Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40278613›Full record

ReviewToxics2025

Toxicity Assessment of Organophosphate Flame Retardants Using New Approach Methodologies.

Maryam Pyambri, Joaquim Jaumot, Carmen Bedia

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Toxics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. SynergisticiScience · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

3 authors.

Maryam PyambriEnvironmental Chemistry Department, Institute of Environmental Assessment and Water Research (IDAEA-CSIC), Jordi Girona 18-26, 08034 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-5836-6617
Joaquim JaumotEnvironmental Chemistry Department, Institute of Environmental Assessment and Water Research (IDAEA-CSIC), Jordi Girona 18-26, 08034 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-1461-3273
Carmen BediaEnvironmental Chemistry Department, Institute of Environmental Assessment and Water Research (IDAEA-CSIC), Jordi Girona 18-26, 08034 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4584-5843

Funding

Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades PID2022-140392OB-I00
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs) have increasingly replaced polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in various consumer products and raw materials, due to regulatory restrictions on PBDEs. However, concerns about the toxicity and environmental persistence of OPFRs are growing. This review summarizes current research on the toxicity of OPFRs, with a focus on New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) that aim to eliminate the need for animal testing. NAMs, including in vitro models, omics technologies, and computational methods, provide valuable insights into the cellular and molecular effects of OPFR exposure. Evidence suggests that OPFRs may disrupt multiple organ systems, including the nervous, hepatic, pulmonary, reproductive, and endocrine systems. Additionally, the metabolic transformation of OPFRs can increase their toxicity, raising concerns about long-term exposure risks. While NAM studies provide valuable insights, further research is needed to refine risk-assessment frameworks and improve our understanding of the long-term effects of OPFR exposure, particularly at concentrations found in the environment. This new knowledge will help develop more accurate regulatory guidelines and ensure the better protection of public and environmental health.

Indexed as

cell culturesin vitro methodsNew Approach Methodologiesomicsorganophosphate flame retardantstoxicity

Identifiers

PMID40278613
PMCPMC12031142

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.