ArticleEnvironmental health and preventive medicine2025
Detailed hazard assessment of ethylbenzene to establish an indoor air quality guideline in Japan.
Article in Environmental health and preventive medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIndoor air quality (IAQ) is an important determinant of human health. In Japan, IAQ guidelines have been established for 13 chemicals since 1997. Regarding ethylbenzene (EB), a previous guideline value of 3800 µg/m
methodsAs it was defined that the IAQ guidelines would not exert adverse health effects on humans even if they inhaled the chemicals from indoor air over a lifetime, we investigated the general toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, genotoxicity, and carcinogenicity of EB based on reliable hazard information cited in published assessment documents by domestic, foreign, or international risk assessment organizations. All the collected hazard information was examined, and we originally judged the no-observed adverse effect level and the lowest observed adverse effect level of each toxicity study. We then selected the most appropriate key study, an endpoint, and a point of departure and derived the hazard assessment values for each toxicity category. Finally, we selected a representative hazard assessment value for EB from the minimum hazard assessment value among general toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, and carcinogenicity.
resultsAmong the three toxicity categories, the minimum hazard assessment value was obtained from general toxicity, which was 0.0858 ppm (370 µg/m
conclusionsIt would be appropriate to adopt 0.0858 ppm (370 µg/m
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.