毒理学和流行病学中持久性有机污染物安全水平的测定。

IF 3 4区 医学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Reviews on Environmental Health Pub Date : 2022-05-05 Print Date: 2023-09-26 DOI:10.1515/reveh-2021-0105
Tom Muir, Joel E Michalek, Raymond F Palmer
{"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":null,"pages":null},"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}
引用次数: 2

摘要

我们回顾了2000年至2021年间发表的毒理学和流行病学报告持久性有机污染物有害健康影响和剂量的手稿。我们发现了42项体外、32项体内和74项流行病学研究,并提取了一个常见摩尔单位中与伤害相关的剂量。我们假设与伤害相关的剂量在动物和人类研究中会有所不同。为了验证这一假设,对于几种持久性有机污染物中的每一种,我们在调整了基础(脂质重量、湿重)后,使用线性模型评估了与研究类型(体外、体内和流行病学)的有害影响[分类为非甲状腺内分泌(NTE)、发育神经毒性(DNT)和甲状腺]相关的剂量变化的显著性。我们创建了一个计算安全系数(CSF),定义为毒理学剂量除以表现出重大危害所需的流行病学剂量。研究类型之间存在显著差异,从体内研究到6244(95%CI 2510,15530),DNT在流行病学中的作用相对于体外湿重,分别是人相对于动物和机制模型的124-62000倍的敏感性。在脂质重量方面,所有疗效类别的CSF 95%CI下限均小于6.5。CSFs在体内的CI小于一到四个数量级,在体外与流行病学的CI小于两到五个数量级。所有流行病学与所有毒理学的全球CSF为104.6(95%CI 72至152),在p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

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
Reviews on Environmental Health
Reviews on Environmental Health Social Sciences-Health (social science)
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
2.60%
发文量
75
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.
期刊最新文献
A systematic review and quality assessment of estimated daily intake of microplastics through food. Comprehensive approach to clinical decision-making strategy, illustrated by the Gulf War. A review of the potential adverse health impacts of atrazine in humans. Semi-IPN polysaccharide-based hydrogels for effective removal of heavy metal ions and dyes from wastewater: a comprehensive investigation of performance and adsorption mechanism. Tributyltin induces apoptosis in mammalian cells in vivo: a scoping review.
×
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