ArticleToxics2022
A Critical Scoping Review of Pesticide Exposure Biomonitoring Studies in Overhead Cultures.
Article in Toxics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Determination of pesticide residues in urine by chromatography-mass spectrometry: methods and applications.Frontiers in public health · 2024Review
- Article
- Health and Psychological Concerns of Communities Affected by Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances: The Case of Residents Living in the Orange Area of the Veneto Region.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Regional Variations in Pesticide Residue Detection Rates and Concentrations in Saudi Arabian Crops.Toxics · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The exposure of operators, workers, residents and bystanders to pesticides is of high potential concern. Yet, reports on pesticide residues in the environment and near treated fields often spark debates if such findings might indicate a health risk. Although the underlying models are considered conservative, there are only limited field data on systemic exposure available. As a first step to improve the situation, we conducted a scoping review of state-of-the-art pesticide exposure biomonitoring studies in operators, workers, residents or bystanders. In contrast to existing reviews, we focused on target cultures of potential high pesticide exposure such as tree-grown produce, vine or hops. The search was conducted in Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed. Out of 17 eligible articles, a total of 11 studies met our search criteria, and 6 of them quantified the systemic exposure of humans. The analysis revealed that exposure was mainly driven by application of pesticides and reentry work, resulting in a higher exposure of operators and workers than of residents and bystanders. In nearly all cases, the systemic exposure was below the relevant toxicological reference values. The studies were subsequently analyzed to identify key criteria for a reliable design of a biomonitoring study on pesticide exposure.
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.