Oxidative stress, cholinesterase activity, and DNA damage in the liver, whole blood, and plasma of Wistar rats following a 28-day exposure to glyphosate

In this 28 day-study, we evaluated the effects of herbicide glyphosate administered by gavage to Wistar rats at daily doses equivalent to 0.1 of the acceptable operator exposure level (AOEL), 0.5 of the consumer acceptable daily intake (ADI), 1.75 (corresponding to the chronic population-adjusted dose, cPAD), and 10 mg kg-1 body weight (bw) (corresponding to 100 times the AOEL). At the end of each treatment, the body and liver weights were measured and compared with their baseline values. DNA damage in leukocytes and liver tissue was estimated with the alkaline comet assay. Oxidative stress was evaluated using a battery of endpoints to establish lipid peroxidation via thiobarbituric reactive substances (TBARS) level, level of reactive oxygen species (ROS), glutathione (GSH) level, and the activity of glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px). Total cholinesterase activity and the activities of acetylcholinesterase (AChE) and butyrylcholinesterase (BChE) were also measured. The exposed animals gained less weight than control. Treatment resulted in significantly higher primary DNA damage in the liver cells and leukocytes. Glyphosate exposure significantly lowered TBARS in the liver of the AOEL, ADI, and cPAD groups, and in plasma in the AOEL and cPAD group. AChE was inhibited with all treatments, but the AOEL and ADI groups significantly differed from control. Total ChE and plasma/liver ROS/GSH levels did not significantly differ from control, except for the 35 % decrease in ChE in the AOEL and ADI groups and a significant drop in liver GSH in the cPAD and 100xAOEL groups. AOEL and ADI blood GSH-Px activity dropped significantly, but in the liver it significantly increased in the ADI, cPAD, and 100xAOEL groups vs. control. All these findings show that even exposure to low glyphosate levels can have serious adverse effects and points to a need to change the approach to risk assessment of low-level chronic/sub-chronic glyphosate exposure, where oxidative stress is not necessarily related to the genetic damage and AChE inhibition.

Comparison of international guidelines of dermal absorption tests used in pesticides exposure assessment for operators

The number of farmers who have suffered from non-fatal acute pesticide poisoning has been reported to vary from 5.7% to 86.7% in South Korea since 1975. Absorption through the skin is the main route of exposure to pesticides for farmers who operate with them. Several in vitro tests using the skins of humans or animal and in vivo tests using laboratory animals are introduced for the assessment of human dermal absorption level of pesticides. The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare international guidelines and strategies of dermal absorption assessments and to propose unique approaches for applications into pesticide registration process in our situation. Until present in our situation, pesticide exposure level to operator is determined just using default value of 10 as for skin absorption ratio because of data shortage. Dermal absorption tests are requested to get exposure level of pesticides and to ultimately know the safety of pesticides for operators through the comparison with the value of AOEL. When the exposure level is higher than AOEL, the pesticide cannot be approved. We reviewed the skin absorption test guidelines recommended by OECD, EFSA and EPA. The EPA recommends assessment of skin absorption of pesticides for humans through the TPA which includes all the results of in vitro human and animal and animal in vivo skin absorption studies. OECD and EFSA, employ a tiered approach, which the requirement of further study depends on the results of the former stage study. OECD guidelines accept the analysis of pesticide level absorbed through skin without radioisotope when the recovery using the non-labeled method is within 80~120%. Various factors are reviewed in this study, including the origin of skin (gender, animal species and sites of skin), thickness, temperature and, etc., which can influence the integrity of results.

Does EU legislation allow the use of the Benchmark Dose (BMD) approach for risk assessment?

Hazard characterisation is largely based on an approach of (statistically) comparing dose groups with the controls in order to derive points of departure such as no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs) or lowest-observed-adverse-effect levels (LOAELs). This approach suggests the absence of any relevant effect at the NOAEL. The NOAEL approach has been debated for decades. A recent Scientific Opinion by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded that the Benchmark Dose (BMD) approach should be preferred over the NOAEL approach for deriving human (health-based) limit or guidance values. Nonetheless, the BMD approach is used infrequently within European regulatory frameworks. The reason for this may lie in legislation or guidelines requiring the use of the NOAEL approach. In this context, various EU regulatory frameworks were examined on such demands. Interestingly, no single legislation was identified containing statutory requirements in conflict with the use of the BMD approach.