4.7 Review

Bisphenol S and F: A Systematic Review and Comparison of the Hormonal Activity of Bisphenol A Substitutes

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES
卷 123, 期 7, 页码 643-650

出版社

US DEPT HEALTH HUMAN SCIENCES PUBLIC HEALTH SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1408989

关键词

-

资金

  1. Arkansas Community Foundation
  2. Winslow Foundation
  3. Wallace Genetic Foundation
  4. International Chemical Secretariat

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Increasing concern over bisphenol A (BPA) as an endocrine-disrupting chemical and its possible effects on human health have prompted the removal of BPA from consumer products, often labeled BPA-free. Some of the chemical replacements, however, are also bisphenols and may have similar physiological effects in organisms. Bisphenol S (BPS) and bisphenol F (BPF) are two such BPA substitutes. OBJECTIVES: This review was carried out to evaluate the physiological effects and endocrine activities of the BPA substitutes BPS and BPF. Further, we compared the hormonal potency of BPS and BPF to that of BPA. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review based on the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) protocol. RESULTS: We identified the body of literature to date, consisting of 32 studies (25 in vitro only, and 7 in vivo). The majority of these studies examined the hormonal activities of BPS and BPF and found their potency to be in the same order of magnitude and of similar action as BPA (estrogenic, antiestrogenic, androgenic, and anti-androgenic) in vitro and in vivo. BPS also has potencies similar to that of estradiol in membrane-mediated pathways, which are important for cellular actions such as proliferation, differentiation, and death. BPS and BPF also showed other effects in vitro and in vivo, such as altered organ weights, reproductive end points, and enzyme expression. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current literature, BPS and BPF are as hormonally active as BPA, and they have endocrine-disrupting effects.

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