{"title":"毒理学和流行病学中持久性有机污染物安全水平的测定。","authors":"Tom Muir, Joel E Michalek, Raymond F Palmer","doi":"10.1515/reveh-2021-0105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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 <i>in vitro</i>, 32 <i>in vivo</i>, 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 (<i>in vitro, in vivo</i>, 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 <i>in vivo</i> studies to 6,244 (95% CI 2510, 15530) for DNT effects in Epidemiology relative to <i>in vitro</i> 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 <i>in vivo</i>, and two to five orders of magnitude for <i>in vitro</i> vs. Epidemiology. A global CSF for all Epidemiology vs. all Toxicology was 104.6 (95% CI 72 to 152), significant at p<0.001.</p>","PeriodicalId":21165,"journal":{"name":"Reviews on Environmental Health","volume":"38 3","pages":"401-408"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Determination of safe levels of persistent organic pollutants in toxicology and epidemiology.\",\"authors\":\"Tom Muir, Joel E Michalek, Raymond F Palmer\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/reveh-2021-0105\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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 <i>in vitro</i>, 32 <i>in vivo</i>, 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 (<i>in vitro, in vivo</i>, 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 <i>in vivo</i> studies to 6,244 (95% CI 2510, 15530) for DNT effects in Epidemiology relative to <i>in vitro</i> 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 <i>in vivo</i>, and two to five orders of magnitude for <i>in vitro</i> vs. Epidemiology. A global CSF for all Epidemiology vs. all Toxicology was 104.6 (95% CI 72 to 152), significant at p<0.001.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21165,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reviews on Environmental Health\",\"volume\":\"38 3\",\"pages\":\"401-408\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reviews on Environmental Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2021-0105\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/26 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Print\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reviews on Environmental Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2021-0105","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Determination of safe levels of persistent organic pollutants in toxicology and epidemiology.
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.
期刊介绍:
Reviews on Environmental Health (REVEH) is an international peer-reviewed journal that aims to fill the need for publication of review articles on hot topics in the field of environmental health. Reviews on Environmental Health aims to be an inspiring forum for scientists, environmentalists, physicians, engineers, and students who are concerned with aspects of human health, including quality of life, that are determined by physiological and psychosociological interactions between man and physical, chemical, biological, and social factors in the environment.
Reviews on Environmental Health is an important niche served by no other journal, that’s being a site where thoughtful reviews can be published on a variety of subjects related to both health and environment. One challenge is to bridge the research on environmental causes of disease with the clinical practice of medicine. Reviews on Environmental Health is a source of integrated information on environment and health subjects that will be of value to the broad scientific community, whether students, junior and senior professionals, or clinicians.