4.7 Review

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impacts of glyphosate on the reproductive hormones

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 29, 期 41, 页码 62030-62041

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-16145-x

关键词

Toxicology; Residual herbicides; Environmental; food contaminants; Reproductive disorder; Sexual hormones; Rat

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The worldwide use of glyphosate is increasing, with residues detected in various sources. Studies show controversial data on the potential reproductive adverse effects of glyphosate, with systematic review and meta-analysis revealing a significant impact on reproductive hormones in rats. Strict monitoring of residual glyphosate content in drinking water, agricultural crops, and food products is necessary to safeguard reproductive health.
Worldwide use of glyphosate is constantly increasing and its residues are detected in drinking water, agriculture, and food products. There are controversial data regarding the potential reproductive adverse effects of glyphosate herbicide. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the studies in which the alteration of at least one sexual hormone including testosterone, luteinizing hormone (LH), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), and estradiol was reported as a measured outcome in rats. In November 2020, 284 articles were screened, of which eight were eligible for the meta-analysis. An overall considerable effect of glyphosate exposure was found on decreasing of testosterone (7 studies, WMD = - 1.48 ng/mL; 95% CI, - 2.34 to - 0.61; P = 0.001), LH (3 studies, WMD = - 2.03 mIu/mL; 95% CI, - 3.34 to - 0.71; P = 0.003), and FSH (3 studies, WMD = - 2.28 mIu/mL; 95% CI, - 5.12 to 0.55; P = 0.115). According to our results, glyphosate intake could have major effects on the health of reproductive system. Consequently, strict monitoring of the residual glyphosate content in the drinking water, agricultural crops, and food products is necessary.

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