4.8 Article

Global Trends and Diversity in Pentachlorophenol Levels in the Environment and in Humans: A Meta-Analysis

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 45, 期 11, 页码 4668-4675

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es1043563

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Key Technology RD Program [2006BAI19B02, 2008ZX07421-004]
  2. Discipline Pioneer Plan for Bureau of Health in Shanghai [08GWD]
  3. Dawn Scholar Plan in Shanghai [07SG01]
  4. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30972438, 30771770]
  5. National High-tech R&D Program of China [2008AA062501]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pentachlorophenol (PCP) was banned or restricted in many countries worldwide because of its adverse effects on the ecological environment and humans. However, the endocrine disrupting effects caused by low environmental PCP exposure levels has warranted more analysis. We reviewed 80 studies conducted in 21 countries and published between 1967 and 2010, using meta-regression analysis to examine the time trends and regional differences in PCP levels. The results suggested that in indoor air, bodies of water, freshwater sediments in western countries, invertebrates and freshwater vertebrates, PCP levels had declined over time, with half-lives ranging from 2.0 years to 11.1 years. However, in marine sediments/vertebrates and Chinese surface water/sediments, PCP levels increased over time. PCP levels in human blood and urine had decreased since the 1970s, with population half-lives of 3.6 years and 5.7 years, respectively. The intervals for global population blood and urine reference values decreased to 1.1-6.3 mu g/L (2002-2008) and 2.5-7 mu g/L (1995-2003), respectively. The possible thyroid disrupting effects and other health risks correlated with low environmental PCP exposure should be concerning. This study can help to ascertain the effects of the banning/restriction policy, providing data for cost-benefit analysis in policy-making and further control of health risks caused by low environmental exposure to PCP.

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

4.8
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