Use of "of" in describing nouns

No, I don't think there's any "rule" about it. That said, I think common usage would generally reflect the "of" examples. But that might still depend on the context. I can imagine cases where I would choose "risk of contamination" over "contamination risk," and vice versa, for example.

I agree with layman. It really depends on the situation. Without context it's hard to tell which option best suits the tone of whatever it is you're intending to convey.

Person 1: Use the same knife to cut the chicken.
Person 2: But that's a contamination risk! OR But that will increase the risk of contamination!

Both responses are acceptable.

Thank you for your quick answer. From my searches online it appears that you may be correct in that there is no rule. However, I have had a few people correct me in using "of" and others correct me when not using "of" in articles that I have previously written, which made me wonder about the existence of such a rule. I would greatly appreciate any additional input.

Update: There are many different examples of this in my current work. Two of these examples include 1) "movements of fish have often been associated with predator-prey interactions, with individuals moving to decrease RISK OF PREDATION" 2) "Temperature appeared to have a greater effect on FISH DEPTH at a larger temporal-scale" .

Well, I'm not sure what to add, exactly, but I would say that "contamination risk" is more formal-sounding than "risk of contamination." The first phrasing would be more likely to appear in academic or scientific papers than everyday speech.

A plumber might tell you about a "risk of contamination," whereas a paper written for the EPA might refer to the "contamination risk" of certain actions.

Sentence structure would also play a part. The way a sentence starts might suggest one usage over another in the latter part of the sentence. But it really boils down to the same thing.

More formal papers want to appear "objective" and "sophisticated."

Maybe they're talking about the fact that contamination risk and risk of contamination don't exactly denote the same thing. In contamination risk, contamination qualifies risk, much like any other noun could--student risk, government risk, war risk, whereas in risk of contamination, contamination is in possession of risk, or contamination possesses the risk; the exact equivalent of risk of contamination is contamination's risk, not contamination risk, which means you cannot use contamination risk and risk of contamination interchangeably all the time. In some instances, it will sound funny and be ungrammatical to do so.

I don't see that. In most cases the "risk" would "belong to" something other than the contamination itself. It would refer to the action which risks causing contamination.

Take the sentence "If you **** in your kitchen sink, instead of your toilet, there is a greater risk of contamination." The "risk" comes from (belongs to) shitting, not the possible resulting contamination.

Sure, but I'm talking about the construction itself. Of between two nouns is another ways of signifying the possession that an apostrophe after a noun would. The girl's name and the name of the girl are exactly equivalent. Students' engagement and the engagement of students are exactly equivalent. The students possess the engagement, or the engagement belongs to the students. However, in many instances, we could say student engagement instead of those options to mean the same thing but it is not an exact equivalent which is why where the other two are always interchangeable, the latter cannot always be swapped for the other two.

Of course, I could be wrong. Sorry if I am.

I'm no expert grammarian, and I wouldn't say you are "wrong." But I would suggest that, like many other words, the word "of" can signify different things in different contexts.

I think you are describing "a" meaning, but not the only possible meaning. Of course everyday speech does not always (or even generally) strictly adhere to formal rules of grammar.

This is true. But I still think what I've said rings true for some of the errors his colleagues have pinpointed in his research paper.