...
首页> 外文期刊>International Journal of Andrology >Cumulative risk assessment of phthalate exposure of Danish children and adolescents using the hazard index approach
【24h】

Cumulative risk assessment of phthalate exposure of Danish children and adolescents using the hazard index approach

机译:采用危险指数法的丹麦儿童和青少年邻苯二甲酸酯暴露累积风险评估

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Human risk assessment of chemicals is traditionally presented as the ratio between the actual level of exposure and an acceptable level of exposure, with the acceptable level of exposure most often being estimated by appropriate authorities. This approach is generally sound when assessing the risk of individual chemicals. However, several chemicals may concurrently target the same receptor, work through the same mechanism or in other ways induce the same effect(s) in the body. In these cases, cumulative risk assessment should be applied. The present study uses biomonitoring data from 129 Danish children and adolescents and resulting estimated daily intakes of four different phthalates. These daily intake estimates are used for a cumulative risk assessment with anti-androgenic effects as the endpoint using Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) values determined by the European Food Safety Authorities (EFSA) or Reference Doses for Anti-Androgenicity (RfD AA) determined by Kortenkamp and Faust [Int J Androl 33 (2010) 463] as acceptable levels of exposure. United States Environmental Protection Agency Reference Doses (US EPA RfD) could not be used as none of them identifies anti-androgenic effects as the most sensitive endpoint for the phthalates included in this article. Using the EFSA TDI values, 12 children exceeded the hazard quotient for the sum of di-n-butyl phthalate and di-iso-butyl phthalate (∑DBP (i+n)) and one child exceeded the hazard quotient for di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP). Nineteen children exceeded the cumulated hazard index for three phthalates. Using the RfD AA values, one child exceeded the hazard quotient for DEHP and the same child exceeded the cumulated hazard index for four phthalates. The EFSA TDI approach thus is more restrictive and identifies ∑DBP (i+n) as the compound(s) associated with the greatest risk, while DEHP is the compound associated with the greatest risk when using the RfD AA approach.
机译:传统上,化学品的人为风险评估是以实际暴露水平与可接受的暴露水平之间的比率表示的,可接受的暴露水平通常是由有关当局估计的。在评估单个化学品的风险时,通常这种方法是正确的。但是,几种化学物质可能同时靶向相同的受体,通过相同的机制起作用或以其他方式在体内诱导相同的作用。在这种情况下,应进行累积风险评估。本研究使用了来自129名丹麦儿童和青少年的生物监测数据,并估计了四种不同邻苯二甲酸盐的每日摄入量。这些每日摄入量估算值用于通过欧洲食品安全局(EFSA)确定的可耐受每日摄入量(TDI)值或欧洲食品安全局确定的抗雄激素参考剂量(RfD AA)作为终点的抗雄激素作用的累积风险评估。 Kortenkamp和Faust [Int J Androl 33(2010)463]作为可接受的暴露水平。美国环境保护局参考剂量(US EPA RfD)无法使用,因为它们都没有将抗雄激素作用确定为本文所含邻苯二甲酸酯的最敏感终点。使用EFSA TDI值,有12名儿童超过邻苯二甲酸二正丁酯和邻苯二甲酸二异丁酯(∑DBP(i + n))之和的危险商,一名儿童超过了di-(2 -邻苯二甲酸乙基己基酯(DEHP)。 19名儿童超过了三种邻苯二甲酸酯的累积危害指数。使用RfD AA值,一个孩子超过了DEHP的危险系数,而同一孩子则超过了四种邻苯二甲酸盐的累积危害指数。因此,EFSA TDI方法更具限制性,并且将∑DBP(i + n)识别为与最大风险相关的化合物,而DEHP是使用RfD AA方法时与最大风险相关的化合物。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号