估计全氟辛烷磺酸的安全剂量:一项国际合作。

IF 6.9 2区 医学 Q1 TOXICOLOGY
Michael L Dourson, Laura C Green, Edmund A C Crouch, Harvey J Clewell, Thomas Colnot, Tony Cox, Wolfgang Dekant, Linda D Dell, James A Deyo, Bernard K Gadagbui, Helmut Greim, Mahesh Rachamalla Gupta, Tamara House-Knight, Ashish Jachak, Vijayavel Kannappan, Travis R Kline, Therese Manning, Ravi Naidu, Paul Nathanail, Chijioke Onyema, Frank Pagone, Andrew Pawlisz, Tiago Severo Peixe, Katie Richardson, Anurag Sharma, James S Smith, Nitin Verma, Andrea Wojtyniak, Jackie Wright
{"title":"估计全氟辛烷磺酸的安全剂量:一项国际合作。","authors":"Michael L Dourson, Laura C Green, Edmund A C Crouch, Harvey J Clewell, Thomas Colnot, Tony Cox, Wolfgang Dekant, Linda D Dell, James A Deyo, Bernard K Gadagbui, Helmut Greim, Mahesh Rachamalla Gupta, Tamara House-Knight, Ashish Jachak, Vijayavel Kannappan, Travis R Kline, Therese Manning, Ravi Naidu, Paul Nathanail, Chijioke Onyema, Frank Pagone, Andrew Pawlisz, Tiago Severo Peixe, Katie Richardson, Anurag Sharma, James S Smith, Nitin Verma, Andrea Wojtyniak, Jackie Wright","doi":"10.1007/s00204-025-04134-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Many government agencies and expert groups have estimated a safe dose (aka a \"reference dose,\" [RfD]) for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). Notably, these agencies have derived safe doses that vary over at least 600-fold range. The range is larger still if one includes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) current science-policy position under the Safe Drinking Water Act, which is that the only safe dose of PFOS is zero. This wide range in safe dose-estimates is surprising, since PFOS is a relatively well-studied, and ubiquitous, chemical. The Steering Committee of the Alliance for Risk Assessment (ARA) called for health-scientists interested in attempting to understand and, if possible, narrow this range of estimates. An advisory committee of eight scientists from four countries was selected from nominations received, and a subsequent invitation to scientists internationally led to the formation of three teams comprised of 24 scientists from nine countries. Each team independently reviewed toxicologic and epidemiologic data, and developed PFOS safe dose-estimates. All three teams concluded that currently available epidemiologic data could not form a reliable basis for PFOS safe dose-assessments. In contrast, results of bioassays of PFOS in laboratory monkeys and rats did provide usable bases from which serum-concentration-based \"points of departure\" were derived. After applying several, necessarily imprecise, uncertainty factors, the three groups derived PFOS safe dose-estimates that ranged, narrowly, from 20 to 100 nanograms (ng) of PFOS/kg body weight/day. In contrast, USEPA's current (United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2024) Human health toxicity assessment for perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and Related Salts. EPA Document No. 815R24007.) estimate of the safe dose is 0.1 ng of PFOS/kg-day.</p>","PeriodicalId":8329,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Toxicology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Estimating safe doses of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS): an international collaboration.\",\"authors\":\"Michael L Dourson, Laura C Green, Edmund A C Crouch, Harvey J Clewell, Thomas Colnot, Tony Cox, Wolfgang Dekant, Linda D Dell, James A Deyo, Bernard K Gadagbui, Helmut Greim, Mahesh Rachamalla Gupta, Tamara House-Knight, Ashish Jachak, Vijayavel Kannappan, Travis R Kline, Therese Manning, Ravi Naidu, Paul Nathanail, Chijioke Onyema, Frank Pagone, Andrew Pawlisz, Tiago Severo Peixe, Katie Richardson, Anurag Sharma, James S Smith, Nitin Verma, Andrea Wojtyniak, Jackie Wright\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00204-025-04134-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Many government agencies and expert groups have estimated a safe dose (aka a \\\"reference dose,\\\" [RfD]) for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). Notably, these agencies have derived safe doses that vary over at least 600-fold range. The range is larger still if one includes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) current science-policy position under the Safe Drinking Water Act, which is that the only safe dose of PFOS is zero. This wide range in safe dose-estimates is surprising, since PFOS is a relatively well-studied, and ubiquitous, chemical. The Steering Committee of the Alliance for Risk Assessment (ARA) called for health-scientists interested in attempting to understand and, if possible, narrow this range of estimates. An advisory committee of eight scientists from four countries was selected from nominations received, and a subsequent invitation to scientists internationally led to the formation of three teams comprised of 24 scientists from nine countries. Each team independently reviewed toxicologic and epidemiologic data, and developed PFOS safe dose-estimates. All three teams concluded that currently available epidemiologic data could not form a reliable basis for PFOS safe dose-assessments. In contrast, results of bioassays of PFOS in laboratory monkeys and rats did provide usable bases from which serum-concentration-based \\\"points of departure\\\" were derived. After applying several, necessarily imprecise, uncertainty factors, the three groups derived PFOS safe dose-estimates that ranged, narrowly, from 20 to 100 nanograms (ng) of PFOS/kg body weight/day. In contrast, USEPA's current (United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2024) Human health toxicity assessment for perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and Related Salts. EPA Document No. 815R24007.) estimate of the safe dose is 0.1 ng of PFOS/kg-day.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8329,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Toxicology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Toxicology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-025-04134-9\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"TOXICOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-025-04134-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

