Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31832729›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental management2020

Critical Review of Exposure and Effects: Implications for Setting Regulatory Health Criteria for Ingested Copper.

Alicia A Taylor, Joyce S Tsuji, Michael R Garry, Margaret E McArdle, William L Goodfellow, William J Adams, Charles A Menzie

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental management, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 109 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
109citing papers in PubMed
30.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

109 citing papers in PubMed, 497 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The Socio-Environmental Impact in the Adjacent Settlements of a Former Foundry.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  20. Article

49 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alicia A TaylorExponent, Inc., 475 14th Street, Suite 400, Oakland, CA, 94612, USA.
Joyce S TsujiExponent, Inc., 15375 SE 30th Place, Suite 250, Bellevue, WA, 98027, USA.
Michael R GarryExponent, Inc., 15375 SE 30th Place, Suite 250, Bellevue, WA, 98027, USA.
Margaret E McArdleExponent, Inc., One Mill and Main Place, Suite 150, Maynard, MA, 01754, USA.
William L GoodfellowExponent, Inc., 1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 500, Alexandria, VA, 22314, USA. wgoodfellow@exponent.com.
William J AdamsRed Cap Consulting, 7760 North Boulder Drive, Lake Point, UT, 84074, USA.
Charles A MenzieExponent, Inc., 1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 500, Alexandria, VA, 22314, USA.
Exponent (United States) · USBellevue Hospital Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Decades of study indicate that copper oral exposures are typically not a human health concern. Ingesting high levels of soluble copper salts can cause acute gastrointestinal symptoms and, in uncommon cases, liver toxicity in susceptible individuals with repeated exposure. This focused toxicological review evaluated the current literature since the last comprehensive reviews (2007-2010). Our review identified limitations in the existing United States and international guidance for determining an oral reference dose (RfD) for essential metals like copper. Instead, an alternative method using categorical regression analysis to develop an optimal dose that considers deficiency, toxicity, and integrates information from human and animal studies was reviewed for interpreting an oral RfD for copper. We also considered subchronic or chronic toxicity from genetic susceptibility to copper dysregulation leading to rare occurrences of liver and other organ toxicity with elevated copper exposure. Based on this approach, an oral RfD of 0.04 mg Cu/kg/day would be protective of acute or chronic toxicity in adults and children. This RfD is also protective for possible genetic susceptibility to elevated copper exposure and allows for background dietary exposures. This dose is not intended to be protective of patients with rare genetic disorders for copper sensitivity within typical nutritional intake ranges, nor is it protective for those with excessive supplement intake. Less soluble mineral forms of copper in soil have reduced bioavailability as compared with more soluble copper in water and diet, which should be considered in using this RfD for risk assessments of copper.

Indexed as

AdultAnimalsChildCopperHumansRisk AssessmentCopperCopperEssentialityRecommended dietary intakeRegulationRisk assessmentToxicity

Identifiers

PMID31832729
PMCPMC6960211
OpenAlexW2995245512

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.