A systematic review of how endocrine-disrupting contaminants are sampled in environmental compartments: wildlife impacts are overshadowed by environmental surveillance
Angela Simms, Kylie Robert, Ricky-John Spencer, Sarah Treby, Kelly Williams-Kelly, Candice Sexton, Rebecca Korossy-Horwood, Regan Terry, Abigail Parker, James Van Dyke
{"title":"A systematic review of how endocrine-disrupting contaminants are sampled in environmental compartments: wildlife impacts are overshadowed by environmental surveillance","authors":"Angela Simms, Kylie Robert, Ricky-John Spencer, Sarah Treby, Kelly Williams-Kelly, Candice Sexton, Rebecca Korossy-Horwood, Regan Terry, Abigail Parker, James Van Dyke","doi":"10.1007/s11356-025-36211-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Endocrine-disrupting contaminants (EDCs) are frequently monitored in environments because of their biological impacts on wildlife and humans. We conducted a systematic review using Web of Science to identify global research trends for EDC environmental sampling. Specifically, we aim to better understand geographic variation in (1) the compartment that EDCs were sampled in the environment; (2) the types of EDC sampled; and (3) the taxa that are sampled. A total of 9140 papers were found, of which 2554 were included in our review. The number of studies sampling EDCs varied between continents, with majority of research occurring in Europe, Asia, and North America. Although economy and access to technology will contribute to the number of articles published, we found the current output of research showed distinct disparities in sampling methods. Across all continents, water was the most frequently sampled compartment to determine EDC concentrations (sampled in 50–75% of studies). Wildlife was sampled far less often in studies across all continents, comprising 30% of studies at most. Pharmaceuticals were the most commonly studied chemical group, and fish were the most commonly sampled taxonomic group. Although far fewer studies sampled for EDCs in wildlife compared with abiotic compartments, these studies provide valuable information on the potential consequences of environmental EDC exposure and link environmental surveillance of EDCs with lab-measured organism-level effects. Studies that sampled only the water matrix for EDCs may be doing so as a proxy despite the large knowledge gaps on how environmental EDCs affect wildlife at varying concentrations.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":545,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science and Pollution Research","volume":"32 14","pages":"8670 - 8678"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11356-025-36211-y.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Science and Pollution Research","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-025-36211-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Endocrine-disrupting contaminants (EDCs) are frequently monitored in environments because of their biological impacts on wildlife and humans. We conducted a systematic review using Web of Science to identify global research trends for EDC environmental sampling. Specifically, we aim to better understand geographic variation in (1) the compartment that EDCs were sampled in the environment; (2) the types of EDC sampled; and (3) the taxa that are sampled. A total of 9140 papers were found, of which 2554 were included in our review. The number of studies sampling EDCs varied between continents, with majority of research occurring in Europe, Asia, and North America. Although economy and access to technology will contribute to the number of articles published, we found the current output of research showed distinct disparities in sampling methods. Across all continents, water was the most frequently sampled compartment to determine EDC concentrations (sampled in 50–75% of studies). Wildlife was sampled far less often in studies across all continents, comprising 30% of studies at most. Pharmaceuticals were the most commonly studied chemical group, and fish were the most commonly sampled taxonomic group. Although far fewer studies sampled for EDCs in wildlife compared with abiotic compartments, these studies provide valuable information on the potential consequences of environmental EDC exposure and link environmental surveillance of EDCs with lab-measured organism-level effects. Studies that sampled only the water matrix for EDCs may be doing so as a proxy despite the large knowledge gaps on how environmental EDCs affect wildlife at varying concentrations.
内分泌干扰污染物(EDCs)由于其对野生动物和人类的生物学影响而经常在环境中进行监测。我们使用Web of Science进行了系统回顾,以确定EDC环境采样的全球研究趋势。具体来说,我们的目标是更好地理解以下方面的地理差异:(1)环境中EDCs取样的隔室;(2) EDC的采样类型;(3)采样的分类群。共发现9140篇论文,其中2554篇被纳入我们的综述。取样EDCs的研究数量因大陆而异,大多数研究发生在欧洲、亚洲和北美。虽然经济和获取技术将有助于文章发表的数量,我们发现目前的研究产出在抽样方法上显示出明显的差异。在所有大陆,水是测定EDC浓度最常取样的区域(在50-75%的研究中取样)。在所有大陆的研究中,野生动物的采样频率要低得多,最多只占研究的30%。药物是最常被研究的化学类群,鱼类是最常被取样的分类类群。尽管与非生物隔间相比,野生动物中EDCs的研究样本要少得多,但这些研究提供了有关环境EDCs暴露潜在后果的宝贵信息,并将EDCs的环境监测与实验室测量的生物体水平影响联系起来。尽管在环境中不同浓度的EDCs如何影响野生动物方面存在巨大的知识缺口,但仅从水基质中取样EDCs的研究可能是一种替代方法。
期刊介绍:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (ESPR) serves the international community in all areas of Environmental Science and related subjects with emphasis on chemical compounds. This includes:
- Terrestrial Biology and Ecology
- Aquatic Biology and Ecology
- Atmospheric Chemistry
- Environmental Microbiology/Biobased Energy Sources
- Phytoremediation and Ecosystem Restoration
- Environmental Analyses and Monitoring
- Assessment of Risks and Interactions of Pollutants in the Environment
- Conservation Biology and Sustainable Agriculture
- Impact of Chemicals/Pollutants on Human and Animal Health
It reports from a broad interdisciplinary outlook.