| Title |
Developmental Exposures to Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs): An Update of Associated Health Outcomes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Environmental Health Reports, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40572-018-0173-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zeyan Liew, Houman Goudarzi, Youssef Oulhote |
| Abstract |
We reviewed and summarized the epidemiological evidence for the influence that pre- and postnatal exposures to perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) may have on health outcomes in offspring, with a particular focus on birth outcomes and postnatal growth, immunomodulatory effects and neurodevelopment. PFASs are persistent organic pollutants that have been widely produced and used in a range of commercial products since the 1950s. Human exposures to PFASs are nearly ubiquitous globally, but studies that addressed potential health effects of PFASs have only begun to accumulate in recent years. Animal studies suggest adverse effects resulting from developmental encompasses prenatal exposures to PFASs. In humans, the developing fetus is exposed to PFASs via active or passive placenta transfer, while newborns might be exposed via breastfeeding or PFAS in the home environment. Overall, epidemiological findings are consistent and suggest possible associations with fetal and postnatal growth and immune function, while the findings on neurodevelopmental endpoints to date are rather inconclusive. Methodological challenges and future directions for PFASs-focused research are discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 163 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 26 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 11% |
| Unknown | 60 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 22 | 13% |
| Chemistry | 10 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 9 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 38 | 23% |
| Unknown | 66 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 August 2023.
All research outputs
#1,108,907
of 24,294,722 outputs
Outputs from Current Environmental Health Reports
#51
of 340 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,671
of 335,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Environmental Health Reports
#5
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,294,722 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 340 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,807 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.