Structured expert judgement approach of the health impact of various chemicals and classes of chemicals.
Humans
Environmental Pollutants
/ toxicity
Environmental Exposure
/ adverse effects
Expert Testimony
Endocrine Disruptors
/ toxicity
Pesticides
/ toxicity
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
/ analysis
Arsenic
/ analysis
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
/ analysis
Environmental Pollution
/ analysis
Asbestos
/ adverse effects
Dioxins
/ toxicity
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2024
2024
Historique:
received:
25
01
2024
accepted:
26
04
2024
medline:
24
6
2024
pubmed:
24
6
2024
entrez:
24
6
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Chemical contamination and pollution are an ongoing threat to human health and the environment. The concern over the consequences of chemical exposures at the global level continues to grow. Because resources are constrained, there is a need to prioritize interventions focused on the greatest health impact. Data, especially related to chemical exposures, are rarely available for most substances of concern, and alternate methods to evaluate their impact are needed. A Structured Expert Judgment (Research Outreach, 2021) process was performed to provide plausible estimates of health impacts for 16 commonly found pollutants: asbestos, arsenic, benzene, chromium, cadmium, dioxins, fluoride, highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs), lead, mercury, polycyclic-aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), Per- and Polyfluorinated Substances (PFAs), phthalates, endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), and brominated flame retardants (BRFs). This process, undertaken by sector experts, weighed individual estimations of the probable global health scale health impacts of each pollutant using objective estimates of the expert opinions' statistical accuracy and informativeness. The foremost substances, in terms of mean projected annual total deaths, were lead, asbestos, arsenic, and HHPs. Lead surpasses the others by a large margin, with an estimated median value of 1.7 million deaths annually. The three other substances averaged between 136,000 and 274,000 deaths per year. Of the 12 other chemicals evaluated, none reached an estimated annual death count exceeding 100,000. These findings underscore the importance of prioritizing available resources on reducing and remediating the impacts of these key pollutants. Based on the evidence available, experts concluded some of the more notorious chemical pollutants, such as PCBs and dioxin, do not result in high levels of human health impact from a global scale perspective. However, the chemical toxicity of some compounds released in recent decades, such as Endocrine Disrupters and PFAs, cannot be ignored, even if current impacts are limited. Moreover, the impact of some chemicals may be disproportionately large in some geographic areas. Continued research and monitoring are essential; and a preventative approach is needed for chemicals. These results, and potential similar analyses of other chemicals, are provided as inputs to ongoing discussions about priority setting for global chemicals and pollution management. Furthermore, we suggest that this SEJ process be repeated periodically as new information becomes available.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38913645
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298504
pii: PONE-D-24-03460
doi:
Substances chimiques
Environmental Pollutants
0
Endocrine Disruptors
0
Pesticides
0
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
DFC2HB4I0K
Arsenic
N712M78A8G
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
0
Asbestos
1332-21-4
Dioxins
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0298504Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2024 Marti et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The nonprofit Pure Earth (David Hanrahan, Kate Porterfield, and Richard Fuller) has received funding historically from Open Philanthropy, GiveWell, Clarios Foundation, Trafigura Foundation, and Takeda Foundation. The other authors declare no competing interests. No funding was allocated for this project.