4.6 Review

Bisphenol-A and the Great Divide: A Review of Controversies in the Field of Endocrine Disruption

期刊

ENDOCRINE REVIEWS
卷 30, 期 1, 页码 75-95

出版社

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/er.2008-0021

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIEHS NIH HHS [R21 ES015182, R21 ES013884, ES08314, R01 ES008314, ES013884, ES015182] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In 1991, a group of 21 scientists gathered at the Wingspread Conference Center to discuss evidence of developmental alterations observed in wildlife populations after chemical exposures. There, the term endocrine disruptor was agreed upon to describe a class of chemicals including those that act as agonists and antagonists of the estrogen receptors (ERs), androgen receptor, thyroid hormone receptor, and others. This definition has since evolved, and the field has grown to encompass hundreds of chemicals. Despite significant advances in the study of endocrine disruptors, several controversies have sprung up and continue, including the debate over the existence of nonmonotonic dose response curves, the mechanisms of low-dose effects, and the importance of considering critical periods of exposure in experimental design. One chemical found ubiquitously in our environment, bisphenol-A (BPA), has received a tremendous amount of attention from research scientists, government panels, and the popular press. In this review, we have covered the above-mentioned controversies plus six additional issues that have divided scientists in the field of BPA research, namely: 1) mechanisms of BPA action; 2) levels of human exposure; 3) routes of human exposure; 4) pharmacokinetic models of BPA metabolism; 5) effects of BPA on exposed animals; and 6) links between BPA and cancer. Understanding these topics is essential for educating the public and medical professionals about potential risks associated with developmental exposure to BPA and other endocrine disruptors, the design of rigorously researched programs using both epidemiological and animal studies, and ultimately the development of a sound public health policy. (Endocrine Reviews 30: 75-95, 2009)

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

4.6
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