Dataset Information

Health Effects of Naphthalene Exposure: A Systematic Evidence Map and Analysis of Potential Considerations for Dose-Response Evaluation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Naphthalene is a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon that has been associated with health effects, including cancer. As the state of the science on naphthalene toxicity continues to evolve, updated toxicity reference value(s) may be required to support human health risk assessment.

Objectives

We present a systematic evidence map of studies that could be used to derive toxicity reference value(s) for naphthalene.

Methods

Human and animal health effect studies and physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models were identified from a literature search based on populations, exposures, comparators, and outcomes (PECO) criteria. Human and animal studies meeting PECO criteria were refined to a smaller subset considered most informative for deriving chronic reference value(s), which are preferred for assessing risk to the general public. This subset was evaluated for risk of bias and sensitivity, and the suitability of each study for dose-response analysis was qualitatively assessed. Lowest observed adverse effect levels (LOAELs) were extracted and summarized. Other potentially relevant studies (e.g., mechanistic and toxicokinetic studies) were tracked as supplemental information but not evaluated further. Existing reference values for naphthalene are also summarized.

Results

We identified 26 epidemiology studies and 16 animal studies that were considered most informative for further analysis. Eleven PBPK models were identified. The available epidemiology studies generally had significant risk of bias and/or sensitivity concerns and were mostly found to have low suitability for dose-response analysis due to the nature of the exposure measurements. The animal studies had fewer risk of bias and sensitivity concerns and were mostly found to be suitable for dose-response analysis.

Conclusion

Although both epidemiological and animal studies of naphthalene provide weight of evidence for hazard identification, the available animal studies appear more suitable for reference value derivation. PBPK models and mechanistic and toxicokinetic data can be applied to extrapolate these animal data to humans, considering mode of action and interspecies metabolic differences. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP7381.

SUBMITTER: Yost EE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8274693 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAntimicrobial resistance (AMR) is predicted to become the leading cause of death by 2050 with antibiotic resistance being an important component. Anthropogenic pollution introduces antibiotic resistant bacteria (ARB) and antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) to the natural environment. Currently, there is limited empirical evidence demonstrating whether humans are exposed to environmental AMR and whether this exposure can result in measurable human health outcomes. In recent years there has been increasing interest in the role of the environment and disparate evidence on transmission of AMR to humans has been generated but there has been no systematic attempt to summarise this. We aim to create two systematic maps that will collate the evidence for (1) the transmission of antibiotic resistance from the natural environment to humans on a global scale and (2) the state of antibiotic resistance in the environment in the United Kingdom.MethodsSearch strategies were developed for each map. Searches were undertaken in 13 bibliographic databases. Key websites were searched and experts consulted for grey literature. Search results were managed using EndNote X8. Titles and abstracts were screened, followed by the full texts. Articles were double screened at a minimum of 10% at both stages with consistency checking and discussion when disagreements arose. Data extraction occurred in Excel with bespoke forms designed. Data extracted from each selected study included: bibliographic information; study site location; exposure source; exposure route; human health outcome (Map 1); prevalence/percentage/abundance of ARB/antibiotic resistance elements (Map 2) and study design. EviAtlas was used to visualise outputs.ResultsFor Map 1, 40 articles were included, from 11,016 unique articles identified in searches, which investigated transmission of AMR from the environment to humans. Results from Map 1 showed that consumption/ingestion was the most studied transmission route. Exposure (n = 17), infection (n = 16) and colonisation (n = 11) being studied as an outcome a similar number of times, with mortality studied infrequently (n = 2). In addition, E. coli was the most highly studied bacterium (n = 16). For Map 2, we included 62 studies quantifying ARB or resistance elements in the environment in the UK, from 6874 unique articles were identified in the searches. The most highly researched species was mixed communities (n = 32). The most common methodology employed in this research question was phenotypic testing (n = 37). The most commonly reported outcome was the characterisation of ARBs (n = 40), followed by characterisation of ARGs (n = 35). Other genetic elements, such as screening for intI1 (n = 15) (which encodes a Class 1 integron which is used as a proxy for environmental ARGs) and point mutations (n = 1) were less frequently reported. Both maps showed that research was focused towards aquatic environments.ConclusionsBoth maps can be used by policy makers to show the global (Map 1) and UK (Map 2) research landscapes and provide an overview of the state of AMR in the environment and human health impacts of interacting with the environment. We have also identified (1) clusters of research which may be used to perform meta-analyses and (2) gaps in the evidence base where future primary research should focus.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13750-022-00262-2.

Project description:ObjectiveEvidence is scarce about the effect of noise exposure on the risk of dementia. We conducted a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis, aiming to explore the association between noise exposure and the risk of dementia.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library to collect studies on chronic noise exposure and the risk of dementia from database inception to September 18, 2021 without language limitations. Two authors independently screened the literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. A dose-response meta-analysis and subgroup analysis were then conducted to detect the association between noise exposure and the risk of dementia by using Stata 14.0 software. This study is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021249243).ResultsA total of 11 studies were eligible for qualitative synthesis, and nine were eligible for quantitative data synthesis. All of them showed moderate to high quality scores in the assessment of risk of bias. We found a positive linear association between the noise increment and dementia risk (R 2 = 0.58). When noise exposure increased 57 dB, the RR of dementia was 1.47 (95% CI: 1.21-1.78). From the outcome subgroup of AD, AD and dementia, VaD and NAD, we also found a positive association (R 2 = 0.68, 0.68, 0.58, respectively). When noise exposure increased by 25 dB, the RRs were 1.18 (95% CI: 1.14-1.23), 1.19 (95% CI: 1.14-1.23) and 1.17 (95% CI: 1.06-1.30), respectively. We found a nonlinear association between the noise increment and dementia risk when only cohort studies were included (R 2 = 0.58). When noise exposure increased by 25 dB, the RR of dementia was 1.16 (95% CI: 1.12-1.20). From the subgroup of AD, AD and dementia, VaD and NAD of cohort studies, the regression curve showed a nonlinear positive association (R 2 = 0.74, 0.71, 0.43, respectively). When noise exposure increased by 25 dB, the RRs were 1.17 (95% CI: 1.12-1.21), 1.17 (95% CI: 1.12-1.22) and 1.13 (95% CI: 0.99-1.28), respectively.ConclusionBased on the current evidence, exposure to noise may be a specific risk factor for dementia. To better prevent dementia, more rigorously designed studies are needed to explore the etiological mechanism of noise and dementia.