1
|
Clewell HJ, Fuchsman PC. Interspecies scaling of toxicity reference values in human health versus ecological risk assessments: A critical review. INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT 2024; 20:749-764. [PMID: 37724480 DOI: 10.1002/ieam.4842] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2023] [Revised: 08/08/2023] [Accepted: 09/07/2023] [Indexed: 09/20/2023]
Abstract
Risk assessments that focus on anthropogenic chemicals in environmental media-whether considering human health or ecological effects-often rely on toxicity data from experimentally studied species to estimate safe exposures for species that lack similar data. Current default extrapolation approaches used in both human health risk assessments and ecological risk assessments (ERAs) account for differences in body weight between the test organisms and the species of interest, but the two default approaches differ in important ways. Human health risk assessments currently employ a default based on body weight raised to the three-quarters power. Ecological risk assessments for wildlife (i.e., mammals and birds) are typically based directly on body weight, as measured in the test organism and receptor species. This review describes differences in the experimental data underlying these default practices and discusses the many factors that affect interspecies variability in chemical exposures. The interplay of these different factors can lead to substantial departures from default expectations. Alternative methodologies for conducting more accurate interspecies extrapolations in ERAs for wildlife are discussed, including tissue-based toxicity reference values, physiologically based toxicokinetic and/or toxicodynamic modeling, chemical read-across, and a system of categorical defaults based on route of exposure and toxic mode of action. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:749-764. © 2023 SETAC.
Collapse
|
2
|
Joachim T, Cyril F, Ronan C, Gaud D, Agnès F. Design of a generic model based on physiology for persistent organic pollutants in laying hens: Applications on chlordecone and chlorinated paraffins. THE SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT 2024; 917:170447. [PMID: 38290669 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.170447] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/02/2023] [Revised: 01/23/2024] [Accepted: 01/23/2024] [Indexed: 02/01/2024]
Abstract
A Physiology Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model has been developed to predict the kinetics of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) in laying hens. Different datasets have enabled the calibration of the model for chlordecone (CLD), an organochlorine pesticide used in the French West Indies between 1972 and 1993, as well as for chlorinated paraffins (CPs), widely used for various industrial applications worldwide. For this purpose, the sensitivity analysis showed that intake parameters, laying rate, partition coefficients of yolk, hepatic clearance, percentage of metabolism and age were key parameters. Applied to CLD and CPs, this model shows a good capacity for prediction, with 88 % of the experimental values ranging within 1.5-fold of the predicted value at steady state for CPs and 100 % for CLD. The fine modelling of the physiology and the laying process contributes to precision of the model and gives genericity, enabling the switch from one bird species to another. The model can be implemented with other POPs if the clearance and partition coefficient are known.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Feidt Cyril
- Université de Lorraine, INRAE, URAFPA, F-54000 Nancy
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Schrenk D, Bignami M, Bodin L, Chipman JK, del Mazo J, Grasl‐Kraupp B, Hogstrand C, Hoogenboom L(R, Leblanc J, Nebbia CS, Nielsen E, Ntzani E, Petersen A, Sand S, Schwerdtle T, Wallace H, Benford D, Fürst P, Rose M, Ioannidou S, Nikolič M, Bordajandi LR, Vleminckx C. Update of the risk assessment of hexabromocyclododecanes (HBCDDs) in food. EFSA J 2021; 19:e06421. [PMID: 33732387 PMCID: PMC7938899 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6421] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
The European Commission asked EFSA to update its 2011 risk assessment on hexabromocyclododecanes (HBCDDs) in food. HBCDDs, predominantly mixtures of the stereoisomers α-, β- and γ-HBCDD, were widely used additive flame retardants. Concern has been raised because of the occurrence of HBCDDs in the environment, food and in humans. Main targets for toxicity are neurodevelopment, the liver, thyroid hormone homeostasis and the reproductive and immune systems. The CONTAM Panel concluded that the neurodevelopmental effects on behaviour in mice can be considered the critical effects. Based on effects on spontaneous behaviour in mice, the Panel identified a lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) of 0.9 mg/kg body weight (bw) as the Reference Point, corresponding to a body burden of 0.75 mg/kg bw. The chronic intake that would lead to the same body burden in humans was calculated to be 2.35 μg/kg bw per day. The derivation of a health-based guidance value (HBGV) was not considered appropriate. Instead, the margin of exposure (MOE) approach was applied to assess possible health concerns. Over 6,000 analytical results for HBCDDs in food were used to estimate the exposure across dietary surveys and age groups of the European population. The most important contributors to the chronic dietary LB exposure to HBCDDs were fish meat, eggs, livestock meat and poultry. The CONTAM Panel concluded that the resulting MOE values support the conclusion that current dietary exposure to HBCDDs across European countries does not raise a health concern. An exception is breastfed infants with high milk consumption, for which the lowest MOE values may raise a health concern.
Collapse
|
4
|
Li M, Wang YS, Elwell-Cuddy T, Baynes RE, Tell LA, Davis JL, Maunsell FP, Riviere JE, Lin Z. Physiological parameter values for physiologically based pharmacokinetic models in food-producing animals. Part III: Sheep and goat. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 2020; 44:456-477. [PMID: 33350478 PMCID: PMC8359294 DOI: 10.1111/jvp.12938] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/27/2020] [Revised: 10/07/2020] [Accepted: 11/24/2020] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
This report is the third in a series of studies that aimed to compile physiological parameters related to develop physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models for drugs and environmental chemicals in food‐producing animals including swine and cattle (Part I), chickens and turkeys (Part II), and finally sheep and goats (the focus of this manuscript). Literature searches were conducted in multiple databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and ProQuest), with data on relevant parameters including body weight, relative organ weight (% of body weight), cardiac output, relative organ blood flow (% of cardiac output), residual blood volume (% of organ weight), and hematocrit reviewed and statistically summarized. The mean and standard deviation of each parameter are presented in tables. Equations describing the growth curves of sheep and goats are presented in figures. When data are sufficient, parameter values are reported for different ages or production classes of sheep, including fetal sheep, lambs, and market‐age sheep (mature sheep). These data provide a reference database for developing standardized PBPK models to predict drug withdrawal intervals in sheep and goats, and also provide a basis for extrapolating PBPK models from major species such as cattle to minor species such as sheep and goats.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Miao Li
- Institute of Computational Comparative Medicine (ICCM), Department of Anatomy and Physiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA
| | - Yu-Shin Wang
- Institute of Computational Comparative Medicine (ICCM), Department of Anatomy and Physiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA
| | - Trevor Elwell-Cuddy
- Institute of Computational Comparative Medicine (ICCM), Department of Anatomy and Physiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA
| | - Ronald E Baynes
- Center for Chemical Toxicology Research and Pharmacokinetics, Department of Population Health and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
| | - Lisa A Tell
- Department of Medicine and Epidemiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA, USA
| | - Jennifer L Davis
- Department of Biomedical Sciences and Pathobiology, Virginia-Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine, Blacksburg, VA, USA
| | - Fiona P Maunsell
- Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Jim E Riviere
- Institute of Computational Comparative Medicine (ICCM), Department of Anatomy and Physiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA.,Center for Chemical Toxicology Research and Pharmacokinetics, Department of Population Health and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
| | - Zhoumeng Lin
- Institute of Computational Comparative Medicine (ICCM), Department of Anatomy and Physiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA
| |
Collapse
|