenbaum, Ralph K.
  • Meent, Dik Van De
  • Guinee, Jeroen
  • Green, Andrew
  • Huijbregts, Mark A. J.
  • Margni, Manuele
  • Humbert, Sebastien
  • Jensen, Karen S.
Abstract

Background, aim, and scopeTask Force 3 of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative has been working towards developing scientifically sound methods for quantifying impacts of substances released into the environment. The Clearwater Consensus follows from the Lausanne (Jolliet et al. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:209–212, 2006) and Apeldoorn (Apeldoorn Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(5):334, 2004) statements by recommending an approach to and identifying further research for quantifying comparative toxicity potentials (CTPs) for ecotoxicological impacts to freshwater receptors from nonferrous metals. The Clearwater Consensus describes stages and considerations for calculating CTPs that address inconsistencies in assumptions and approaches for organic substances and nonferrous metals by focusing on quantifying the bioavailable fraction of a substance. MethodsA group of specialists in Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Impact Assessment, metal chemistry, and ecotoxicology met to review advances in research on which to base a consensus on recommended methods to calculate CTPs for metals. Conclusions and recommendationsConsensus was reached on introducing a bioavailability factor (BF) into calculating CTPs where the BF quantifies the fraction of total dissolved chemical that is truly dissolved, assuming that the latter is equivalent to the bioavailable fraction. This approach necessitates calculating the effects factor, based on a HC50EC50, according to the bioavailable fraction of chemical. The Consensus recommended deriving the BF using a geochemical model, specifically WHAM VI. Consensus was also reached on the need to incorporate into fate calculations the speciation, size fractions, and dissolution rates of metal complexes for the fate factor calculation. Consideration was given to the characteristics of the evaluative environment defined by the multimedia model, which is necessary because of the dependence of metal bioavailability on water chemistry.

Topics
  • impedance spectroscopy
  • toxicity