[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-197804-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":80,"doc-detail-197804-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":73,"head_meta":75,"extra_data":77,"updated_unix":79},105,"en","expert-stakeholders-perception-of-nanotechnology-in-different-application-areas-findings","Expert Stakeholders' Perception of Nanotechnology in Different Application Areas - Findings","","Quantitative results compare expert stakeholders’ perceived benefits and perceived risks of nanotechnology across multiple application areas, including medicine, environmental/energy technology, measuring instruments, cosmetics and hygiene, agriculture and food, packaging, electronics, coatings, materials production, catalysts and filters, and paint. Tables report means, standard deviations, benefit–risk differences, and correlations (Pearson r with two-tailed significance). Regression-style models assess how gender, education, self-rated knowledge, organizational importance, ethical concern, and perceived benefit or risk relate to outcomes.",{"@graph":14,"@context":72},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/general/","General",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/expert-stakeholders-perception-of-nanotechnology-in-different-application-areas-findings/197804/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/expert-stakeholders-perception-of-nanotechnology-in-different-application-areas-findings/197804.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Margaret","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-26","2026-09-03",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":33},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"How do experts’ perceived benefits and risks vary by application area?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"Perceived benefits are highest in electronics, coatings, materials production, catalysts and filters, while perceived risks generally differ by area, with medicine and measuring instruments showing notable benefit–risk gaps. Cosmetics and hygiene products and agriculture/food show negative benefit–risk differences.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"Are perceived benefit and perceived risk statistically correlated?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"Pearson correlations are mostly small and often not significant, but cosmetics and hygiene products show a significant negative correlation (−0.379, p=0.000). Agriculture and food and electronics also show negative correlations with marginal significance markers.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"Which factors explain outcomes in the model results?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"Model results indicate that ethical concern and the perceived importance of nanotechnology for the organization contribute in Model 2, while perceived benefit and perceived risk relate negatively. Gender and education show relatively modest coefficients across models.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":74,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":76,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":78,"site_id":7},197804,1788470859,{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":82},"success",[83,88,93,98,103,108,113,118,123],{"id":84,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},11,"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":89,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":90,"show_sort_weight":91,"slug":92},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":94,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":95,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":97},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":99,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":100,"show_sort_weight":101,"slug":102},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":104,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":105,"show_sort_weight":106,"slug":107},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":109,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":110,"show_sort_weight":111,"slug":112},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":114,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":115,"show_sort_weight":116,"slug":117},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":119,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":122},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":124,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":125},158,"general-158",{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":127},{"doc_id":78,"user_id":128,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":22,"category_id":124,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":33,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":109,"language":135,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":136,"faqs":137,"seo_title":138,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":79,"read_time":139},137451207643,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_3d24733baf745e90a7e4bdd5f77d97b2","| Area