Recycling of electric and electronic waste products (e-waste) which amounted to more than 50 million metric tonnes per year worldwide is a massive and global operation. Unfortunately, an estimated 70-80% of this waste has not been properly managed because the waste went from developed to low-income countries to be dumped into landfills or informally recycled. Such recycling has been carried out either directly on landfill sites or in small, often family-run recycling shops without much regulations or oversights. The process traditionally involved manual dismantling, cleaning with hazardous solvents, burning and melting on open fires, etc., which would generate a variety of toxic substances and exposure/hazards to applicators, family members, proximate residents and the environment. The situation clearly calls for global responsibility to reduce the impact on human health and the environment, especially in developing countries where poor residents have been shouldering the hazardous burden. On the other hand, formal e-waste recycling has been mainly conducted in small scales in industrialised countries. Whether the latter process would impose less risk to populations and environment has not been determined yet. Therefore, the main objectives of this review are: 1. to address current trends and emerging threats of not only informal but also formal e-waste management practices, and 2. to propose adequate measures and interventions. A major recommendation is to conduct independent surveillance of compliance with e-waste trading and processing according to the Basel Ban Amendment. The recycling industry needs to be carefully evaluated by joint effort from international agencies, producing industries and other stakeholders to develop better processes. Subsequent transition to more sustainable and equitable e-waste management solutions should result in more effective use of natural resources, and in prevention of adverse effects on health and the environment.

Background: Allergic rhinitis (AR) impacts quality of life, work and school productivity. Over the last years, an important body of evidence resulting from mHealth data has led to a better understanding of AR. Such advances have motivated an EAACI‐endorsed update of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines (ARIA 2024–2025). This manuscript presents the ARIA 2024–2025 recommendations for intranasal treatments, one of the mainstays for AR management. Methods: The ARIA 2024–2025 guideline panel issued recommendations following the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence‐to‐decision framework. Several sources of evidence were used to inform panel judgments and recommendations, including systematic reviews, evaluation of mHealth and pharmacovigilance data, as well as a survey of experts on costs. Results: Eleven guideline questions concerning intranasal treatments for AR were prioritized, leading to recommendations. Overall, these questions concern the choice between different classes of intranasal medications—most notably, intranasal corticosteroids (INCS), antihistamines (INAH), fixed combinations of INAH+INCS and decongestants—or between different individual medications within each class. Four questions had not been evaluated in previous ARIA guidelines, while for the other three there was a change in the strength or directionality of recommendations. Overall, recommendations point to the suggested use of INAH+INCS over INAH or INCS and INCS over INAH. Conclusion: This ARIA 2024–2025 article supports patients, their caregivers, and healthcare professionals in choosing an intranasal treatment. However, decisions on AR treatment should consider the clinical variability of the disease, patients' values, and the affordability of medications.

Background: Hypersensitivity to contrast media (CMs) may be common and serious. Aim: To evaluate the prevalence of CM hypersensitivity, risk factors associated with it and the role of skin testing in its diagnosis. Methods: A structured questionnaire was administered to patients who underwent computed tomography during a 1-year period. Skin tests with CMs, including skin prick tests (SPTs), intradermal tests (IDTs) and patch tests (PTs), were conducted on CM reactors (n = 24). Volunteers who tolerated CM exposure or had never been exposed to any CMs served as controls (n = 37). Results: A total of 1,131 patients (630 females and 501 males; mean age 55 ± 14.2 years) were enrolled in the study. The prevalence of historical and current CM reactors was 33/1,131 (2.92%) and 8/1,105 (0.72%), respectively. The skin was the most affected site, with mild to moderate reactions. Female gender, a history of doctor-diagnosed asthma, drug allergy, food allergy and psychiatric diseases were significant risk factors. The sensitivities of SPTs and early readings of IDTs in the diagnosis of immediate reactions were 0 and 20%, respectively, and the specificities were 94.6 and 91.4%, respectively. For early readings of IDTs, the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were 40 and 80%, respectively. For nonimmediate reactions, the sensitivities of delayed readings of IDTs and PTs were 14.3 and 25%, respectively; specificity was 100% for both tests. The PPV was 100% for both of these tests, and the NPVs were 85.4 and 82.4%, respectively. Conclusions: Our findings are comparable with the incidence, profile and risk factors associated with CM hypersensitivity reported previously. Skin testing with CMs has a high specificity, but its role in diagnosis is limited due to low sensitivity.

