Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health-Part B-Critical Reviews最新文献

{"title":"Correction.","authors":"","doi":"10.1080/10937404.2025.2452040","DOIUrl":"10.1080/10937404.2025.2452040","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49971,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health-Part B-Critical Reviews","volume":" ","pages":"264"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2025-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142973019","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Particulate matter 2.5 (PM_2.5) - associated cognitive impairment and morbidity in humans and animal models: a systematic review.","authors":"Ritu Chauhan, Susmitha Dande, Darryl B Hood, Sanika S Chirwa, Michael A Langston, Stephen K Grady, Levente Dojcsak, Mohammad Tabatabai, Derek Wilus, R Burciaga Valdez, Mohammad Z Al-Hamdan, Wansoo Im, Monique McCallister, Donald J Alcendor, Charles P Mouton, Aramandla Ramesh","doi":"10.1080/10937404.2025.2450354","DOIUrl":"10.1080/10937404.2025.2450354","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 µm (PM_2.5) is one of the criteria air pollutants that (1) serve as an essential carrier of airborne toxicants arising from combustion-related events including emissions from industries, automobiles, and wildfires and (2) play an important role in transient to long-lasting cognitive dysfunction as well as several other neurological disorders. A systematic review was conducted to address differences in study design and various biochemical and molecular markers employed to elucidate neurological disorders in PM_2.5 -exposed humans and animal models. Out of 340,068 scientific publications screened from 7 databases, 312 studies were identified that targeted the relationship between exposure to PM_2.5 and cognitive dysfunction. Equivocal evidence was identified from pre-clinical (animal model) and human studies that PM_2.5 exposure contributes to dementia, Parkinson disease, multiple sclerosis, stroke, depression, autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and neurodevelopment. In addition, there was substantial evidence from human studies that PM_2.5 also was associated with Alzheimer's disease, anxiety, neuropathy, and brain tumors. The role of exposome in characterizing neurobehavioral anomalies and opportunities available to leverage the neuroexposome initiative for conducting longitudinal studies is discussed. Our review also provided some areas that warrant consideration, one of which is unraveling the role of microbiome, and the other role of climate change in PM_2.5 exposure-induced neurological disorders.</p>","PeriodicalId":49971,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health-Part B-Critical Reviews","volume":" ","pages":"233-263"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2025-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143015160","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Which prenatal biomarker is most appropriate for methylmercury dose-response for neurodevelopmental effects?","authors":"Leonid Kopylev, Michael Dzierlenga, Yu-Sheng Lin, Rebecca Nachman, Elizabeth Radke, Hongyu Ru, Deborah Segal","doi":"10.1080/10937404.2024.2444650","DOIUrl":"10.1080/10937404.2024.2444650","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) is a well-established hazard attributed to methylmercury (MeHg) exposure. This evidence is based primarily upon includes studies that measured biomarkers of MeHg exposure in samples of maternal hair and blood, and cord blood. The aim of this review was to investigate which of these prenatal biomarkers is most appropriate for quantifying the DNT effects attributed to MeHg. A comprehensive literature search covered MeHg dose-response literature published 1998-2022. Studies were evaluated for risk of bias and study sensitivity using IRIS approach. Quantitative results of investigations were extracted and statistically compared. Seven studies were identified that measured both maternal hair and cord blood Hg levels. In these investigations, several DNT umbrella tests and their sub-tests results were modeled. Cord blood MeHg was more sensitive, producing larger estimates of MeHg potency, in most of the comparisons (91%) with maternal hair MeHg estimates for the same sub-tests in the same study. When comparing results from cord blood Hg to maternal hair Hg there was a 75% increase in sensitivity (range: 4-583%). In the two domains where results for maternal hair Hg were more sensitive, the rise was only 18% (Range: 7-29%). There were limited data (two studies) that compared maternal blood and maternal hair biomarkers (maternal blood Hg was more sensitive (mean 320% and range 43-855%) and cord blood biomarkers (maternal blood Hg was more sensitive by approximately 30%). Maternal hair Hg remains an appropriate biomarker for exposure monitoring in many populations, but these data suggest that cord blood Hg is more appropriate for dose-response modeling of MeHg DNT effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":49971,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health-Part B-Critical Reviews","volume":" ","pages":"223-232"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2025-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11961308/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142865972","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Acute and repeated exposure toxicity of the insecticide sulfoxaflor on hymenopteran pollinators; sulfoxaflor environmental science review part III.","authors":"J R Purdy, K R Solomon, V J Kramer, J P Giesy","doi":"10.1080/10937404.2025.2478969","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2025.2478969","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To support regulatory risk assessment, standardized laboratory tests of toxicity to representative species including honeybees (<i>Apis mellifera L.)</i>, orchard bees (<i>Osmia spp</i>.), and bumblebees (<i>Bombus spp</i>.) provide the benchmark toxicity values for use in preliminary Tier 1 assessments and more detailed and realistic higher-tier assessments. In this analysis, we summarize the results of studies of toxicity of SFX to pollinators conducted registrant as well as results published in the literature. The geometric mean of 48-hr adult acute oral LD₅₀ values for SFX for honeybees was 0.0740 μg SFX bee^{- 1} (<i>n</i> = 5). Toxicity values for technical grade SFX (SFX-T) and formulated products were not significantly different. The geometric mean 48 hr adult acute contact LD₅₀ values for SFX-T and several formulated products were 0.432 (<i>n</i> = 2) and 0.202 (<i>n</i> = 3) μg SFX bee^{- 1}, respectively. Exposures sprayed foliage was not significant after the spray had dried did not cause significant toxicity. Transformation products were not significantly toxic to adult or larval honeybees or other representative bee species. Results showed that, to complete the risk assessment, higher-tier studies were required. Differences in results between standard test methods and the nonstandard methods used in published work affect the outcome of the risk assessment. An understanding of these differences reconciled the differences in the reported findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":49971,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health-Part B-Critical Reviews","volume":" ","pages":"1-28"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143722333","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A quantitative <i>Apis mellifera</i> hazard and risk assessment model (AMHRA) illustrated with the insecticide sulfoxaflor: sulfoxaflor environmental science review part VI.","authors":"J R Purdy, K R Solomon, V J Kramer, J P Giesy","doi":"10.1080/10937404.2025.2478972","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2025.2478972","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this paper, conceptual models of the exposure pathways outside the hive and the in-hive distribution of pesticide residues brought to the honeybee hive are presented. The conceptual model is based on the natural life history, behavior and diet of individual honeybees (<i>Apis mellifera</i>). Receptor groups of bees with similar diets and potential exposure are defined. From the conceptual model, a quantitative <i>A. mellifera</i> hazard and risk assessment model (AMHRA) is developed and illustrated using sulfoxaflor (SFX) as a case study. The model estimates the exposure of the receptor groups of honeybees within a colony via various routes of exposure. The user selects a deterministic mode to obtain hazard quotients (HQ) or a probabilistic mode to obtain risk quotients (RQ). The model was run in the deterministic mode using the pesticide concentrations in nectar and pollen from a field experiment in which SFX was applied to cotton crops at the highest permitted application rate of 101 g a.i. ha^-1. Acute and chronic exposure HQ values were calculated for the adult and larval receptor groups. The results showed that the SFX applied at the highest single application rate following the label directions was not hazardous to honeybees. The probabilistic mode was described but not run.</p>","PeriodicalId":49971,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health-Part B-Critical Reviews","volume":" ","pages":"1-29"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2025-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143711905","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Evaluating pollinator exposures to sulfoxaflor via bee-relevant matrices: a systems-level approach using semi-probabilistic methods for assessing hazards; sulfoxaflor environmental science review part IV.","authors":"K R Solomon, J R Purdy, V J Kramer, J P Giesy","doi":"10.1080/10937404.2025.2478970","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2025.2478970","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Sulfoxaflor (SFX) is a newly registered IRAC Group 4C