Suchergebnisse

Some phthalates are known endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC). They are widely present in the environment thus their impact on children's health is of particular scientific interest. The aim of the study was to evaluate the association between phthalate exposure and neurodevelopmental outcomes, in particular behavioral, cognitive and psychomotor development, in 250 early school age children from the Polish Mother and Child Cohort (REPRO_PL). Urine samples were collected at the time of children's neurodevelopmental assessment and were analysed for 21 metabolites of 11 parent phthalates. Behavioral and emotional problems were assessed by the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) filled in by the mothers. To assess children's cognitive and psychomotor development, Polish adaptation of the Intelligence and Development Scales (IDS) was administered. The examination was performed by trained psychologists. Dimethyl phthalate (DMP) and di-n-butyl phthalate (DnBP) were the two phthalates showing the highest statistically significant associations, with higher total difficulties scores (β = 1.5, 95% CI 0.17; 2.7; β = 1.5, 95% CI 0.25; 2.8, respectively) as well as emotional symptoms and hyperactivity/inattention problems for DnBP (β = 0.46, 95% CI -0.024; 0.94; β = 0.72, 95% CI 0.065; 1.4, respectively), and peer relationships problems for DMP (β = 0.37, 95% CI -0.013; 0.76). In addition, DnBP and DMP have been found to be negatively associated with fluid IQ (β = −0.14, 95% CI -0.29; 0.0041) and crystallized IQ (β = −0.16, 95% CI -0.29; −0.025), respectively. In the case of mathematical skills, three phthalates, namely DMP (β = −0.17, 95% CI -0.31; −0.033), DEP (β = −0.16, 95% CI -0.29; −0.018) and DnBP (β = −0.14, 95% CI -0.28; 0.0012), have also shown statistically significant associations. This study indicates that exposure to some phthalates seems to be associated with adverse effects on behavioral and cognitive development of early school age children. Further action including legislation, educational and ...

environments for public health. Certain member states of the European Union (EU) have already achieved successes in improving indoor environmental quality, such as controlling certain contaminants (e.g., environmental tobacco smoke) or developing nationwide policies that address indoor air generally. However, a common European approach to achieving healthy indoor environments is desirable for several reasons including providing a broader recognition of the problem of unhealthy indoor air, setting a policy example for all 27 EU member states, and achieving greater public health equity across the different European nations. In this article we address the question "Why is it so difficult in the EU to develop a coherent approach on indoor environment?" We identify and describe four main barriers: a) the subsidiarity principle in EU policymaking, introducing decentralization of decision making to the member states ; b) fragmentation of the topic of the indoor environment ; c) the differences in climate and governance among different member states that make a common policy difficult ; and d) economic issues. We discuss potential lessons and recommendations from EU and U.S. successes in achieving healthier indoor environments through various policy mechanisms

environments for public health. Certain member states of the European Union (EU) have already achieved successes in improving indoor environmental quality, such as controlling certain contaminants (e.g., environmental tobacco smoke) or developing nationwide policies that address indoor air generally. However, a common European approach to achieving healthy indoor environments is desirable for several reasons including providing a broader recognition of the problem of unhealthy indoor air, setting a policy example for all 27 EU member states, and achieving greater public health equity across the different European nations. In this article we address the question "Why is it so difficult in the EU to develop a coherent approach on indoor environment?" We identify and describe four main barriers: a) the subsidiarity principle in EU policymaking, introducing decentralization of decision making to the member states ; b) fragmentation of the topic of the indoor environment ; c) the differences in climate and governance among different member states that make a common policy difficult ; and d) economic issues. We discuss potential lessons and recommendations from EU and U.S. successes in achieving healthier indoor environments through various policy mechanisms

ESCAPE Project. European Community's Seventh Framework Program (FP7/2007-2011-GA#211250). INMA. This study was funded by grants from Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Red INMA G03/176, CB06/02/0041, FIS-FEDER: PI03/1615,PI04/1509, PI04/1112, PI04/1931, PI04/1436, PI04/2018, PI05/1079, PI05/1052, PI06/1213, PI06/0867, PI07/0314, PI07/0252, PI08/1151, PI09/02647, PI09/02311, PS09/00090, PI11/02591, PI11/02038, PI13/02429, PI13/1944, PI13/2032, PI14/00891, PI14/01687,PI16/00118, PI17/00663, PI18/00909, and Miguel Servet-FEDER: MS13/00054, MS11/00178, MS16/00085, MSII16/00051, and CP18/00018), Generalitat de Catalunya-CIRIT 1999SGR 00241, La FundacióLa Marató de TV3 (090430), Generalitat Valenciana (FISABIO-UGP 15-230, 15-244, and 15-249), Fundación Alicia Koplowitz, Department of Health of the Basque Government (2005111093 and 2009111069), Provincial Government of Gipuzkoa (DFG06/004 and DFG08/001), Obra Social Cajastur/Fundación Liberbank, Universidad de Oviedo, Consejería de Salud de la Junta de Andalucía (grant number 183/07), EU Commission (QLK4-1999-01422, QLK4-2002 00603, CONTAMED FP7-ENV-12502, and FP7-ENV-2011 cod 282957), and Fundación Roger Torné. ISGlobal is a member of the CERCA Programme, Generalitat de Catalunya. (.)