4.6 Review

Recent Trends in Multiclass Analysis of Emerging Endocrine Disrupting Contaminants (EDCs) in Drinking Water

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 27, 期 24, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules27248835

关键词

contaminants of emerging concern; analytical methods; instrumentation; evaluation; bioassay; non-targeted analysis

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health
  2. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIH-NIEHS) Center for Environmental Exposures and Disease (CEED) [P30 ES005022, T32 ES019854]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ingestion of water is a major pathway for human exposure to environmental contaminants, and emerging contaminants known as endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs) have gained recent attention. EDCs, which exist as mixtures of multiple classes of compounds in trace amounts, can cause adverse health effects even at low concentrations. Therefore, it is crucial to have the ability to evaluate EDC contamination with high sensitivity and accuracy.
Ingestion of water is a major route of human exposure to environmental contaminants. There have been numerous studies exploring the different compounds present in drinking water, with recent attention drawn to a new class of emerging contaminants: endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs). EDCs encompass a broad range of physio-chemically diverse compounds; from naturally occurring to manmade. Environmentally, EDCs are found as mixtures containing multiple classes at trace amounts. Human exposure to EDCs, even at low concentrations, is known to lead to adverse health effects. Therefore, the ability to evaluate EDC contamination with a high degree of sensitivity and accuracy is of the utmost importance. This review includes (i) discussion on the perceived and actual risks associated with EDC exposure (ii) regulatory actions that look to limit EDC contamination (iii) analytical methods, including sample preparation, instrumentation and bioassays that have been advanced and employed for multiclass EDC identification and quantitation.

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