nAChR-receptor-agonist systemic insecticide that is used to control sap-sucking insects in a variety of crops. SFX has a short half-life (< 2 days) in agricultural soil and is only used as a foliar-applied product. Pollinators such as honey bees could be exposed directly to spray if application occurs shortly before or during blooming of flowers, or, as SFX is systemic, via oral exposures to nectar and pollen collected by bees. Guided by a Weight-of-Evidence rubric, this paper critically assessed studies on the fate of SFX in bee-relevant matrices submitted by the registrant in several jurisdictions as well as a few studies published in the open scientific literature. These studies provided data for residues in pollen and/or nectar from 16 crops grown in several countries in both hemispheres. SFX and transformation products were detected in nectar and pollen. Transformation products have low hazard to honeybees, so the focus was on the parent material, SFX, which was observed to dissipate rapidly from pollen and nectar after application. Dietary No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Concentrations (NOAEC) derived from results of 10-day continuous feeding studies of adult (0.50 mg kg^-1 diet d^-1) and larval honeybees (1.69 mg kg^-1 diet d^-1) were used as precautionary toxicity benchmarks to characterize hazards. In this paper, we used a tiered process. The initial screening tier was based on the greatest concentration measured in the matrix. For scenarios that did not pass Tier-1, a second tier based on the 10-day time-weighted average (area under the curve, AUC) concentration in the matrix was used as a more realistic measure of exposure. Of the 90 scenarios of use that were characterized, 36 did not pass the initial screening benchmark based on ≥1concentration of SFX exceeding the 10-day NOAEC. When the 10-day AUC of exposure was estimated for these scenarios, 3 of 90 did not pass the more realistic toxicity benchmark. These three scenarios were for residues in pollen or anthers for alfalfa grown in California, strawberries grown in France, peaches grown in Michigan. The two-tier screening procedure for hazard assessment lessened the need for further assessment for 97% of the exposure scenarios and reduced the need for characterizing hazards in field-level whole-hive tests conducted under controlled conditions of exposure.</p>","PeriodicalId":49971,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health-Part B-Critical Reviews","volume":" ","pages":"1-24"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143711907","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Properties, mode of insecticidal action, environmental exposure pathways, and uses of the insecticide sulfoxaflor; sulfoxaflor environmental science review part I.","authors":"K R Solomon, J R Purdy, V J Kramer, J P Giesy","doi":"10.1080/10937404.2025.2478963","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2025.2478963","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Sulfoxaflor (SFX, CAS# 946578-00-3) is marketed by Corteva Agrisciences Inc. as Isoclast®. SFX is a Group 4C, nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonist and is a systemic insecticide that is most active against sucking insects. This paper critically reviews and characterizes the physical and chemical properties of SFX to facilitate development of conceptual models that identify environmental compartments with the greatest potential concentrations and organisms most likely to be exposed. These conceptual models were assessed in a Weight of Evidence (WoE) framework to identify scenarios and organisms at greatest risk. The solubility of SFX in water is approximately 550 mg L^{- 1} and the P_OW of 0.8, so it will not bioconcentrate or undergo trophic transfer. It has the potential to move in soils, but this is unlikely because of the short half-life (hours to 2-5 days) in agricultural soils where bacteria mediate dissipation. Some of the transformation products of SFX have longer half-lives (months) in soil and are more mobile but are less toxic and not a concern for adverse effects. SFX does not undergo significant photolysis or hydrolysis in water, but this does not lead to a risk in aquatic systems because it is not approved for over-water use and the label recommends buffer zones to protect sensitive aquatic areas. Overall, use of SFX under good agricultural practices is unlikely to result in biologically relevant exposures in non-target species or areas in the environment.