ReviewCommunications earth & environment2025
Environmental lead risk in the 21st century.
Review in Communications earth & environment, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic Review of Metallic, Industrial, and Pharmaceutical Emerging Contaminants in Snow and Ice: A Global Perspective from Polar and High-Mountain Regions.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Pooled it
- Childhood Lead Exposure in Primary Health Care Settings in Indonesia: A Cross-Sectional Study in Bogor City and Bogor Regency.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Community responses to soil remediation for lead exposure reduction in Mirzapur, Bangladesh.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Heavy Metals in Agriculture: Sources, Industrial Applications, Plant Toxicity, and Remediation Approaches.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Environmental exposures in the neonatal intensive care unit impacting neurodevelopmental outcomes for neonates.Pediatric research · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lead has been central to technological development for centuries; however, its release into the environment and subsequent human exposure pose significant public health risks. The review presented here critically assesses the contemporary environmental lead risk as global lead production and use are rapidly increasing, largely driven by the rising demand for electrification. We show that environmental lead exposure persists today due to legacy contamination, ongoing coal usage, and insufficient protection of workforces during production, use, and recycling of lead-acid batteries and other lead-containing products, particularly in low- and middle- income countries. We estimate that contemporary childhood lead exposure alone leads to an annual global economic loss exceeding $3.4 trillion (2021 US dollars adjusted for purchasing power parity), with pronounced disparities between high- and low- and middle- income countries. To prevent a large-scale resurgence in lead exposure, we identify four critical areas for urgent policy intervention.
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.