↓ Skip to main content

Hazardous waste and health impact: a systematic review of the scientific literature

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Health, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
14 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
119 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
429 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Hazardous waste and health impact: a systematic review of the scientific literature
Published in
Environmental Health, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12940-017-0311-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

L. Fazzo, F. Minichilli, M. Santoro, A. Ceccarini, M. Della Seta, F. Bianchi, P. Comba, M. Martuzzi

Abstract

Waste is part of the agenda of the European Environment and Health Process and included among the topics of the Sixth Ministerial Conference on Environment and Health. Disposal and management of hazardous waste are worldwide challenges. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the evidence of the health impact of hazardous waste exposure, applying transparent and a priori defined methods. The following five steps, based on pre-defined systematic criteria, were applied. 1. Specify the research question, in terms of "Population-Exposure-Comparators-Outcomes" (PECO). people living near hazardous waste sites; Exposure: exposure to hazardous waste; Comparators: all comparators; Outcomes: all diseases/health disorders. 2. Carry out the literature search, in Medline and EMBASE. 3. Select studies for inclusion: original epidemiological studies, published between 1999 and 2015, on populations residentially exposed to hazardous waste. 4. Assess the quality of selected studies, taking into account study design, exposure and outcome assessment, confounding control. 5. Rate the confidence in the body of evidence for each outcome taking into account the reliability of each study, the strength of the association and concordance of results.Fifty-seven papers of epidemiological investigations on the health status of populations living near hazardous waste sites were selected for the evidence evaluation. The association between 95 health outcomes (diseases and disorders) and residential exposure to hazardous waste sites was evaluated. Health effects of residential hazardous waste exposure, previously partially unrecognized, were highlighted. Sufficient evidence was found of association between exposure to oil industry waste that releases high concentrations of hydrogen sulphide and acute symptoms. The evidence of causal relationship with hazardous waste was defined as limited for: liver, bladder, breast and testis cancers, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, asthma, congenital anomalies overall and anomalies of the neural tube, urogenital, connective and musculoskeletal systems, low birth weight and pre-term birth; evidence was defined as inadequate for the other health outcomes. The results, although not conclusive, provide indications that more effective public health policies on hazardous waste management are urgently needed. International, national and local authorities should oppose and eliminate poor, outdated and illegal practices of waste disposal, including illegal transboundary trade, and increase support regulation and its enforcement.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 429 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 429 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 66 15%
Student > Bachelor 44 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 7%
Researcher 31 7%
Student > Postgraduate 19 4%
Other 58 14%
Unknown 179 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 47 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 43 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 6%
Engineering 25 6%
Social Sciences 20 5%
Other 71 17%
Unknown 197 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 06 December 2023.
All research outputs
#1,237,291
of 25,750,437 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#267
of 1,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,848
of 334,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#4
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,750,437 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 1,617 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 334,711 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 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.