</p>","PeriodicalId":49971,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health-Part B-Critical Reviews","volume":" ","pages":"1-24"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143711910","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Weight of evidence assessment of effects of sulfoxaflor on aquatic invertebrates: sulfoxaflor environmental science review part II.","authors":"J P Giesy, K R Solomon, J R Purdy, V J Kramer","doi":"10.1080/10937404.2025.2478965","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2025.2478965","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Effects of sulfoxaflor (SFX) on aquatic invertebrates were assessed by comparing concentrations predicted to occur in or measured in surface waters to thresholds for adverse effects. Due to the specific mode of toxic action, fishes are relatively tolerant of the effects of SFX. <i>Daphnia magna</i> with an LC₅₀ of 378 mg SFX L^-1 (SD = 19.13) was similarly tolerant of the effects of SFX, while the LOEC was >110 mg SFX L^-1. A threshold for effects on aquatic insects, based on the chironomid midge, <i>C. tentans</i>, had LOAEL and NOAEL values of 0.0455 and 0.0618 mg L^-1, respectively. The acute-to-chronic ratio was 18. Simulation models and parameters selected for a range of applications to crops predicted environmental concentrations (EECs) in surface waters to range from 2.2 to 7.7 µg L^-1. Based on these EECs, the maximum hazard quotient (HQ) was 0.11, which is less than the US EPA level of concern (LOC) of 0.5, which would normally be the threshold to trigger regulatory action or higher-tier assessments. The risks posed by SFX to aquatic organisms are predicted to be <i>de minimis</i>. Hazard quotients based on EEC values predicted in the standard, USEPA farm pond estimated by use of the Pesticides in Water Calculator (PWC version 1.52) for scenarios of maximum application rates for cotton and LOAEL and NOAEL values for aquatic insects for SFX were less than or similar to those for other insecticides including neonicotinoids and organophosphorus compounds.</p>","PeriodicalId":49971,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health-Part B-Critical Reviews","volume":" ","pages":"1-29"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143711912","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Weight of evidence assessment from field studies on effects of the insecticide sulfoxaflor on hymenopteran pollinators: sulfoxaflor environmental science review part V.","authors":"J R Purdy, K R Solomon, V J Kramer, J P Giesy","doi":"10.1080/10937404.2025.2478964","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2025.2478964","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Field studies involve combinations of exposure, natural dynamics, and effects in natural and agricultural environments. To be more realistic, field studies focussed on pollinating insects must consider the details of biology, life history, behavior, and pollination ecology of the test species. While expensive and time-consuming, these tests provide the most realistic information, especially for social insects, but are valuable for solitary bee species as well. They are more realistic than laboratory studies because they determine the combined effects of natural stressors including weather, food availability, parasites, and pathogens with anthropogenic stressors, such as the pesticide treatment itself, within agroecosystem landscapes. Twenty-four field studies conducted with bees to support the registration of sulfoxaflor and published work are included, and a standardized rating system for the quality and relevance of the studies was used. The studies included <i>Apis mellifera</i> L. <i>Bombus terrestris</i> L. and <i>Osmia bicornis</i> L. The results show that, when SFX products are applied at the highest labeled application rate with bees actively foraging or fed in syrup at equivalent rates, the effects are minor and temporary. Sublethal effects included lethargy, disorientation, and reduced body mass at emergence. No new modes of action and no treatment-related effects on brood rearing were found.</p>","PeriodicalId":49971,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health-Part B-Critical Reviews","volume":" ","pages":"1-32"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143702054","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Critical review of the potential effects and risks to pollinators and aquatic organisms from the agricultural uses of sulfoxaflor; introductory comments.","authors":"Vincent J Kramer, Keith Solomon","doi":"10.1080/10937404.2025.2462285","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2025.2462285","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The first paper in a series of seven serves as an overview of the initiation of the insecticide Sulfoxaflor Environmental Science review process and provides some regulatory background. The following papers are a series and describe a critical analysis of the data related to sulfoxaflor in terms of its uses, properties, environmental fate, and potential effects on aquatic organisms, and pollinators. The last paper describes a refined model for hazard and risk assessment of pesticides in pollinators.</p>","PeriodicalId":49971,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health-Part B-Critical Reviews","volume":" ","pages":"1-4"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143617671","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}