4.7 Article

A systematic review on the adverse health effects of di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 23, 期 24, 页码 24642-24693

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-016-7648-3

关键词

Phthalates; Environmental exposures; Health; Systematic review; Toxicity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Di (ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) is a global environmental pollutant. This study aims to systematically review the literature on health effects of exposure to DEHP including effects on reproductive health, carcinogenesis, pregnancy outcome, and respiratory system. The literature search was done through Scopus, ISI Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Medline, and the reference lists of previous review articles to identify relevant articles published to June 2016 in each subject area. The inclusion criteria were as follows: original research, cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, cohort studies, interventional studies, and review articles. Both human and animal studies were included. The search was limited to English language papers. Conference papers, editorials, and letters were not included. The systematic review was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Overall, 152 of the 407 papers met the inclusion criteria. We provided an up-to-date comprehensive and critical assessment of both human and animal studies undertaken to explore the effects of DEHP. It revealed that in experimental studies, exposure to DEHP mainly targeted the reproductive, neurodevelopment, and respiratory systems. Human studies reported that exposure to this contaminant had carcinogenic effects and influenced neurodevelopment in early life. This systematic review underscored the adverse health effects of DEHP for pregnant women and the pediatric age group. It summarizes different response of humans and experimental animals to DEHP exposure, and some suggested underlying mechanisms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据