4.4 Article

Systematic analysis of the relationship between standardized prenatal exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls and mental and motor development during follow-up of nine children cohorts

期刊

REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY
卷 66, 期 1, 页码 130-146

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2013.03.002

关键词

PCBs; Development; Children cohorts; Exposure standardization; Systematic analysis; Hill criteria; Biological concentration-response relationship

资金

  1. Health Canada
  2. Chair of Toxicological Risk Assessment and Management of the Universite de Montreal
  3. Fonds de recherche du Quebec -Sante (FRQS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Impact of prenatal exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) on mental and motor development has been investigated in various children cohorts, but findings show temporal inconsistencies. Because a direct comparison of results obtained from different cohorts remains difficult, temporal relationship between biological PCB concentrations and long-term developmental effects is still not clearly established. The objective of this research was to use a procedure previously developed to standardize PCB biological concentration data across cohorts in order to perform a systematic analysis of temporal associations between prenatal PCB exposure and mental and motor development from neonatal period (or a young age) until school age. Prenatal exposure data from nine cohorts were standardized in terms of total PCBs per kg of lipids in maternal plasma. Systematic analysis of the standardized biological concentration-development relationship during follow-up of each cohort was then conducted through the application of Hill criteria. This led to retain six of the studied cohorts in the final analysis. A biological level of prenatal PCB exposure below which risk of mental or motor development should be negligible was established in the order of 1000 mu g/kg of lipids in maternal plasma. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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