The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A critical review of glyphosate findings in human urine samples and comparison with the exposure of operators and consumers
Open accessAbstract
For active substances in plant protection products (PPP) with well defined urinary elimination, no potential for accumulation and virtually no metabolism, measuring of urine levels could be a powerful tool for human biomonitoring. Such data may provide reliable estimates of actual internal human exposure that can be compared to appropriate reference values, such as the ‘acceptable daily intake (ADI)’ or the ‘acceptable operator exposure level (AOEL)’. Traces of the active compound glyphosate were found in human urine samples, probably resulting either from occupational use for plant protection purposes or from dietary intake of residues. A critical review and comparison of data obtained in a total of seven studies from Europe and the US was performed. The conclusion can be drawn that no health concern was revealed because the resulting exposure estimates were by magnitudes lower than the ADI or the AOEL. The expected internal exposure was clearly below the worst-case predictions made in the evaluation of glyphosate as performed for the renewal of its approval within the European Union. However, differences in the extent of exposure with regard to the predominant occupational and dietary exposure routes and between Europe and North America became apparent.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Environmental and health effects of the herbicide glyphosate
Van Bruggen, A. H. C., He, M. M., Shin, K., Mai, V., Jeong, K. C., Finckh, M. R., & Morris, J. G. (2018) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.309 · Cited by 992
Bai, S. H., & Ogbourne, S. M. (2016) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-016-7425-3 · Cited by 431
Tarazona, J. V., Court-Marques, D., Tiramani, M., Reich, H., Pfeil, R., Istace, F., & Crivellente, F. (2017) · Archives of Toxicology · doi:10.1007/s00204-017-1962-5 · Cited by 402
Self-citationRecent advances in glyphosate biodegradation
Zhan, H., Feng, Y., Fan, X., & Chen, S. (2018) · Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology · doi:10.1007/s00253-018-9035-0 · Cited by 317
Meftaul, I. M., Venkateswarlu, K., Dharmarajan, R., Annamalai, P., Asaduzzaman, M., Parven, A., & Megharaj, M. (2020) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114372 · Cited by 218
Metadata
- Authors
- Niemann, L., Sieke, C., Pfeil, R., & Solecki, R.
- Venue
- Journal für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit
- Published
- 2015-01-08
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-12
- ISSN
- 1661-5751 (ISSN-L)
- 1661-5867
- OpenAlex
- W2072455688
- Cited by
- 212
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 20.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A critical review of glyphosate findings in human urine samples and comparison with the exposure of operators and consumers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s00003-014-0927-3
- The paper
- Niemann, L., Sieke, C., Pfeil, R., & Solecki, R. (2015). A critical review of glyphosate findings in human urine samples and comparison with the exposure of operators and consumers. Journal für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00003-014-0927-3
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.