For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
30
views
156
references
 Top references
cited by
51
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      838
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      The Florence Statement on Triclosan and Triclocarban

      brief-report

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary:

          The Florence Statement on Triclosan and Triclocarban documents a consensus of more than 200 scientists and medical professionals on the hazards of and lack of demonstrated benefit from common uses of triclosan and triclocarban. These chemicals may be used in thousands of personal care and consumer products as well as in building materials. Based on extensive peer-reviewed research, this statement concludes that triclosan and triclocarban are environmentally persistent endocrine disruptors that bioaccumulate in and are toxic to aquatic and other organisms. Evidence of other hazards to humans and ecosystems from triclosan and triclocarban is presented along with recommendations intended to prevent future harm from triclosan, triclocarban, and antimicrobial substances with similar properties and effects. Because antimicrobials can have unintended adverse health and environmental impacts, they should only be used when they provide an evidence-based health benefit. Greater transparency is needed in product formulations, and before an antimicrobial is incorporated into a product, the long-term health and ecological impacts should be evaluated. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1788

          Related collections

          Most cited references156

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Pharmaceuticals, Hormones, and Other Organic Wastewater Contaminants in U.S. Streams, 1999−2000:  A National Reconnaissance

          Dana Kolpin, Edward Furlong, Michael T Meyer … (2002)
          Article 0 comments Cited 506 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The 2005 World Health Organization reevaluation of human and Mammalian toxic equivalency factors for dioxins and dioxin-like compounds.

            Martin van den Berg, Linda S. Birnbaum, Michael H. Denison … (2006)
            In June 2005, a World Health Organization (WHO)-International Programme on Chemical Safety expert meeting was held in Geneva during which the toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) for dioxin-like compounds, including some polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), were reevaluated. For this reevaluation process, the refined TEF database recently published by Haws et al. (2006, Toxicol. Sci. 89, 4-30) was used as a starting point. Decisions about a TEF value were made based on a combination of unweighted relative effect potency (REP) distributions from this database, expert judgment, and point estimates. Previous TEFs were assigned in increments of 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, etc., but for this reevaluation, it was decided to use half order of magnitude increments on a logarithmic scale of 0.03, 0.1, 0.3, etc. Changes were decided by the expert panel for 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF) (TEF = 0.3), 1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF) (TEF = 0.03), octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and octachlorodibenzofuran (TEFs = 0.0003), 3,4,4',5-tetrachlorbiphenyl (PCB 81) (TEF = 0.0003), 3,3',4,4',5,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl (PCB 169) (TEF = 0.03), and a single TEF value (0.00003) for all relevant mono-ortho-substituted PCBs. Additivity, an important prerequisite of the TEF concept was again confirmed by results from recent in vivo mixture studies. Some experimental evidence shows that non-dioxin-like aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonists/antagonists are able to impact the overall toxic potency of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and related compounds, and this needs to be investigated further. Certain individual and groups of compounds were identified for possible future inclusion in the TEF concept, including 3,4,4'-TCB (PCB 37), polybrominated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans, mixed polyhalogenated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans, polyhalogenated naphthalenes, and polybrominated biphenyls. Concern was expressed about direct application of the TEF/total toxic equivalency (TEQ) approach to abiotic matrices, such as soil, sediment, etc., for direct application in human risk assessment. This is problematic as the present TEF scheme and TEQ methodology are primarily intended for estimating exposure and risks via oral ingestion (e.g., by dietary intake). A number of future approaches to determine alternative or additional TEFs were also identified. These included the use of a probabilistic methodology to determine TEFs that better describe the associated levels of uncertainty and "systemic" TEFs for blood and adipose tissue and TEQ for body burden.
            Article 0 comments Cited 505 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Effect of hand hygiene on infectious disease risk in the community setting: a meta-analysis.

              Allison Aiello, Rebecca Coulborn, Vanessa Perez … (2008)
              To quantify the effect of hand-hygiene interventions on rates of gastrointestinal and respiratory illnesses and to identify interventions that provide the greatest efficacy, we searched 4 electronic databases for hand-hygiene trials published from January 1960 through May 2007 and conducted meta-analyses to generate pooled rate ratios across interventions (N=30 studies). Improvements in hand hygiene resulted in reductions in gastrointestinal illness of 31% (95% confidence intervals [CI]=19%, 42%) and reductions in respiratory illness of 21% (95% CI=5%, 34%). The most beneficial intervention was hand-hygiene education with use of nonantibacterial soap. Use of antibacterial soap showed little added benefit compared with use of nonantibacterial soap. Hand hygiene is clearly effective against gastrointestinal and, to a lesser extent, respiratory infections. Studies examining hygiene practices during respiratory illness and interventions targeting aerosol transmission are needed.
              Article 0 comments Cited 255 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Environ Health Perspect
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Environ. Health Perspect
                Journal ID (publisher-id): EHP
                Title: Environmental Health Perspectives
                Publisher: Environmental Health Perspectives
                ISSN (Print): 0091-6765
                ISSN (Electronic): 1552-9924
                Publication date (Electronic): 20 June 2017
                Publication date Collection: June 2017
                Volume: 125
                Issue: 6
                Electronic Location Identifier: 064501
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ]Biodesign Center for Environmental Security, Arizona State University , Tempe, Arizona, USA
                [ 2 ]Green Science Policy Institute , Berkeley, California, USA
                [ 3 ]Department of Epidemiology, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina , Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
                [ 4 ]Environmental Working Group, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
                [ 5 ]Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geo-Engineering, University of Minnesota , Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
                [ 6 ]Medical University of South Carolina , Department of Public Health Sciences, Charleston, South Carolina, USA
                [ 7 ]Health Research Communication Strategies , Los Angeles, California, USA
                [ 8 ]Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, State University of New York, Downstate School of Public Health , Brooklyn, New York, USA
                [ 9 ]California Safe Cosmetics Program, California Department of Public Health , Richmond, California, USA
                [ 10 ]University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography , Narragansett, Rhode Island, USA
                [ 11 ]Institute for Biogeochemistry and Pollutant Dynamics , ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
                [ 12 ]Independent Researcher , Berkeley, California, USA
                [ 13 ]Science and Environmental Health Network, Ames, Iowa, USA
                [ 14 ]POPs Environmental Consulting, Schwäbisch Gmünd, Germany
                [ 15 ]University of Massachusetts Amherst , Amherst, Massachusetts, USA
                [ 16 ]Department of Chemistry, University of California at Berkeley , Berkeley, California, USA
                Author notes
                Address Correspondence to A. E. Lindeman, Green Science Policy Institute, P.O. Box 9127 Berkeley, CA 94709. Telephone: (510) 898-1739; E-mail: avery@ 123456GreenSciencePolicy.org
                Article
                Publisher ID: EHP1788
                DOI: 10.1289/EHP1788
                PMC ID: 5644973
                PubMed ID: 28632490
                SO-VID: e7bee49a-039e-46b7-a5ae-f0cb984c834f
                License:

                EHP is an open-access journal published with support from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health. All content is public domain unless otherwise noted.

                History
                Date received : 17 February 2017
                Date revision received : 06 April 2017
                Date accepted : 08 April 2017
                Categories
                Subject: Brief Communication

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Public health
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content838

                See all similar

                Cited by48

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors1,384

                See all reference authors