许多政府机构和专家组估计了全氟辛烷磺酸(PFOS)的安全剂量(即“参考剂量”[RfD])。值得注意的是,这些机构得出的安全剂量至少相差600倍。如果考虑到美国环境保护署(USEPA)目前在《安全饮用水法》(Safe Drinking Water Act)下的科学政策立场,即全氟辛烷磺酸的唯一安全剂量为零,那么这个范围就更大了。如此大范围的安全剂量估计令人惊讶,因为全氟辛烷磺酸是一种研究相对充分、普遍存在的化学物质。风险评估联盟指导委员会呼吁有兴趣的卫生科学家尝试理解并在可能的情况下缩小这一估计范围。从收到的提名中选出了一个由4个国家的8名科学家组成的咨询委员会,随后向国际科学家发出邀请,形成了由9个国家的24名科学家组成的3个小组。每个小组独立审查毒理学和流行病学数据,并制定全氟辛烷磺酸安全剂量估计。所有三个小组的结论是,目前现有的流行病学数据不能构成全氟辛烷磺酸安全剂量评估的可靠基础。相比之下,实验室猴子和大鼠的全氟辛烷磺酸生物测定结果确实提供了可用的基础,从中得出基于血清浓度的“出发点”。在应用了几个必然不精确的不确定因素后,三个小组得出了全氟辛烷磺酸的安全剂量估计,范围从20到100毫微克/公斤体重/天。相比之下,美国环保署目前(美国环境保护局(USEPA)(2024)对全氟辛烷磺酸(PFOS)和相关盐的人体健康毒性评估。EPA文件编号815R24007)的安全剂量估计为0.1 ng /kg-day。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Estimating safe doses of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS): an international collaboration.

Many government agencies and expert groups have estimated a safe dose (aka a "reference dose," [RfD]) for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). Notably, these agencies have derived safe doses that vary over at least 600-fold range. The range is larger still if one includes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) current science-policy position under the Safe Drinking Water Act, which is that the only safe dose of PFOS is zero. This wide range in safe dose-estimates is surprising, since PFOS is a relatively well-studied, and ubiquitous, chemical. The Steering Committee of the Alliance for Risk Assessment (ARA) called for health-scientists interested in attempting to understand and, if possible, narrow this range of estimates. An advisory committee of eight scientists from four countries was selected from nominations received, and a subsequent invitation to scientists internationally led to the formation of three teams comprised of 24 scientists from nine countries. Each team independently reviewed toxicologic and epidemiologic data, and developed PFOS safe dose-estimates. All three teams concluded that currently available epidemiologic data could not form a reliable basis for PFOS safe dose-assessments. In contrast, results of bioassays of PFOS in laboratory monkeys and rats did provide usable bases from which serum-concentration-based "points of departure" were derived. After applying several, necessarily imprecise, uncertainty factors, the three groups derived PFOS safe dose-estimates that ranged, narrowly, from 20 to 100 nanograms (ng) of PFOS/kg body weight/day. In contrast, USEPA's current (United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2024) Human health toxicity assessment for perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and Related Salts. EPA Document No. 815R24007.) estimate of the safe dose is 0.1 ng of PFOS/kg-day.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Archives of Toxicology
Archives of Toxicology 医学-毒理学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
4.90%
发文量
218
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: Archives of Toxicology provides up-to-date information on the latest advances in toxicology. The journal places particular emphasis on studies relating to defined effects of chemicals and mechanisms of toxicity, including toxic activities at the molecular level, in humans and experimental animals. Coverage includes new insights into analysis and toxicokinetics and into forensic toxicology. Review articles of general interest to toxicologists are an additional important feature of the journal.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信