IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0298504.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Structured expert judgement approach of the health impact of various chemicals and classes of chemicals

Author

Listed:
  • Deniz Marti
  • David Hanrahan
  • Ernesto Sanchez-Triana
  • Mona Wells
  • Lilian Corra
  • Howard Hu
  • Patrick N Breysse
  • Amalia Laborde
  • Jack Caravanos
  • Roberto Bertollini
  • Kate Porterfield
  • Richard Fuller

Abstract

Introduction: 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. Structured expert judgment (SEJ) process: 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. Main findings: 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. Range of health impacts: 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. Future directions: 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Deniz Marti & David Hanrahan & Ernesto Sanchez-Triana & Mona Wells & Lilian Corra & Howard Hu & Patrick N Breysse & Amalia Laborde & Jack Caravanos & Roberto Bertollini & Kate Porterfield & Richard Fu, 2024. "Structured expert judgement approach of the health impact of various chemicals and classes of chemicals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(6), pages 1-13, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0298504
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298504
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0298504
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0298504&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0298504?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0298504. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.