Cumulative risk assessment of phthalate exposure of Danish children and adolescents using the hazard index approach

T. Søeborg, H. Frederiksen, A. M. Andersson
{"title":"Cumulative risk assessment of phthalate exposure of Danish children and adolescents using the hazard index approach","authors":"T. Søeborg,&nbsp;H. Frederiksen,&nbsp;A. M. Andersson","doi":"10.1111/j.1365-2605.2011.01240.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Human risk assessment of chemicals is traditionally presented as the ratio between the actual level of exposure and an acceptable level of exposure, with the acceptable level of exposure most often being estimated by appropriate authorities. This approach is generally sound when assessing the risk of individual chemicals. However, several chemicals may concurrently target the same receptor, work through the same mechanism or in other ways induce the same effect(s) in the body. In these cases, cumulative risk assessment should be applied. The present study uses biomonitoring data from 129 Danish children and adolescents and resulting estimated daily intakes of four different phthalates. These daily intake estimates are used for a cumulative risk assessment with anti-androgenic effects as the endpoint using Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) values determined by the European Food Safety Authorities (EFSA) or Reference Doses for Anti-Androgenicity (RfD AA) determined by Kortenkamp and Faust [Int J Androl 33 (2010) 463] as acceptable levels of exposure. United States Environmental Protection Agency Reference Doses (US EPA RfD) could not be used as none of them identifies anti-androgenic effects as the most sensitive endpoint for the phthalates included in this article. Using the EFSA TDI values, 12 children exceeded the hazard quotient for the sum of di-<i>n</i>-butyl phthalate and di-<i>iso</i>-butyl phthalate (∑DBP<sub>(<i>i</i>+<i>n</i>)</sub>) and one child exceeded the hazard quotient for di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP). Nineteen children exceeded the cumulated hazard index for three phthalates. Using the RfD AA values, one child exceeded the hazard quotient for DEHP and the same child exceeded the cumulated hazard index for four phthalates. The EFSA TDI approach thus is more restrictive and identifies ∑DBP<sub>(<i>i</i>+<i>n</i>)</sub> as the compound(s) associated with the greatest risk, while DEHP is the compound associated with the greatest risk when using the RfD AA approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":13890,"journal":{"name":"International journal of andrology","volume":"35 3","pages":"245-252"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/j.1365-2605.2011.01240.x","citationCount":"77","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of andrology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2605.2011.01240.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 77

Abstract

Human risk assessment of chemicals is traditionally presented as the ratio between the actual level of exposure and an acceptable level of exposure, with the acceptable level of exposure most often being estimated by appropriate authorities. This approach is generally sound when assessing the risk of individual chemicals. However, several chemicals may concurrently target the same receptor, work through the same mechanism or in other ways induce the same effect(s) in the body. In these cases, cumulative risk assessment should be applied. The present study uses biomonitoring data from 129 Danish children and adolescents and resulting estimated daily intakes of four different phthalates. These daily intake estimates are used for a cumulative risk assessment with anti-androgenic effects as the endpoint using Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) values determined by the European Food Safety Authorities (EFSA) or Reference Doses for Anti-Androgenicity (RfD AA) determined by Kortenkamp and Faust [Int J Androl 33 (2010) 463] as acceptable levels of exposure. United States Environmental Protection Agency Reference Doses (US EPA RfD) could not be used as none of them identifies anti-androgenic effects as the most sensitive endpoint for the phthalates included in this article. Using the EFSA TDI values, 12 children exceeded the hazard quotient for the sum of di-n-butyl phthalate and di-iso-butyl phthalate (∑DBP(i+n)) and one child exceeded the hazard quotient for di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP). Nineteen children exceeded the cumulated hazard index for three phthalates. Using the RfD AA values, one child exceeded the hazard quotient for DEHP and the same child exceeded the cumulated hazard index for four phthalates. The EFSA TDI approach thus is more restrictive and identifies ∑DBP(i+n) as the compound(s) associated with the greatest risk, while DEHP is the compound associated with the greatest risk when using the RfD AA approach.

Abstract Image

使用危害指数法对丹麦儿童和青少年邻苯二甲酸盐暴露进行累积风险评估
人类对化学品的风险评估传统上表示为实际接触水平与可接受接触水平之间的比率,而可接受接触水平通常是由有关当局估计的。在评估个别化学品的风险时,这种方法通常是合理的。然而,几种化学物质可能同时针对相同的受体,通过相同的机制或以其他方式在体内诱导相同的效果。在这些情况下,应采用累积风险评估。目前的研究使用了来自129名丹麦儿童和青少年的生物监测数据,得出了四种不同邻苯二甲酸盐的每日摄入量估计。这些每日摄入量估计用于累积风险评估,以抗雄激素效应为终点,使用由欧洲食品安全局(EFSA)确定的每日可耐受摄入量(TDI)值或由Kortenkamp和Faust确定的抗雄激素参考剂量(RfD AA)作为可接受的暴露水平[J Androl 33(2010) 463]。不能使用美国环境保护署参考剂量(US EPA RfD),因为它们都没有将抗雄激素效应确定为本文所列邻苯二甲酸酯最敏感的终点。根据EFSA TDI值,12名儿童超过邻苯二甲酸二丁酯和邻苯二甲酸二异丁酯总和的危害商数(∑DBP(i+n)), 1名儿童超过邻苯二甲酸二(2-乙基己基)酯(DEHP)的危害商数。19名儿童超过了三种邻苯二甲酸盐的累积危害指数。利用RfD AA值,1名儿童超过DEHP的危害商,同一名儿童超过4种邻苯二甲酸盐的累积危害指数。因此,EFSA TDI方法更具限制性,并将∑DBP(i+n)确定为与最大风险相关的化合物,而在使用RfD AA方法时,DEHP是与最大风险相关的化合物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
200
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信