ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2018
Advancements in Life Cycle Human Exposure and Toxicity Characterization.
Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanistic Model for Simulating Pesticide Uptake into Maize Pollen.Journal of agricultural and food chemistry · 2026Article
- Endogenous "Time Bomb" - Mislocalized Phospholipase A2 as a Critical Mediator of Ultra-Rapid Mortality in Sepsis and Acute Lung Injury.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Framework for Function-Based Pesticide Substitution.Environmental science & technology · 2026Article
- Two-Stage Machine Learning-Based Approach to Predict Points of Departure for Human Noncancer and Developmental/Reproductive Effects.Environmental science & technology · 2024Article
- Generating environmental sampling and testing data for micro- and nanoplastics for use in life cycle impact assessment.The Science of the total environment · 2023Article
- Nanosafety: An Evolving Concept to Bring the Safest Possible Nanomaterials to Society and Environment.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Estimating mouthing exposure to chemicals in children's products.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2022Article
- Exposure and Toxicity Characterization of Chemical Emissions and Chemicals in Products: Global Recommendations and Implementation in USEtox.The international journal of life cycle assessment · 2021Article
- High Throughput Risk and Impact Screening of Chemicals in Consumer Products.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2021Article
- Assessing Human Exposure to SVOCs in Materials, Products, and Articles: A Modular Mechanistic Framework.Environmental science & technology · 2021Review
- Building a European exposure science strategy.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2020Review
- New Approach Methodologies for Exposure Science.Current opinion in toxicology · 2019Article
- Towards integrating toxicity characterization into environmental studies: case study of bromine in soils.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2019Article
- Integrating exposure to chemicals in building materials during use stage.The international journal of life cycle assessment · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors at 18 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Life Cycle Initiative, hosted at the United Nations Environment Programme, selected human toxicity impacts from exposure to chemical substances as an impact category that requires global guidance to overcome current assessment challenges. The initiative leadership established the Human Toxicity Task Force to develop guidance on assessing human exposure and toxicity impacts. Based on input gathered at three workshops addressing the main current scientific challenges and questions, the task force built a roadmap for advancing human toxicity characterization, primarily for use in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA).
objectivesThe present paper aims at reporting on the outcomes of the task force workshops along with interpretation of how these outcomes will impact the practice and reliability of toxicity characterization. The task force thereby focuses on two major issues that emerged from the workshops, namely considering near-field exposures and improving dose–response modeling. DISCUSSION: The task force recommended approaches to improve the assessment of human exposure, including capturing missing exposure settings and human receptor pathways by coupling additional fate and exposure processes in consumer and occupational environments (near field) with existing processes in outdoor environments (far field). To quantify overall aggregate exposure, the task force suggested that environments be coupled using a consistent set of quantified chemical mass fractions transferred among environmental compartments. With respect to dose–response, the task force was concerned about the way LCIA currently characterizes human toxicity effects, and discussed several potential solutions. A specific concern is the use of a (linear) dose–response extrapolation to zero. Another concern addresses the challenge of identifying a metric for human toxicity impacts that is aligned with the spatiotemporal resolution of present LCIA methodology, yet is adequate to indicate health impact potential.
conclusionsFurther research efforts are required based on our proposed set of recommendations for improving the characterization of human exposure and toxicity impacts in LCIA and other comparative assessment frameworks. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP3871.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.