Background: Pollen allergy poses a significant health and economic burden in Europe. Disease patterns are relatively homogeneous within Central and Northern European countries. However, no study broadly assessed the features of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) across different Southern European countries with a standardized approach.Objective: To describe sensitization profiles and clinical phenotypes of pollen allergic patients in nine Southern European cities with a uniform methodological approach.Methods: Within the @IT.2020 multicenter observational study, pediatric and adult patients suffering from SAR were recruited in nine urban study centers located in seven countries. Clinical questionnaires, skin prick tests (SPT) and specific IgE (sIgE) tests with a customized multiplex assay (Euroimmun Labordiagnostika, Lübeck, Germany) were performed.Results: Three hundred forty‐eight children (mean age 13.1 years, SD: 2.4 years) and 467 adults (mean age 35.7 years SD: 10.0 years) with a predominantly moderate to severe, persistent phenotype of SAR were recruited. Grass pollen major allergenic molecules (Phl p 1 and/or Phl p 5) ranged among the top three sensitizers in all study centers. Sensitization profiles were very heterogeneous, considering that patients in Rome were highly poly‐sensitized (sIgE to 3.8 major allergenic molecules per patient), while mono‐sensitization was prominent and heterogeneous in other cities, such as Marseille (sIgE to Cup a 1: n = 55/80, 68.8%) and Messina (sIgE to Par j 2: n = 47/82, 57.3%). Co‐sensitization to perennial allergens, as well as allergic comorbidities also broadly varied between study centers.Conclusions: In Southern European countries, pollen allergy is heterogeneous in terms of sensitization profiles and clinical manifestations. Despite the complexity, a unique molecular, multiplex, and customized in‐vitro IgE test detected relevant sensitization in all study centers. Nevertheless, this geographical diversity in pollen allergic patients imposes localized clinical guidelines and study protocols for clinical trials of SAR in this climatically complex region.

Background: Pollen food allergy syndrome (PFAS) is a frequently underdiagnosed disease due to diverse triggers, clinical presentations, and test results. This is especially relevant in geographic areas with a broad spectrum of pollen sensitization, such as Southern Europe.Objectives: To elucidate similarities and differences of PFAS in nine Southern European centers and identify associated characteristics and unique markers of PFAS.Methods: As part of the @IT.2020 Multicenter Study, 815 patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), aged 10–60 years, were recruited in seven countries. They completed questionnaires regarding SAR, comorbidities, family history, and PFAS, and underwent skin prick testing (SPT) and serum IgE testing.Results: Of the 815 patients, 167 (20.5%) reported PFAS reactions. Most commonly, eliciting foods were kiwi (58, 34.7%), peach (43, 25.7%), and melon (26, 15.6%). Reported reactions were mostly local (216/319, 67.7%), occurring within 5 min of contact with elicitors (209/319, 65.5%). Associated characteristics included positive IgE to at least one panallergen (profilin, PR‐10, or nsLTP) (p = 0.007), maternal PFAS (OR: 3.716, p = 0.026), and asthma (OR: 1.752, p = 0.073). Between centers, heterogeneity in prevalence (Marseille: 7.5% vs. Rome: 41.4%, p < 0.001) and of clinical characteristics was apparent. Cypress played a limited role, with only 1/22 SPT mono‐sensitized patients reporting a food reaction (p < 0.073).Conclusions: PFAS is a frequent comorbidity in Southern European SAR patients. Significant heterogeneity of clinical characteristics in PFAS patients among the centers was observed and may be related to the different pollen sensitization patterns in each geographic area. IgE to panallergen(s), maternal PFAS, and asthma could be PFAS‐associated characteristics.

Background and Objective: The updated World Health Organization (WHO) air quality guideline recommends an annual mean concentration of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) not exceeding 5 or 15 μg/m³ in the short‐term (24 h) for no more than 3–4 days annually. However, more than 90% of the global population is currently exposed to daily concentrations surpassing these limits, especially during extreme weather conditions and due to transboundary dust transport influenced by climate change. Herein, the effect of respirable <PM2.5 inorganic silica particle exposures on epithelial barrier integrity was simultaneously evaluated within the biomimetic microfluidic platform‐based airway epithelial barrier (AEB)‐on‐a‐chip and human bronchoscopic ex vivo airway tissue models, comparatively.Methods: Silica particles at an average size of 1 μm, referred to as <PM2.5, dose‐dependently tested by MTT and LDH analyses. The elicited dose of 800 μg/mL was applied to human airway epithelial cells (Calu‐3) seeded to the membrane at air–liquid interface in the AEB‐on‐a‐chip platform, which is operated under static and dynamic conditions and to ex vivo human bronchoscopy bronchial tissue slices for 72 h. For both models, healthy and exposed groups were comparatively investigated. Computational fluid dynamics simulations were performed to assess shear stress profiles under different flow conditions. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were carried out to evaluate the resilience of the epithelial barrier via cell survivability, morphology, barrier integrity, permeability, and inflammation.Results: In the AEB‐on‐a‐chip platform, short‐term exposure to 800 μg/mL PM2.5 disrupted AEB integrity via increasing barrier permeability, decreasing cell adhesion‐barrier markers such as ZO‐1, Vinculin, ACE2, and CD31, impaired cell viability and increased the expression levels of proinflammatory markers; IFNs, IL‐6, IL‐1s, TNF‐α, CD68, CD80, and Inos, mostly under dynamic conditions. Besides, decreased tissue viability, impaired tissue integrity via decreasing of Vinculin, ACE2, β‐catenin, and E‐cadherin, and also proinflammatory response with elevated CD68, IL‐1α, IL‐6, IFN‐Ɣ, Inos, and CD80 markers, were observed after PM2.5 exposure in ex vivo tissue.Conclusion: The duration and concentration of PM2.5 that can be exposed during extreme weather conditions and natural events aligns with our exposure model (0–800 μg/mL 72 h). At this level of exposure, the resilience of the epithelial barrier is demonstrated by both AEB‐on‐a‐chip platform emulating dynamic forces in the body and ex vivo bronchial biopsy slices. Lung‐on‐a‐chip models will serve as reliable exposure models in this context.