of application | Perceived benefita | Standard\u003Cbr>deviation | Perceived riskb | Standard\u003Cbr>deviation | Difference between\u003Cbr>perceived benefit andriskc |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| Medicine and medical care | 4.13 | 0.81 | 2.37 | 0.89 | 1.76 |\n| Environmental and energy technology | 3.94 | 0.97 | 2.32 | 1.02 | 1.62 |\n| Measuring instruments and sensors | 4.28 | 0.76 | 1.76 | 0.73 | 2.52 |\n| Cosmetics and hygiene products | 2.60 | 1.10 | 3.30 | 1.07 | − 0.70 |\n| Agriculture and food | 2.71 | 0.96 | 3.07 | 1.06 | − 0.36 |\n| Packaging | 3.34 | 1.15 | 2.32 | 0.96 | 1.02 |\n| Electronics | 4.42 | 0.81 | 2.00 | 0.87 | 2.42 |\n| Coatings | 4.42 | 0.74 | 2.41 | 1.02 | 2.01 |\n| Materials and material production | 4.40 | 0.78 | 2.52 | 0.99 | 1.88 |\n| Catalysts and filters | 4.36 | 0.76 | 2.24 | 0.91 | 2.12 |\n| Paint | 3.95 | 0.88 | 2.76 | 1.05 | 1.19 |\n| Total | 3.92 | 0.66 | 2.50 | 0.79 | 1.42 |\n\n\n| Area of application | Pearson correlation | Sig.\u003Cbr>(two-tailed) |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Medicine and medical care | − 0.016 | 0.865 |\n| Environmental and energy technology | 0.032 | 0.760 |\n| Measuring instruments and sensors | 0.000 | 1.000 |\n| Cosmetics and hygiene products | − 0.379 | 0.000** |\n| Agriculture and food | − 0.213 | 0.053† |\n| Packaging | − 0.179 | 0.114 |\n| Electronics | − 0.175 | 0.083† |\n| Coatings | − 0.092 | 0.331 |\n| Materials and material production | − 0.037 | 0.706 |\n| Catalysts and filters | − 0.072 | 0.512 |\n| Paint | 0.002 | 0.987 |\n\n\n| Variables | Model 1 | Model 2 |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Gender | − 0.11 | − 0.08 |\n| Education | − 0.04 | 0.03 |\n| Self-rated knowledge |  | − 0.07 |\n| Importance of nanotechnology for the organization |  | − 0.16 |\n| Ethical concern |  | 0.34*** |\n| Perceived benefit |  | − 0.18* |\n| Total | \u003C 1% | 16.3% |\n\n| Variables | Model 1 | Model 2 |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Gender | 0.13 | 0.07 |\n| Education | − 0.01 | − 0.06 |\n| Self-rated knowledge |  | − 0.03 |\n| Importance of nanotechnology for the organization |  | 0.38*** |\n| Ethical concern |  | 0.04 |\n| Perceived risk |  | − 0.16† |\n| Total | \u003C 1% | 10.0% |\n\n\n|  | n | Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Balancef |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| Regulation is insufficienta | 154 | 3.66 | 1.14 | 6 | 20 | 39 | 44 | 45 | 40.9 |\n| Self-regulationb | 156 | 2.01 | 1.02 | 61 | 48 | 36 | 7 | 4 | − 62.8 |\n| Labelingc | 155 | 2.90 | 1.39 | 35 | 27 | 37 | 30 | 26 | − 3.9 |\n| Selective bansd | 151 | 3.40 | 1.31 | 14 | 27 | 35 | 34 | 41 | 22.5 |\n| Taxatione | 149 | 1.53 | 0.85 | 95 | 36 | 14 | 1 | 3 | − 85.2 |","cbCairf3IKFKYwhz","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCairf3IKFKYwhz","pdf",451824,"English","# Perceived benefit and perceived risk across application areas\n## Benefit–risk differences and descriptive statistics\n# Correlation analysis between perceived benefit and risk\n## Pearson correlation and significance\n# Multivariate model results\n## Predictors and explained variance","[{\"question\":\"How do experts’ perceived benefits and risks vary by application area?\",\"answer\":\"Perceived benefits are highest in electronics, coatings, materials production, catalysts and filters, while perceived risks generally differ by area, with medicine and measuring instruments showing notable benefit–risk gaps. Cosmetics and hygiene products and agriculture/food show negative benefit–risk differences.\"},{\"question\":\"Are perceived benefit and perceived risk statistically correlated?\",\"answer\":\"Pearson correlations are mostly small and often not significant, but cosmetics and hygiene products show a significant negative correlation (−0.379, p=0.000). Agriculture and food and electronics also show negative correlations with marginal significance markers.\"},{\"question\":\"Which factors explain outcomes in the model results?\",\"answer\":\"Model results indicate that ethical concern and the perceived importance of nanotechnology for the organization contribute in Model 2, while perceived benefit and perceived risk relate negatively. Gender and education show relatively modest coefficients across models.\"}]","Expert Stakeholders' Perception of Nanotechnology in Different Application Areas - Findings | PDF",6]