ATSDR的MRL和EPA的rfc / rfd的评估:相似性、差异和理由。

Jennifer Przybyla, Melanie C Buser, Henry G Abadin, Hana R Pohl
{"title":"ATSDR的MRL和EPA的rfc / rfd的评估:相似性、差异和理由。","authors":"Jennifer Przybyla,&nbsp;Melanie C Buser,&nbsp;Henry G Abadin,&nbsp;Hana R Pohl","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) derive minimal risk levels (MRLs) and reference concentrations and doses (RfCs and RfDs), respectively, for environmental contaminants to help identify potential health risks to exposed populations. MRLs, RfDs, and RfCs involve similar derivation methods, but the values sometimes differ for the same chemical. The objectives of this manuscript are to quantitatively assess similarities and differences between MRLs, RfCs, and RfDs, qualitatively describe how a number of factors can influence the development of the health guidance values (HGVs) and identify ongoing collaborations and opportunities for increased coordination of efforts.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We collected MRLs and RfCs/RfDs, assessment date, and description of the derivation process from ATSDR's toxicological profiles and EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and Office of Pesticide Program (OPP) and identified reasons for differences between MRLs and RfCs/RfDs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The most frequent types of differences in values that we found in our analysis included use of different methodologies, use of different studies, and/or completion of a more recent chemical evaluation. These can stem from differences in scientific judgement.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>To avoid confusion when disparate HGVs occur between government agencies, a keen understanding of these differences can be helpful for appropriate risk characterization and communication when applying HGVs.</p>","PeriodicalId":73996,"journal":{"name":"Journal of toxicology and pharmacology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10300620/pdf/nihms-1637970.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of ATSDR's MRL and EPA's RfCs/RfDs: Similarities, Differences, and Rationales.\",\"authors\":\"Jennifer Przybyla,&nbsp;Melanie C Buser,&nbsp;Henry G Abadin,&nbsp;Hana R Pohl\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) derive minimal risk levels (MRLs) and reference concentrations and doses (RfCs and RfDs), respectively, for environmental contaminants to help identify potential health risks to exposed populations. MRLs, RfDs, and RfCs involve similar derivation methods, but the values sometimes differ for the same chemical. The objectives of this manuscript are to quantitatively assess similarities and differences between MRLs, RfCs, and RfDs, qualitatively describe how a number of factors can influence the development of the health guidance values (HGVs) and identify ongoing collaborations and opportunities for increased coordination of efforts.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We collected MRLs and RfCs/RfDs, assessment date, and description of the derivation process from ATSDR's toxicological profiles and EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and Office of Pesticide Program (OPP) and identified reasons for differences between MRLs and RfCs/RfDs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The most frequent types of differences in values that we found in our analysis included use of different methodologies, use of different studies, and/or completion of a more recent chemical evaluation. These can stem from differences in scientific judgement.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>To avoid confusion when disparate HGVs occur between government agencies, a keen understanding of these differences can be helpful for appropriate risk characterization and communication when applying HGVs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73996,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of toxicology and pharmacology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10300620/pdf/nihms-1637970.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of toxicology and pharmacology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of toxicology and pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标:有毒物质和疾病登记处(ATSDR)和环境保护局(EPA)分别得出环境污染物的最小风险水平(MRLs)和参考浓度和剂量(rfc和rfd),以帮助确定暴露人群面临的潜在健康风险。MRLs、rfd和rfc涉及类似的推导方法,但对于相同的化学物质,其值有时不同。本文的目的是定量地评估MRLs、rfc和rfd之间的异同,定性地描述一些因素如何影响健康指导值(hgv)的发展,并确定正在进行的合作和加强协调努力的机会。材料和方法:我们从ATSDR的毒理学资料、EPA的综合风险信息系统(IRIS)和农药计划办公室(OPP)中收集了MRLs和rfc / rfd,评估日期和衍生过程描述,并确定了MRLs和rfc / rfd之间差异的原因。结果:我们在分析中发现的最常见的值差异类型包括使用不同的方法,使用不同的研究,和/或完成最近的化学评估。这些可能源于科学判断的差异。结论:为了避免不同政府机构之间发生不同的hgv时的混淆,对这些差异的深刻理解有助于在应用hgv时进行适当的风险表征和沟通。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evaluation of ATSDR's MRL and EPA's RfCs/RfDs: Similarities, Differences, and Rationales.

Objectives: The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) derive minimal risk levels (MRLs) and reference concentrations and doses (RfCs and RfDs), respectively, for environmental contaminants to help identify potential health risks to exposed populations. MRLs, RfDs, and RfCs involve similar derivation methods, but the values sometimes differ for the same chemical. The objectives of this manuscript are to quantitatively assess similarities and differences between MRLs, RfCs, and RfDs, qualitatively describe how a number of factors can influence the development of the health guidance values (HGVs) and identify ongoing collaborations and opportunities for increased coordination of efforts.

Materials and methods: We collected MRLs and RfCs/RfDs, assessment date, and description of the derivation process from ATSDR's toxicological profiles and EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and Office of Pesticide Program (OPP) and identified reasons for differences between MRLs and RfCs/RfDs.

Results: The most frequent types of differences in values that we found in our analysis included use of different methodologies, use of different studies, and/or completion of a more recent chemical evaluation. These can stem from differences in scientific judgement.

Conclusion: To avoid confusion when disparate HGVs occur between government agencies, a keen understanding of these differences can be helpful for appropriate risk characterization and communication when applying HGVs.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of ATSDR's MRL and EPA's RfCs/RfDs: Similarities, Differences, and Rationales. Effects of Chlorpyrifos or Methyl Parathion on Regional Cholinesterase Activity and Muscarinic Receptor Subtype Binding in Juvenile Rat Brain.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1