Affiliation:
1. Environment Canada , 70 Townsend Ave , Burlington , ON , Canada
2. Department of Population Health Sciences , UT Health San Antonio , San Antonio TX , USA
3. Department of Family and Community Medicine , UT Health San Antonio , San Antonio TX , USA
Abstract
Abstract
We reviewed published manuscripts from toxicology and epidemiology reporting harmful health effects and doses of persistent organic pollutants (POPs), published between 2000 and 2021. We found 42 in vitro, 32 in vivo, and 74 epidemiological studies and abstracted the dose associated with harm in a common Molar unit. We hypothesized that the dose associated with harm would vary between animal and human studies. To test this hypothesis, for each of several POPs, we assessed the significance of variation in the dose associated with a harmful effect [categorized as non-thyroid endocrine (NTE), developmental neurotoxicity (DNT), and Thyroid] with study type (in vitro, in vivo, and Epidemiology) using a linear model after adjustment for basis (lipid weight, wet weight). We created a Calculated Safety Factor (CSF) defined as the toxicology dose divided by epidemiology dose needed to exhibit significant harm.
Significant differences were found between study types ranging from <1 to 5.0 orders of magnitude in the dose associated with harm. Our CSFs in lipid weight varied from 12.4 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.3, 47) for NTE effects in Epidemiology relative to in vivo studies to 6,244 (95% CI 2510, 15530) for DNT effects in Epidemiology relative to in vitro in wet weight representing 12.4 to 6.2 thousand-fold more sensitivity in people relative to animals, and mechanistic models, respectively. In lipid weight, all CSF 95% CI lower bounds across effect categories were less than 6.5. CIs for CSFs ranged from less than one to four orders of magnitude for in vivo, and two to five orders of magnitude for in vitro vs. Epidemiology. A global CSF for all Epidemiology vs. all Toxicology was 104.6 (95% CI 72 to 152), significant at p<0.001.
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Pollution,Health (social science)
Reference20 articles.
1. Krimsky, S. The unsteady state and inertia of chemical regulation under the U.S.Toxic Substances Control Act. PLoS Biol 2017;15:e2002404. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2002404.
2. Gross, L, Birnbaum, L. Regulating toxic chemicals for public and environmental health. PLoS Biol 2017;15:e2004814.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004814.
3. Gwinn, MR, Axelrad, DA, Bahadori, T, Bussard, D, Cascio, WE, Deener, K, et al.. Chemical risk assessment: traditional vs public health perspectives. AJPH (Am J Public Health) 2017;107:1032–9. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2017.303771.
4. Vogel, SA, Roberts, JA. Why the toxic substances control act needs an overhaul, and how to strengthen oversight of chemicals in the interim. Health Aff 2011;30:898–905. PMID: 21555473. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0211.
5. National Academy Press. Effect of polybrominated diphenyl ethers on neurodevelopment. In: Application of Systematic Review Methods in an Overall Strategy for Evaluating Low-Dose Toxicity from Endocrine Active Chemicals; 2017. Chapter 4: Chapter 4 link: https://www.nap.edu/read/24758/chapter/6#135.
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献