Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34775973›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health : a global access science source2021

Role of epidemiology in risk assessment: a case study of five ortho-phthalates.

Maricel V Maffini, Birgit Geueke, Ksenia Groh, Bethanie Carney Almroth, Jane Muncke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health : a global access science source, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Endocrine Disruptors and Prostate Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
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

5 authors.

Maricel V MaffiniIndependent Consultant, Frederick, MD, USA. drmvma@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-3853-9461
Birgit GeuekeFood Packaging Forum Foundation, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-0749-3982
Ksenia GrohEawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Dübendorf, Switzerland.
Bethanie Carney AlmrothDepartment of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-5037-4612
Jane MunckeFood Packaging Forum Foundation, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-6942-0594

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe association between environmental chemical exposures and chronic diseases is of increasing concern. Chemical risk assessment relies heavily on pre-market toxicity testing to identify safe levels of exposure, often known as reference doses (RfD), expected to be protective of human health. Although some RfDs have been reassessed in light of new hazard information, it is not a common practice. Continuous surveillance of animal and human data, both in terms of exposures and associated health outcomes, could provide valuable information to risk assessors and regulators. Using ortho-phthalates as case study, we asked whether RfDs deduced from male reproductive toxicity studies and set by traditional regulatory toxicology approaches sufficiently protect the population for other health outcomes.

methodsWe searched for epidemiological studies on benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP), and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP). Data were extracted from studies where any of the five chemicals or their metabolites were measured and showed a statistically significant association with a health outcome; 38 studies met the criteria. We estimated intake for each phthalate from urinary metabolite concentration and compared estimated intake ranges associated with health endpoints to each phthalate's RfD.

resultFor DBP, DIBP, and BBP, the estimated intake ranges significantly associated with health endpoints were all below their individual RfDs. For DEHP, the intake range included associations at levels both below and above its RfD. For DCHP, no relevant studies could be identified. The significantly affected endpoints revealed by our analysis include metabolic, neurodevelopmental and behavioral disorders, obesity, and changes in hormone levels. Most of these conditions are not routinely evaluated in animal testing employed in regulatory toxicology.

conclusionWe conclude that for DBP, DIBP, BBP, and DEHP current RfDs estimated based on male reproductive toxicity may not be sufficiently protective of other health effects. Thus, a new approach is needed where post-market exposures, epidemiological and clinical data are systematically reviewed to ensure adequate health protection.

Indexed as

Environmental PollutantsPhthalic AcidsAnimalsEnvironmental ExposureHumansMaleObesityReproductionRisk AssessmentEnvironmental Pollutantsphthalic acidPhthalic AcidsEpidemiologyHuman healthPhthalatesReference doseRisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID34775973
PMCPMC8591894

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.