Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19002593›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental geochemistry and health2009

Transport and dynamics of toxic pollutants in the natural environment and their effect on human health: research gaps and challenge.

Andrew Hursthouse, George Kowalczyk

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental geochemistry and health, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Andrew HursthouseSchool of Engineering & Science, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley Campus, Paisley PA12BE, UK. Andrew.hursthouse@uws.ac.uk
George Kowalczyk
Greater Manchester Police · GBUniversity of the West of Scotland · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The source-pathway-receptor (SPR) approach to human exposure and risk assessment contains considerable uncertainty when using the refined modelling approaches to pollutant transport and dispersal, not least in how compounds of concern might be prioritized, proxy or indicator substances identified and the basic environmental and toxicological data collected. The impact of external environmental variables, urban systems and lifestyle is still poorly understood. This determines exposure of individuals and there are a number of methods being developed to provide more reliable spatial assessments. Within the human body, the dynamics of pollutants and effects on target organs from diffuse, transient sources of exposure sets ambitious challenges for traditional risk assessment approaches. Considerable potential exists in the application of, e.g. physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models. The reduction in uncertainties associated with the effects of contaminants on humans, transport and dynamics influencing exposure, implications of adult versus child exposure and lifestyle and the development of realistic toxicological and exposure data are all highlighted as urgent research needs. The potential to integrate environmental with toxicological models provides the next phase of research opportunity and should be used to drive empirical and model assessments.

Indexed as

Environmental ExposureEnvironmental HealthEnvironmental PollutantsHumansModels, TheoreticalRisk AssessmentUncertaintyEnvironmental Pollutants

Identifiers

PMID19002593
OpenAlexW2045690683

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.